Young Children as Active Citizens : Principles, Policies and Pedagogies [1 ed.] 9781443814935, 9781847185389

Citation preview

Young Children as Active Citizens

Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles, Policies and Pedagogies

Edited by

Glenda Mac Naughton, Patrick Hughes and Kylie Smith

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles, Policies and Pedagogies, Edited by Glenda Mac Naughton, Patrick Hughes and Kylie Smith This book first published 2008 by Cambridge Scholars Publishing 15 Angerton Gardens, Newcastle, NE5 2JA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2008 by Glenda Mac Naughton, Patrick Hughes and Kylie Smith and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-84718-538-X, ISBN (13): 9781847185389

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ...................................................................................................... viii SECTION I CHILDREN AS CITIZENS: PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION Chapter One................................................................................................. 2 Beings and becomings: historical and philosophical considerations of the child as citizen Margaret Coady Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 15 Respecting rights: implications for early childhood policies and practices Martin Woodhead Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 31 Engaging ethically with young children: principles and practices for consulting justly with care Glenda Mac Naughton and Kylie Smith Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 44 Young children and voice Jeanette Redding-Jones, Berit Bae and Nina Winger SECTION II CHILDREN IN POLICY MAKING Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 62 Working with children to create policy: the case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan Melanie Saballa, Glenda Mac Naughton and Kylie Smith Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 77 Children’s voices in the sphere of decision-making about their best interests: the case of the child protection system Sharne Rolfe

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 92 Threat, promise or just deficient? Models of children and media policy Patrick Hughes Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 107 Children informing gender equity policy Glenda Mac Naughton, Shirley Dally and Sally Barnes SECTION III CHILDREN INFORMING PEDAGOGIES Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 120 A comparative analysis of provision made in national curricula to strengthen children’s democratic participation in early childhood centres John Bennett Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 148 ‘You’re not going to like this but ...’ Learning to hear children as experts in early childhood classrooms Gulliver McGrath, Zen McGrath, Sam Parsons, Kylie Smith, Greta Swan and Sharon Saitta Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 160 The Learning Committee: children’s voices in planning early childhood curriculum Glenda Henderson and Glenda Mac Naughton Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 170 Children challenging adults: the Yarra Valley Project Glenda Mac Naughton, Patrick Hughes and Kylie Smith Chapter Thirteen...................................................................................... 193 Whose language is group time anyway? Penny Cook and teachers from the Early Assistance Action Research Project in South Australia Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 210 Children as science teachers Sharon Saitta

Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles, Policies and Pedagogies

vii

Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 220 Rethinking citizenship from the perspectives of four and five year old children’s experiences of being happy Jane Page Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 230 ‘You’re not listening to my words’ - treacherous terrains of citizenship Sheralyn Campbell Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 245 Student's voices in science education? How can we hear them? Can we hear them? Christina Hart Contributors............................................................................................. 261 Subject Index ........................................................................................... 269 Author Index............................................................................................ 276

PREFACE

Young children as citizens explores how young children (birth to 12 years of age) can and should participate in civic life. It reflects new images of young children as social actors, together with the increased interest in children's rights in the public sphere. Young children as citizens asks four questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Why should young children have a say in policies and pedagogies that affect them? How can young children participate actively in developing and delivering policies and pedagogies that affect them? What theoretical and practical issues do policy makers and educators face when they listen and respond to young children's views? What educational and political issues do policy makers and educators face when they listen and respond to young children's views?

It answers those questions through an edited collection of contributions by an exciting range of early childhood researchers, pedagogues, children and policy makers from Australia and Europe who have international reputations. The authors present a rich diversity of case studies of young children’s participation in public decisions, giving greater breadth and depth of expertise across several countries than is possible in a singleauthored volume. Contemporary research on young children is generating new images of young children that have direct implications for policy-makers and educators. Traditionally, young children have been regarded as too innocent and/or immature to participate meaningfully in decisions about them or to contribute to our knowledge of the world. In contrast, the new images of young children embody and express four key ideas about young children’s capacity:

Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles, Policies and Pedagogies

ix

ƒ young children can construct and communicate valid meanings about the world and their place in it ƒ young children are capable social actors, with a right to participate in our social, cultural and political worlds and able to contribute valid and useful ideas to them ƒ young children know the world in alternative (not ‘inferior’) ways to adults ƒ young children’s perspectives and insights can help adults to understand their experiences better. Listening actively to children can assist them to participate in decisions that affect them, thus giving them a stake as citizens in those decisions. However, whilst researchers have created these new images of young children as competent meaning-makers and decision–takers, there has been little exploration of the images’ practical implications. Consequently, there are no theoretically informed practical strategies through which adults (e.g. in early childhood services and in government departments) can listen to young children’s views and respond to them. Young children as citizens includes research-based case studies of policy-makers and educators listening to young children’s views and responding to them in respectful and ethical ways. Each case study will show how such activity, done successfully, can support and enhance a vigorous democratic society. Child advocates and policy makers at each level of government and in commercial and non-commercial organisations can draw on the ideas and practices in Young children as citizens to assist them to consult young children about their organisation’s activities, products and services. The book introduces the issues associated with consulting young children and offers case studies of such consultations in diverse circumstances. The case studies will assist child advocates to broaden and deepen their arguments that young children can and should be consulted about policies and decisions that affect them. Students (undergraduate and postgraduate), teachers and researchers in early childhood studies can use individual chapters of Young children as citizens selectively in different courses and to explore issues of increasing complexity. The book would also be a good set text for Honours and Master's programs.

SECTION I: CHILDREN AS CITIZENS: PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION

CHAPTER ONE BEINGS AND BECOMINGS: HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CHILD AS CITIZEN MARGARET COADY

Both citizenship and childhood are contested concepts. Children have variously been seen as property, as playthings, as future citizens, as immature adults whose only task is to grow up. Citizenship has also been constructed in many different ways but very often as an exclusionary device declaring certain groups beyond full membership of the state. Women, indigenous people, slaves, refugees and children are among those who have suffered such exclusion. On one account children are ruled out because they lack sufficient rationality to be full members of a selfgoverning community. This chapter explores whether and how children's rights and responsibilities are different from those of adults. It puts forward an argument that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a basis for seeing children as participating citizenry. Citizenship has been constructed in many different ways but very often as an exclusionary device declaring certain groups beyond full membership of the country in which they live. The first leaflet of the Victorian Women's Suffrage Society (Victorian Women's Suffrage Society first leaflet n.d.) asks Are Women Citizens? Yes, when they are asked to pay taxes. No, when they ask to vote. Here as so very often the idea of citizenship carries with it the notion that to be a citizen is to play a public role in political society. The right to vote on the issues of the day and therefore to have some determining force in the public world was a central feature of what it meant to be a citizen. There was a strong implication that citizens were in some sense free and equal actors in the public world.

Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Child as Citizen

3

Some dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary 1971) in fact give the word "freeman" as a synonym for citizen. The term “citizens” does not equate with “all persons who live in a particular geographic area”, though why it should not remains a question. But there is also the implication in the ideal of citizenship that there are others who are non-citizens, who do not meet the criteria for citizenship. According to Bader (1997), Citizenship had always meant the exclusion of non-members. Much of the discussion of citizenship over centuries has concerned the nature of these criteria for inclusion in the category "citizen". There is a long but varied history of thinking about the nature of citizenship. The much admired Athenian polis of ancient Greece has been seen by some (Arendt 1958) as the ideal community where equals can interact to assert the highest human expression, which was in their eyes political participation. Political activity was the domain of the citizen. But this kind of freedom in ancient Greece was for an elite group. It was a privilege reserved for those who could free themselves from working for the necessities of life, and who were therefore able to take part in the life of the polis. It was not for workers or for women or for children. Roman citizenship, according to Clarke (1994), was somewhat different. Rome distinguished between the patricians and the plebeians. While only the former could take a full part in the political life of the community, both groups were recognised as citizens. Indeed Roman citizenship was granted to many of the inhabitants of lands conquered by Rome, but these were described as cives sine suffragio, citizens without the vote (Crawford 1978). Both the Athenian and the Roman models gave the citizen certain freedoms under the law, but while the Roman model was more inclusive and less participatory - at least for some members - both models were essentially for a male adult elite. Political philosophers from Aristotle through Aquinas, Augustine, Marsilius, Hobbes, Locke and Kant have closely analysed the idea of citizenship. But one of the most interesting analyses of the modern notion of citizenship is that of T.H. Marshall (1965). Describing the development of citizenship in Britain, Marshall sees three stages of the recognition of different kinds of rights and, with each stage, an extension of those who could see themselves as citizens. The first stage occurred with the rise of the bourgeoisie in the eighteenth century leading to the recognition of the civil rights to freedom of speech, equality before the law and the right to

4

Chapter One

own property. The second stage occurred in the nineteenth century when political rights with universal manhood suffrage were established. This made it easier for more working class men to see themselves as citizens, and raised the possibility of a much wider group of people being able to participate in political decision-making. The third stage of citizenship for Marshall depended on the gaining of social rights such as the universal right to education, to social security and to welfare, achieved during the latter part of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century. Behind this ideal of citizenship was the idea of equality of all through recognition of civil, political and social rights: For Marshall, the fullest expression of citizenship requires a liberaldemocratic welfare state. By guaranteeing civil, political and social rights to all, the welfare state ensures that every member of society feels like a full member of society, able to participate in and enjoy the common life of society. Where any of these rights are withheld or violated, people will be marginalized and unable to participate. (Kymlicka and Norman 1994, p. 354)

But even this rich notion of equal citizenship described by Marshall was not equality of all. Though women may have followed the same trajectory of gaining citizenship rights as males did, they lagged behind considerably. Children were left out of the equation altogether. However, Marshall does discuss the central importance of the establishment of compulsory education in the training of the future citizen. The status of children was that of citizens, but of future citizens. They were seen as human becomings, not human beings. The compulsory education system would form or mould them into citizens. They were to be acted upon rather than acting. Marshall's comments on the citizenship status of women in nineteenth century Britain are revealing and important for a consideration of the citizenship rights of children. Marshall (1965) points out that the early Factory Acts; refrained from giving … protection directly to the adult male - the citizen par excellence. And they did so out of respect of his status as a citizen, on the grounds that enforced protective measures curtailed the civil right to conclude a free contract of employment. Protection was confined to women and children, and champions of women's rights were quick to detect the implied insult. Women were protected because they were not citizens. If they wished to enjoy full and responsible citizenship, they must forgo protection. (p. 89)

Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Child as Citizen

5

Here protection becomes not something to be enjoyed, but a restricting, demeaning feature of human interrelationships. The idea here is that people were either able to look after their own affairs, to make their own decisions, or they were not and, if they were not entirely independent, they were in need of protection and the accompanying restrictions. Children undoubtedly need protection at some times and in some circumstances, but so also do adult men and women in many contexts and many stages of their lives. The history of the granting of rights to children is instructive in demonstrating the changing balance between protection and selfdetermination in thinking about children during the twentieth and early twenty-first century. According to Marshall's categorization, civil and political rights came first in the temporal sequence of men gaining citizenship rights, and social rights came last. However, the first category of rights received, or at least proposed, for children, were social rights and they were motivated by the desire to protect children. The first international declaration of children’s rights occurred in 1924 with the Declaration of the Rights of the Child promulgated by the League of Nations (Van Bueren 1995b). This Declaration is primarily concerned with the child receiving the material and spiritual necessities for its wellbeing and development. Many of the provisions are similar to later declarations of children’s rights. The provisions cover protection of children from poverty, hunger and exploitation. One provision, that which states that the ‘delinquent child must be reclaimed’, is very much the product of the time, reflecting the ‘child saving’ attitudes of the day. As a statement of rights, the 1924 Declaration is unusual. It is not directed at governments, but rather more generally at all adults who should recognise children’s needs. The Declaration does not allow children to make claims; instead it exhorts all adults to recognise their duty to children. For these reasons the statements in this Declaration are far removed from acknowledging citizen rights of children. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child was proclaimed in 1959. This Declaration has many similarities to the earlier Declaration covering children’s need for protection, adequate nutrition, housing and medical services. But it also includes added rights - to education and to recreation. An influential addition is the reference to the ‘best interests of the child’ as the guiding consideration. An important difference from the earlier document is that this Declaration is directed at governments.

6

Chapter One

However there is still no reference to civil or political rights; and in one aspect, namely employment, the 1959 Declaration is even more protective than the 1924 Declaration. Principle 9 of the 1959 Declaration states, The child shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age. The 1924 principle 4 states, The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation (Van Bueren 1995b). If we understand rights as powers or freedoms to act, and see citizenship as connected with these powers, then the 1959 United Nations Declaration removed these rights or freedoms from children and came no closer to recognizing children as citizens. While stressing protection and the provision of such needs of the child as medical care, the 1959 Declaration nevertheless deprived children of some important rights that adults have, namely the right to work, the right to live away from home and the right to refuse an education. It was not a document aimed at increasing the autonomy of children, but rather at protecting them. It is not surprising then that there was a reaction against this view of childhood by theorists who had a different view of children and citizenship. In the 1970s, writers such as John Holt (1974) and Richard Farson (1974) argued that rights for children would only be achieved if children were allowed to be self-determining. For these child liberationists, children were similar to other groups seeking recognition of their rights. They argued that calls for the protection of women had covered up endemic exploitation of women and similarly, in the case of children, appeals to protective rights in fact meant that children were deprived of many of the rights held by adults. In Escape from Childhood, Holt (1975) went as far as demanding that all children should have the right to vote, arguing that any group which does not have representation on law-making bodies will inevitably be exploited. Holt also argued that children should have the right to work for money and this element is closer to the 1924 Declaration than to the 1959 Declaration. Other child liberationists argued that the child’s right to self-determination was fundamental to any understanding of children’s rights. In the tension which exists between rights understood as the free exercise of autonomy, and rights understood as paternalist provision of the necessities of life, closer to Marshall's social rights, the liberationists were on the side of the free exercise of autonomy.

Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Child as Citizen

7

The debates about whether children should have the right to vote raged in Britain and the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s. It was argued that the right to vote was central to being a citizen (Farson 1974). The analogy with women getting the vote was frequently expounded, but was rejected by writers such as Judith Hughes: ‘We did not spend a couple of centuries arguing that we were not children but adults’, she said, ‘simply to be told that, in that case, children are too.’ (Hughes 1989 p. 37.) Apart from this doubtful argument by analogy, two major arguments were put forward for children having the right to vote. One was that many children are just as competent or rational as some adult voters, and empirical evidence (Stevens, 1982) was put forward that many eleven year olds are as able as adults to understand the political scene. The other argument was that anybody whose interests are affected by its political decisions should have the right to influence the composition of a government. While these arguments gained few supporters, many who were not prepared to go as far as child suffrage did acknowledge the unfortunate effects of children not having the vote. Koocher (1976 p. 2) pointed out that, ‘Children are constantly subjected to benign oppression and to all the other violations that any under-represented minority group experiences.’ Hillary Rodham (later Clinton) (1973), in discussing the Wisconsin vs. Yoder case, disagreed with the majority decision which gave Amish parents the right to disregard the compulsory education law in order to follow the religious and cultural practices of the Amish. Rodham's argument was that the Amish children had their own interests separate from the interests of their families. They also had the competence to recognise and express their own interests. The children, she argued, should have been consulted. While the arguments for children's suffrage were not widely accepted, the arguments that children had a right to be consulted were much more effective. The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989) went beyond protective rights and included some civil and political rights for children, taking them a step further towards citizenship. Article 12 assures to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters which affect the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. It goes on to say, For this purpose, the child shall be heard in any judicial and administrative

8

Chapter One

proceedings affecting the child. Article 13 gives the child the right to freedom of expression, subject to some standard restrictions. Article 14 recognises the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while also recognising the rights and duties of the parents to provide direction to the child in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Article 15 recognises the rights of the child to peaceful assembly and Article 16 the child’s rights to privacy. The recognition of these rights in the Convention marks a change in official U.N. thinking about children’s rights and this is the most controversial aspect of the Convention. These are rights which recognise that the child is a human being able to have and to consider reasons for actions and with interests which may be separate from those of his or her family. These rights may be called freedom rights, and some of their critics (Hafen & Hafen 1996) have referred to them as ‘autonomy’ rights. The ‘right to be heard’ guaranteed in Article 12 is seen by some writers (Van Bueren 1995a) as the most significant article in the Convention. It reads: 12 (1) States parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. (2) For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Van Bueren points out that recognition of this right means that the child must be consulted in all matters which affect him or her. It disaggregates the child's interests from those of the family as a whole and, in doing this, is revolutionary in international law. However, Van Bueren also points out that while children must be consulted in all decisions that affect them, their views are not necessarily determinative. While these autonomy rights granted to children go beyond protection in recognising the separate interests of children, they do not abandon protection. Although the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child has received wide international recognition, it is not without its critics. There are even attempts to persuade some countries which have already ratified the

Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Child as Citizen

9

Convention to withdraw or modify their support for it. One example of this occurred in Australia in 1997, when a Senate Committee of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was re-examining Australia’s commitment to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. A long term U.S. opponent of the Convention, Professor Bruce Hafen (Hafen 1997), put in a submission and gave evidence to the Senate committee claiming that ‘avant-garde thinkers about liberation ideology’ in the U.S. had failed in the courts in that country, and so had gone to the international human rights forum where those rights had been gullibly accepted by countries which did not realise the Convention contained these ‘autonomy rights’. It is these autonomy rights which have been at the heart of most criticisms of the Convention (Joint Standing Committee 1998). It is important to respond to these criticisms, since these autonomy rights are key to a recognition of children as citizens. As Barbara Arneil puts it, ‘Only through the notion of autonomy is the child given full expression as a “being” or citizen rather than a “becoming” or subject’ (Arneil 2002 p. 80). But Arneil herself is not a supporter of the idea of children's rights. She sees rights talk as too much connected with its origins in liberal theory. She traces the development of liberal theory from its beginnings in the seventeenth century and sees it as mainly concerned to ‘create citizens of a state rather than subjects of a king.’ (Arneil 2002 p.70). Central to the idea of liberal citizenship was the view that the citizen freely consented to join the association which governed him. This was the key difference from the absolute rule of a monarch. But as with the Greek polis, there were criteria which excluded many from becoming citizens. The main criterion under early liberal theory which excluded children from being liberal citizens was their lack of rationality and, therefore, of capacity to give informed consent. Much of the advocacy of children's right to vote adopted the premises of this argument and gave evidence of children's - particularly older children's - rationality (Stevens 1982). And rationality was often construed in very narrow cognitive terms (Hughes 1989 p. 46). Arneil rightly points out that one of the effects of adopting the terms of the debate and accepting rationality as the criterion for citizenship is that while including some older children - often referred to as ‘mature minors’ - the citizenship rights of younger children are ignored or assumed to be meaningless: The infant’s or preschooler's interests have very little bearing on any discussion of autonomy rights. In both cases, the focus on rationality and

10

Chapter One adult rights allows a single sentence dismissal of early childhood. (Arneil 2002, p. 81)

Though defending the idea that even young children have rights, Arneil is unhappy for a number of reasons with the idea of autonomy rights for children: At the heart of the right to autonomy is a particular associational vision of human relations. In the associational model of politics, as first articulated in early liberal theory, individuals agree to join together for the purposes of mutual benefit. Entry into such an associational society is premised on the notion of consent. …. The main problem with this view of society is that it excludes anybody who does not have the requisite skills to join, namely rationality. (p. 82)

She wants a view of community which included children from birth rather than waiting for them to develop rationality. She quotes (Arneil 2002 p. 82) with approval the communitarian critics of liberalism who criticise rights discourse, claiming that the dimension of sociality is missing from it. They argue that people are in important ways constituted by their social ties, and that the rights discourse, in depicting an isolated individual who may have interests opposed to the social groupings to which she belongs, heightens tensions within and between these social groupings. Arneil believes that the communitarian view is a particularly realistic view of community as far as children are concerned: If the 'unencumbered' individual is difficult to sustain when talking about adults, it is even more problematic when applied to a child. For children are even less detachable, even more in need of affective commitments, and affected in a more profound way by the context and culture within which they live and mature. (Arneil 2002 p. 83)

Rather than an ethic which stresses rights, Arneil believes that the relationships between adults and children are better encapsulated in an ethic of care which looks not at what rights children should have but at how adults ought to treat children. Onora O'Neill has a similar view (O'Neill 1992). She wonders why, ‘so much current discussion of fundamental ethical issues (focusses) on children's rights and not on obligations to children’ (O'Neill 1992, p. 36). She contrasts children's rights with the rights of other oppressed groups: Children are more fundamentally but less permanently powerless; their main remedy is to grow up. (p. 39)

Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Child as Citizen

11

There are a number of objections to these arguments. It is not clear whether Arneil is arguing that the associational model of society is appropriate for adults but not for children. So adults can have autonomy rights, but children cannot; adults can be citizens, but children cannot. If her argument is that we can have one model of society for adults and a different one for children, then there seems no reason for it. Why should we make such a division? While children are certainly dependent and affected by the context and culture in which they live, so are adults. It is more a matter of degree and particular circumstance which determines who is able to make decisions. Rather than suggesting two different models of society, one for adults and one for children, Arneil may be adopting the whole communitarian attack on the notion of rights and saying that we should forget all rights talk for adults and children because rights talk for either group assumes the unencumbered adult male. If this is her argument, then there have been a number of demolitions of that argument (Kymlicka 1989, 1998). A serious concern is posed by Arneil's and O'Neill's return to the idea that the focus should be on responsibilities that adults owe to children, rather than rights possessed by children. It is of concern because in this view children return to being subjects who are treated, rather than citizens who make decisions. One response to Arneil and O'Neill is to point out that children are more complex beings than has often been thought. This is not a version of the earlier rejected argument that children are more competent than has been thought, the argument that accepted the rationality criterion for citizenship. The complexity being referred to here is more to do with complexity of the inner life of a child, not with cognitive precocity. Many previous images of a child's moral understanding - promoted in the work of Kohlberg and Piaget (McCadden 1998) - viewed the child as the isolated thinker working its way towards moral maturity through its developing cognitive powers. According to McCadden, most interpretations of Piaget saw the child during much of its childhood as dominated by authority, either submitting to it or else rebelling against adult views and risking punishment. However this is a very restricted view of childhood, and underestimates the inner life of even very young children. Empirical evidence shows a more complex picture. Children do not unquestioningly accept or rebel against the authority of adults, but rather

12

Chapter One

demonstrate very early in life an attempt to establish their own point of view. Smetana (1981) conducted a study of 3 and 4 year olds who showed concern about obeying adults who were asking them to harm another person. An even more interesting experiment was conducted by Turiel (1983). This showed that not only did very young children distinguish between transgressions of social conventions and transgressions of moral rules, but that young children by 42 months indicated their belief that moral transgressions would be wrong even if an adult did not see them, or there was not a rule proclaimed against them. One might expect that the children’s belief in the particular importance of moral rules is explained by their parents placing greater emphasis on moral rules than on social conventions. But their belief did not seem to depend on parental input, since the same study showed that parents were just as insistent on social conventions being adhered to as they were insistent that their children should obey moral rules. The picture emerging from the work of Turiel and Smetana is of a child actively constructing a moral viewpoint, a person with its own moral life, dependent as it is on the rather limited community it will have been part of to that point.

Final reflections The kind of autonomy appropriate to children in their active search for identity is basically the same as that described by Kymlicka (1989, pp.1213) when he says of adult autonomy that, ‘no lives go better by being led from the outside according to values the person doesn’t endorse.’ Humans of whatever age need to live their lives from the inside according to their understandings of what makes life valuable, and be able to use the resources of their culture to assess these values in the light of whatever information and examples and arguments [their] culture can provide. It is for this reason that freedoms such as free speech, freedom of association and the freedom to gain information are important liberties. Even very young children are in the same process of learning and of evaluating their beliefs about what makes life worthwhile, even while they are very dependent on their families and others around them for input and guidance. It is for this reason that freedoms such as free speech, freedom of association and the freedom to gain information, the new rights proclaimed for children in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, are central to their recognition as citizens.

Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Child as Citizen

13

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

How do you currently enact children’s right to be consulted about matters affecting them in policy and practice? What might make it difficult to consult with children in your work? How could you use the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to assist children to be recognized and treated as citizens? How might issues and experiences of women’s suffrage help you to think about citizenship for children differently?

Further reading Archard, D. & Macleod, C. M. (eds) 2002, The Moral and Political Status of Children, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

References Archard, D. & Macleod, C. M. (eds) 2002, The Moral and Political Status of Children, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Arendt, H. 1958, The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Arneil, B. 2002, ‘Becoming versus Being: A Critical Analysis of the Child in Liberal Theory’, in The Moral and Political Status of Children, eds. D. Archard & C. M. Macleod, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 70-96. Bader, V. (ed) 1997, Citizenship and Exclusion, Macmillan Press, London. Clarke, P. B. 1994, Citizenship, Pluto Press, London. Crawford, M. 1978, The Roman Republic, Humanities Press, New Jersey. Farson, R. 1974, Birthrights, Macmillan, London. Hafen, B. C. & Hafen, J. O. 1996, ‘Abandoning Children to their Autonomy: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, Harvard International Law Journal Spring, vol. 37 no 2. pp. 449-491. Hafen, B. 1997 Transcript of Evidence, 9 May. Senate Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Holt, J. 1974, Escape from Childhood, E.P. Dutton, Boston. Hughes, J. 1989, ‘Thinking about Children’ in Children, Parents and Politics ed. G. Scarre, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

14

Chapter One

Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 1998, Seventeenth Report, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Koocher, G. B. 1976, Children's Rights and the Mental Health Professions, John Wiley, New York. Kymlicka, W. 1989, Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kymlicka, W. & Norman, W. 1994, ‘Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory’, Ethics, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 35281. Kymlicka, W. 1998, 'Citizenship', in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Craig, Routledge, London & New York. Lasch, C. 1992, ‘Hillary Clinton, Child Saver’ Harper's Magazine October 1992. Marshall, T. H. 1965, Class, Citizenship and Social Development, Doubleday New York. McCadden. B. 1998, ‘It’s Hard to be Good’ Moral Complexity, Construction and Connection in a Kindergarten Classroom, Peter Lang, New York. O'Neill, O. 1992, ‘Children's Rights and Children's Lives’, in Children, Rights and the Law, eds. P. Alston, S. Parker & J. Seymour, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Rodham, H. 1973, ‘Children Under the Law 43’, Harvard Education Review, vol. 487. Smetana, J. 1981, ‘Preschool children’s conceptions of moral and social rules’, Child Development, vol. 52, pp. 1333-1336. Stevens, O. 1982, Children Talking Politics: political learning in childhood, Martin Robertson, Oxford. Turiel, E. 1983, The Development of Social Knowledge: morality and convention, Cambridge University Press, New York. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Nov 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 Van Bueren, G. 1995a, The International Law on the Rights of the Child, Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands. —. 1995b, International Documents on Children, 2nd edn, Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands. Victorian Women's Suffrage Society first leaflet. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/ola/citizen/women/women-home-vote.htm April 30, 2004.

CHAPTER TWO RESPECTING RIGHTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD POLICIES AND PRACTICES1 MARTIN WOODHEAD

The international child policy landscape has shifted dramatically in recent decades, with advocacy for early childhood increasingly based on recognition of – and respect for – the rights of every young child, everywhere. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 1989) requires all children to be respected as persons in their own right, including the very youngest children. In so doing, the UNCRC has elaborated a relatively new starting point for early childhood policy and practice that can be applied universally. In the past, international advocacy has relied heavily on the use (and frequently misuse) of scientific evidence about young children’s nature, needs and development (Woodhead 2005a; 2008). By contrast, the strength of the UNCRC rests on political consensus around a universal moral imperative. The UNCRC has been ratified, or acceded to, by 192 States (only the United States and Somalia have not yet ratified it). There are also significant mechanisms of international accountability. National governments (‘States parties’ in the language of the UNCRC) make regular reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress in implementing the UNCRC. But the influence of the UNCRC is arguably even more pervasive, as fundamental children’s rights principles

1

This chapter is edited and revised from Section 4 of Changing perspectives on early childhood: theory, research and policy, a background paper prepared for the UNESCO, Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007, and also published in International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, Vol. 4, No 2.

16

Chapter Two

gradually become embedded within the policies and practices of all who work with and on behalf of young children: The CRC has more signatories than any other international convention, and it is important for us to recognize the legal implications of this achievement in how we position our work. Countries are legally bound to honour children’s rights, and this gives us a strong basis for initiating public dialogue and action on behalf of young children. (Arnold 2004, p.4)

Four ‘general measures’ identified by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, (2003) are especially significant: x the right to survival and development (Article 6); x the right to non-discrimination (Article 2); x the right to respect for views and feelings (Article 12); x the ‘best interests of the child’ as a primary consideration (Article 3.1). The UNCRC is – necessarily – a very general statement, and draws heavily on concepts that are open to wide (and contested) interpretation. It has been criticised as being culturally insensitive, a tool for the globalisation of distinctively Western, individualistic childhood discourse (Burman 1996; Boyden 1997). For example, children’s right to ‘development’ is identified as a ‘general measure’ within the Convention (Article 6); and it is cited as a major indicator in articles designed to promote well-being through, for example, provision of an adequate standard of living (Article 27) and protection from harmful work (Article 32) (Woodhead 2005b). Clearly, asserting children’s right to development is the beginning, not the end, of any policy debate, because of the different beliefs, values and theories about what are necessary, natural or appropriate processes and outcomes for young children. For some, these generalities are weaknesses of the tool. For others they are its strength, making near-universal consent possible as a starting point for detailed scrutiny of national policies and practices, notably through the requirement on States parties (i.e. national governments) to report periodically to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which sits in Geneva. These monitoring processes are, increasingly, a catalyst for local, national and international debates around key policy issues (Santos-Pais 1999). But embedding a rights perspective within policy development has a long way to go. It is likely to be a gradual, incremental and in some respects contested process, more readily achieved in some cultural contexts than in others. This is because realizing children’s rights entails more than just making services for children and families more effective or

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

17

more comprehensive. Realizing children’s rights also entails a fundamental shift in the image of the child within society, as we can see by reviewing progress towards respect for the rights of each nation’s youngest citizens.

Implementing child rights in early childhood Implementing child rights in early childhood is still only at the beginning, but there are some clear signs of progress. The UN Committee devoted its Day of General Discussion 2004 to early childhood. One of the reasons was because by then, country reports had devoted very little attention to the implications of the UNCRC for the youngest children. As the Chair of the Committee explained: The United Nations Convention on the Child is applicable with regard to all persons under the age of 18. But the Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted regularly when reviewing reports submitted by States parties that information on the implementation of the Convention with respect to children before the age of regular schooling is often very limited. Usually, for these young children, the reports cover only certain aspects of health care, mainly infant mortality, immunisation and malnutrition, and selected issues in education chiefly related to kindergarten and pre-school. Other important issues are rarely addressed. (Doek 2006)

For this reason, and following on from the Day of General Discussion, the Committee initiated General Comment 7, ‘Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood’, which was ratified in September 2005 (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2005). General Comment 7 comprehensively reviews the UNCRC’s implications for policy development in early childhood. It covers general principles, assistance to parents and families, development of comprehensive services, young children in need of special protection and resources and capacity building. In this chapter, I summarise just a few of the implications of a rights based approach to development of early childhood practice, with particular attention to the theme of this book - young children as active citizens. (For a full commentary on General Comment 7, see UN Committee on the Rights of the Child/UNICEF/Bernard van Leer Foundation 2006.) The UNCRC’s perspective on young children departs radically from the conventional images that have informed early childhood research and policy. In particular, it requires a ‘new ethical attitude towards children’

18

Chapter Two

(Santos-Pais 1999). Thus, in the preamble to General Comment 7, the Committee re-affirms that; … young children are holders of all the rights enshrined in the Convention. They are entitled to special protection measures and, in accordance with their evolving capacities, the progressive exercise of their rights. … The Committee reaffirms that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to be applied holistically in early childhood, taking account of the principle of the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2005, Paragraph 3)

Amongst the most important features of a rights based approach is this insistence on the young child’s entitlement to quality of life and well being as an end in itself - now - rather than merely as the means to some distant and more instrumental goal. This is matched by identification of the responsibilities of caregivers, communities and the State to enable the young child to realize their rights in practice: Recognising children’s rights means acknowledging human rights as a question of entitlement and of a consummate responsibility to ensure their effective enjoyment. As members of the human family, children – all children – have inalienable human rights and freedoms that are inherent to the dignity of the human person. … Entitlement is not simply a question of abstract recognition by the law – even if such recognition is critical for rights to be claimed and safeguarded. In fact, entitlement has practical implications. It implies the creation of conditions in which children can effectively enjoy their rights. … Entitlement implies benefiting from the action of others – the State, the society, the family – for the rights of the child to become a reality, to be experienced and practised. (Santos-Pais 1999, p. 6)

Rights based early childhood policies and practices are not a form of charity towards the young, needy and dependent. Children are no longer envisaged as mere recipients of services or beneficiaries of protective measures, nor should the rationale for services be mainly about contributing to social change. Seeing early childhood as an ‘investment opportunity’, about promoting ‘optimum development’, ‘fostering human capital’ (Heckman 2000), or reducing ‘loss of human potential’ (Grantham-McGregor et al 2007) are unsatisfactory as the principal foundations on which to build early childhood policy. At the very least, these powerful discourses require reframing, to recognise that young children are not merely in a process of development, objects of concern and charity, pawns in adult social experiments (Dahlberg & Moss 2005;

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

19

Woodhead and Faulkner 2008). The language of the UNCRC and General Comment 7 reframe the young child as the principal subject, the rights bearer who has particular requirements for the exercise of their rights. For example: For the exercise of their rights, young children have particular requirements for physical nurturance, emotional care and sensitive guidance, as well as for time and space for social play, exploration and learning. These requirements can best be planned for within a framework of laws, policies and programmes for early childhood, including a plan for implementation and independent monitoring, for example through the appointment of a children’s rights commissioner, and through assessments of the impact of laws and policies on children … (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2005, Paragraph 19)

This process of reframing has been evident in the social sciences for several decades, recognising that children’s rights are not best realised while they are researched within an evaluative frame that is interested mainly in their position on the staged journey to mature, rational, responsible, autonomous, adult competence. This frame carries with it the risk that children are viewed through a very narrow, adult focussed lens, as ‘human potentials’, a ‘project in the making’ (Verhellen 1997), ‘human becomings’ rather than ‘human beings’ (Qvortrup 1994; Uprichard 2008), ‘noble causes’ rather than ‘worthy citizens’ (Knuttson 1997). The shift in the young child’s status within policy and practice is also signalled by the move away from policy that is based on adult perceptions of ‘children’s needs’ and towards policy that is based on respect for children’s rights and that recognises that children themselves have a role to play in defining their needs (Woodhead 1997). As Liwski (2006) argued: A needs-based focus produces a vision aimed at solving specific problems. ... it concentrates on specifics and converts the citizen into a passive subject who must be considered from the standpoint of the problem. In contrast, a rights based approach fosters a vision of citizenship whereby the citizen is a holder of rights ... (p. 9)

Moss et al (2000) compare traditional policy discourse of the ‘child in need’ with a discourse of ‘the rich child’ associated with early childhood services in Reggio Emilia: Our image of children no longer considers them as isolated and egocentric … does not belittle feelings or what is not logical. … Instead our image of

20

Chapter Two the child is rich in potential, strong, powerful, competent and most of all, connected to adults and other children. (Malaguzzi 1993, p. 10)

Participatory rights in theory and research Rights based policy and practice for early childhood connects directly with the themes of this book, especially in respect of young children’s role in realising their rights. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child encourages States parties to construct a positive agenda for rights in early childhood, recognizing that young children are, ‘… active members of families, communities and societies, with their own concerns, interests and points of view …’ (General Comment 7, Para. 5). Article 12 of the UN Convention is identified as a general principle (as explained above), which applies both to younger and to older children. As the Committee notes, respect for the young child’s agency is frequently overlooked, or rejected as inappropriate on the grounds of age and immaturity: In many countries and regions, traditional beliefs have emphasized young children’s need for training and socialization. They have been regarded as undeveloped, lacking even basic capacities for understanding, communicating and making choices. They have been powerless within their families, and often voiceless and invisible within society. As holders of rights, even the youngest children are entitled to express their views, which should be ‘given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. (General Comment 7, Para 14)

General Comment 7 (Para. 14) identifies three specific areas for development of policy and practice: (a) the child’s right to be consulted in matters that affect them should be implemented from the earliest stage in ways appropriate to the child’s capacities, best interests, and rights to protection from harmful experiences; (b) the right to express views and feelings should be anchored in the child’s daily life at home, within early childhood health, care and education facilities, in legal proceedings, and in the development of policies and services; and (c) all appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that all those with responsibilities towards young children listen to their views and respect their dignity.

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

21

Emphasising young children’s participatory rights resonates with wellestablished traditions of theory and research, most often expressed in terms of children’s activity and agency and, more broadly, their role in shaping their own childhoods. For example, constructivist paradigms within developmental psychology take for granted that children actively engage with their physical and social environment, construct cognitive models to make sense of the world and gradually acquire increasing sophistication in their intellectual, social and moral understanding. Studies of social development have emphasized children’s role as social actors and meaning makers (Bruner & Haste 1987) and as partners in social interaction, reciprocal exchanges and transactional patterns of mutual influence (reviewed by Schaffer 1996). Infancy research emphasizes that newborns are pre-adapted for social engagement, actively seeking out social relationships through which their security is assured, emotions regulated and cognitive and communicative competence fostered. This growing body of research has important implications for the participatory rights of babies, including premature babies (Alderson et al 2005). In this respect, it is important to note the UN Committee’s ‘working definition of “early childhood” is all young children: at birth and throughout infancy; during the preschool years; as well as during the transition to school’; in practice, all children below the age of 8 (General Comment 7, Para 1 & 4). The reference to ‘at birth’ acknowledges that the infant is an active, growing, sentient being before and during birth, as well as after it, indeed well before the period of life traditionally called ‘early childhood’. Defining early childhood as ‘below the age of 8’ is consistent with the UNCRC’s definition of childhood as ‘below the age of 18 years’. The UNCRC wording intentionally leaves the issue of when childhood begins open to interpretation. Being more precise would have threatened universal ratification, because of the implication for moral and cultural debates surrounding abortion and related issues (Hodgkin & Newell 1998, p. 1). At the same time, the UN Committee reaffirms the significance of the months before birth by, for example, urging ‘States parties to improve peri-natal care for mothers and babies’ (General Comment 7, Para 10). Children’s ‘agency’ has been a major theme of sociological research, with a surge of interest during the 1990s in exploring aspects of children’s social competence (e.g. Hutchby & Moran-Ellis 1998) as well as in mapping the ways children construct their socialisation (Mayall 2002). The significance of young children’s personal and social activity, creativity and agency has also been revealed through close study of peer

22

Chapter Two

relationships, play and cultural expression in spaces more or less separated from adult control (Corsaro 1997), as well as through studies of young children’s participation in media and consumer culture (Buckingham 2000; Kehily and Swann 2003). However, it is also important to make explicit that these concepts disguise some important distinctions, notably that children may be ‘active’ in the psycho-social sense (Bruner & Haste 1987) without necessarily being demonstrably expressive ‘social actors’ in family, preschool and peer group (Dunn 1988); and while they may be both psycho-socially active and social actors with positive self-esteem, they may not necessarily be ‘agentic’ in the more political sense of influencing their situation significantly, or being listened to (James & Prout 1997; Mayall 2002; Woodhead 2003). Hardman (1973) offered early insight into these issues. She drew on the concept of ‘muted voices’ to argue for the study of children in their own right, not just as processes of development or products of socialisation, nor merely as mature adults in the making. While children had been seen as scientifically interesting for more than a century, research into children’s lives had until that point been shaped largely by adult agendas for children, and reflected dominant power relationships between expert researchers and innocent, vulnerable, developing children (Alderson 1995; Alderson & Morrow 2004; Woodhead & Faulkner 2008). Put bluntly, respect for children's rights to participation demands that young children be viewed not just as ‘subjects of study and concern’, but also as ‘subjects with concerns’ (Prout 2000). Article 12 of the UNCRC demands that children's views be respected, not as evidence of their relative competence, but as evidence of their unique experiences of the world they inhabit.

Participatory rights in policy and practice Children’s participation is not new. For example, ‘Child-to-child’ projects have offered an alternative to conventional approaches to health care intervention since the 1970s (Johnson et al 1998). These initiatives have proven effective in diverse country contexts, but they have involved the very youngest children only rarely. During the past decade, participatory principles have been translated into early childhood practices (e.g. Alderson 2000; Lancaster & Broadbent 2003; Lansdown 2005a). Many of these initiatives have involved effective consultation with young children, and increasing their opportunities to contribute meaningfully to decisions that affect them. For example, the Mosaic study has used innovative

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

23

techniques (e.g. children’s drawings, their photographs and tape recordings) to listen to three and four year old children’s perspectives on their nursery provision (Clark & Moss 2001). Risks attach to less wellfounded participatory initiatives. Respect for participatory principles may be tokenistic, disguising conventional power relationships, or built around adult agendas (White & Choudhury 2007). More radical participation is about children’s empowerment and protagonism, which may include rejecting conventional power structures based on children’s age, maturity and development, their gender, or any other social classification (John 2003). Respecting children’s competencies is not an alternative to protecting their vulnerabilities, especially for the youngest children. It is important to emphasize the qualifier in Article 12 that the views of the child should be given, ‘due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. This reference to age and maturity re-connects with more conventional views of the child as someone who progresses through stage-like developmental milestones. It is closely linked to another key concept within the UNCRC – ‘evolving capacities’. For example, Article 5 (on parental responsibilities) refers to respect for the responsibilities and duties of parents and others to provide appropriate direction and guidance, ‘… in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.’ In similar vein, Article 14 refers to the rights and duties of parents and others to provide direction to the child in the exercise of their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, ‘… in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child …’. Talking in terms of children’s capacities as ‘evolving’ is itself of interest, conveying a very particular image of how development occurs. It is not clear that those who drafted the UNCRC intended to differentiate clearly (as elsewhere in the Convention) between the concepts of ‘evolving’ and ‘developing’. While the official Spanish translation of the UNCRC refers to ‘evolución de sus facultades’, the official French translation does not differentiate between ‘developing’ and ‘evolving’, referring simply to ‘développement de ses capacités’. These questions of terminology are of more than just academic interest. The balance between respecting the competent child and acknowledging children’s need for guidance in the realization of their rights is crucial to the practical implementation of participatory principles. How the balance is struck depends on which theories about ‘developing’ or ‘evolving’ capacities are given strongest weight. This balance can be illustrated best

24

Chapter Two

by juxtaposing two contrasting views of the child, View A and View B. View A, put simply, takes appraisal of a child’s development as a yardstick against which to decide the appropriateness of inviting participation, the extent to which a child’s voice should be heard, their capacity to make decisions, etc. View B approaches the issue quite differently, asking what support a child requires in order to participate effectively, to express their feelings, etc.; and it asks what skills adults require to work effectively with young children, etc. These two views can be elaborated by direct reference to competing theories about young children’s development. View A is associated with more traditional theories about universal stages of development (Elkind 1969) and its adherents might argue as follows: Article 12 of the UNCRC demands that the views of the child be given due weight in accordance with their ‘age and maturity’. Scientific knowledge about normal stages of intellectual development can be used to predict when children have sufficient capacities for understanding, such that their views should be listened to and taken seriously. Stage theories can also guide judgements about when children’s capacities have evolved sufficiently that they no longer require so much direction and guidance from parents. The key question is: ‘At what stage does the child become competent to participate?’ The role of adults would be to monitor children’s growing capacities and make judgements about whether they are ready to participate, including taking account of individual differences in children’s achievement of developmental milestones.

View B does not assume such a straightforward relationship between children’s age and maturity and their capacities to participate. View B would be closely associated with Vygotskian socio-cultural theory (Rogoff 1990) and its adherents might argue as follows: Stage theorists are asking the wrong question! Respecting children’s growing capacities isn’t about measuring the progress of their development, like you might measure the height of a growing tree in order to decide when it should be felled. It is more useful to ask, ‘How do children’s competencies develop through appropriate levels of participation?’ This question draws attention to principles of guided participation and of communities of learners. It points to the ways that adults and more competent peers can guide and support (‘scaffold’) children’s multiple competencies in ways that are sensitive to their ‘zone of proximal development’.

From this second viewpoint, supporting young children’s participatory rights places new responsibilities on the adult community to structure and

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

25

organise early childhood settings, to guide children’s learning and to enable their social participation in ways consistent with their understanding, interest and ways of communicating, especially about the issues that affect their lives directly. (For further discussion of theoretical perspectives that support participatory rights, see Smith 2002; Woodhead 2005; and Kirby & Gibbs 2006. For discussion of the implications for professional practice, see MacNaughton et al 2007.) Finally, different views on young children’s role as young citizens are not necessarily in opposition. Lansdown (2005b) suggests three ways to interpret the concept of evolving capacities. First, as a ‘developmental’ concept - fulfilling children’s rights to the development of their optimum capacities. Second, as an ‘emancipatory’ concept – recognising and respecting the evolving capacities of children. Third, as a ‘protective’ concept – protecting children from experiences beyond their capacities. This serves as a reminder that policies and practices intended to promote young children’s participatory rights must be planned within a comprehensive rights framework, balancing participation and protection rights and taking account of another basic UNCRC principle – that ‘the best interests of the child are a primary consideration’ (Article 3).

Conclusion The near-universal endorsement of the UNCRC presents a new opportunity to create a more genuinely universal consensus around promoting children’s well being. Interpreting young children’s rights in practice is not without difficulties, especially the challenge to assert universal entitlements and to combat discrimination, whilst at the same time respecting diversity (Vandenbroeck 1999). Any close study of young children reveals the complexity of the worlds they inhabit and the very different pressures on parents, caregivers, early childhood professionals and others on whom their wellbeing depends. Starting points for respecting rights, including respect for children’s agency and participatory rights, are very different where early childhood is dominated by extreme poverty, inequality or discrimination, or by ethnic struggle, civil or crossnational conflict, or by malnutrition, preventable diseases or HIV/AIDS, by family or community breakdown and forced migration, or by weak or corrupt infrastructures of care and education, health and social support (White & Choudhury 2007). Generalisations about young children’s lives and opportunities have limited value even within so-called stable, materially rich democracies. This is especially the case in rapidly changing,

Chapter Two

26

mobile, multi-cultural urban communities where economic inequalities and social exclusion remain prevalent, despite concerted policy initiatives to combat their negative effects on children. Overarching ambitions to promote young children’s growth, learning, development, potential, etc. do not do justice to realities of their experience, any more than do unqualified ambitions to, for example, promote cultural identity or respect rights. Typically, young children are surrounded by multiple (and sometimes competing) goals and expectations, including those concerning their own early childhoods. They engage in numerous roles and identities: as dependants, playful companions, learners, carers, pupils and so on. They engage actively with multiple relationships, activities and transitions during the course of their early childhood, as well as coping with separation, disruption, challenges and discontinuities (Brooker & Woodhead 2008). Engaging with young children’s perspectives on their own unique experiences of early childhood is arguably the most crucial starting point for policy and practice.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

How can the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child assist you to develop and promote a rights based approach to policies and practices? What are your current understandings of the image of the child and how does this affect how you develop, implement and evaluate policies and practices? In what other ways can you understand the image of the child? How might you include children’s participatory rights in developing, implementing and evaluating policies and practices?

Further reading UN Committee on the Rights of the Child/UNICEF/Bernard van Leer Foundation 2006, A Guide to General Comment 7:Implementing child rights in early childhood, The Hague, Bernard van Leer Foundation. Woodhead, M. 2008, ‘Promoting young children’s development: implications of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’, in Professionalism in the Early Years, eds. L. Miller & C. Cable, London, Hodder Arnold. —. 2008, ‘Child development and the development of childhood’ in Handbook of Childhood Studies, eds. Qvortrup et al, London, Palgrave.

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

27

References Alderson, P. 1995, Listening To Children, Barnardo’s, London. —. 2000 Young Children’s Rights: exploring beliefs, principles and practices, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Alderson, P. and Morrow, V. 2004, Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and Young People, Barnardo’s, Ilford. Alderson, P., Hawthorne, J. & Killen, M. 2005, ‘The Participation Rights of Premature Babies’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, vol. 13, pp. 31-50. Arnold, C. 2004, ‘Positioning ECCD in the 21st Century’, Coordinators Notebook, vol. 28. Boyden, J. 1997, ‘Childhood and the Policy-Makers: a comparative perspective on the globalization of childhood’ in Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, 2nd edn., eds. A. James & A. Prout, Falmer Press, London. Brooker, L. & Woodhead, M. 2008, Developing Positive Identities, The Open University, Milton Keynes. (Early Childhood in Focus 3.) Bruner, J. S. & Haste, H. (eds) 1987, Making Sense: the child’s construction of the world, Methuen, London. Buckingham, D. 2000, After the Death of Childhood: growing up in the age of electronic media, Polity, London. Burman, E. 1996, ‘Local, Global Or Globalized? Child Development and International Child Rights Legislation’, Childhood, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45-67. Clark, A. & Moss. P. 2001, Listening to Young Children: the Mosaic Approach, National Children’s Bureau, London. Corsaro, W. 1997, The Sociology of Childhood, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California. Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. 2005, Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education, Routledge Falmer, Abingdon. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. 1999, Beyond Quality In Early Childhood Development And Care: postmodern perspectives, Falmer Press, London. Doek, J. E. 2006, ‘Forword’ to Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, The Hague, Bernard van Leer Foundation/ UNICEF/ UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Dunn, J. 1988, The Beginnings of Social Understanding, Blackwell, Oxford. Elkind, D. (ed) 1969, Studies in Cognitive Development: essays in honor of Jean Piaget, Oxford University Press, London.

28

Chapter Two

Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B. & International Child Development Steering Group, 2007, ‘Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries’, Lancet, vol. 369 (9555), pp. 60-70. Hardman, C. 1973, ‘Can there be an Anthropology of Children?’, Journal Of The Anthropological Society Of Oxford, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 85-99. Heckman, J. 2000, ‘Policies to foster human capital’, Research in Economics, vol. 54, no.1. Hodgkin, R. & Newell, P. 1998, Implementation Handbook For The Convention On The Rights Of The Child, UNICEF, New York. Hutchby, I. & Moran-Ellis, J. (eds) 1998, Children and Social Competence, Falmer Press, Hove. James, A. & Prout, A. (eds) 1997, Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, 2nd edn., Falmer Press, London. John, M. 2003, Children's Rights and Power: charging up for a new century, Jessica Kingsley, London. Johnson, V., Ivan-Smith, E., Gordon, G., Pridmore, P. & Scott, P. 1998, Stepping Forward: children and young people’s participation in the development process, Intermediate Technology, London. Kehily, M. J. & Swann, J. (eds) 2003, Children’s Cultural Worlds, Wiley/Open University, Chichester. (Childhood Vol. 3.) Kirby, P. & Gibbs, S. 2006, ‘Facilitating participation: adults’ caring support roles within child-to-child projects and after-school settings’, Children & Society, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 209-222. Knuttson, K. 1997, Children: noble causes or worthy citizens?, Arena/UNICEF, Aldershot. Lancaster, P. & Broadbent, V. 2003, Listening to Young Children: Coram Family, Open University Press, Maidenhead. Lansdown, G. 2005a, Can You Hear Me? The Right Of Young Children To Participate In Decisions Affecting Them, Bernard Van Leer Foundation, The Hague. —. 2005b, The Evolving Capacities of Children: implications for the exercise of rights, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. Liwski, N. 2006, ‘Introductory remarks to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Day of General Discussion, 2004’ in Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, The Hague, Bernard van Leer Foundation/ UNICEF/ UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. MacNaughton, G., Hughes, P. & Smith, K. 2007, ‘Early childhood professionals and children’s rights: tensions and possibilities around the United Nations General Comment No.7 on Children’s Rights’,

Respecting Rights: Implications for Early Childhood Policies and Practices

29

International Journal of Early Years Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 161-170. Malaguzzi, L. 1993. ‘History, Ideas and Basic Philosophy’ in The Hundred Languages of Children, eds. C. Edwards, L. Gandini & G. Forman, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Mayall, B. 2002, Towards a Sociology for Childhood: thinking from children’s lives, Open University Press, London. Moss, P., Dillon, J. & Statham, J. 2000, ‘”The Child In Need” and “The Rich Child”: discourses, constructions and practice’, Critical Social Policy, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 233-254. Qvortrup, J. 1994, Childhood Matters, Avebury, Aldershot. Prout, A. 2000, ‘Children’s participation: control and self-realisation in British late modernity’, Children & Society, vol. 14, pp. 304-315. Rogoff, B. 1990, Apprenticeship in Thinking: cognitive development in social context, Oxford University Press, New York. Santos-Pais, M. 1999, A Human Rights Conceptual Framework for UNICEF, ICDC, Florence. Schaffer, H. R. 1996, Social Development, Blackwell, Oxford. Smith, A. 2002, ‘Interpreting and supporting participation rights: contributions from sociocultural theory’ International Journal of Children’s Rights, vol. 10, pp. 73-88. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2003, ‘General measures of implementation for the Convention on the Rights of the Child’, General Comment 5, OHCHR, Geneva (CRC/GC/2003/5). [Online]. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org (sourced 24th January 2008). —. 2005, Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, General Comment 7, OHCHR, Geneva (CRC/C/GC/7). [Online] Available at: http://www.ohchr.org (sourced 24th January 2008). UN Committee on the Rights of the Child/UNICEF/Bernard van Leer Foundation 2006, A Guide to General Comment 7: Implementing child rights in early childhood, Bernard van Leer Foundation, The Hague. Uprichard, E. 2008, ‘Children as “Beings and Becomings”: children, childhood and temporality’, Children & Society, vol. 22. Vandenbroeck, M. 1999, The view of the Yeti: bringing up children in the spirit of self-awareness and kindredship, Bernard van Leer Foundation, The Hague. Verhellen, E. 1997, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Garant Publishers, Leuven. White, S. C. & Choudhury, S. A. 2007, ‘The politics of child participation in international development: the dilemma of agency’, The European Journal of Development Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 529-550.

30

Chapter Two

Woodhead, M. 1997, ‘Psychology and the cultural construction of children’s needs’ in Construction and Reconstruction of Childhood, 2nd edn., eds. A. Prout & A. James, Falmer, London. —. 2003, ‘Childhood Studies: past, present and future’ unpublished paper. —. 2005a, ‘Early Childhood Development: a question of rights’, International Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 79-98. —. 2005b, ‘Psychosocial impacts of child work’ International Journal of Children’s Rights, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 321-377. —. 2008, ‘Child development and the development of childhood’ in Handbook of Childhood Studies, eds. Qvortrup et al. Palgrave, London. Woodhead, M. & Faulkner, D. 2008. ‘Subjects, objects or participants? Dilemmas of psychological research with children’, in Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices, 2nd edn., eds. A. James & P. Christensen, Falmer Routledge, London.

CHAPTER THREE ENGAGING ETHICALLY WITH YOUNG CHILDREN: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR CONSULTING JUSTLY WITH CARE GLENDA MACNAUGHTON AND KYLIE SMITH

The nature of ethical engagement with young children in research has been debated and written about for over twenty years (Mac Naughton, Smith & Davis 2007; Mac Naughton & Smith 2005; Farrell 2005; Anderson & Morrow 2004). More recently, there has been a growing interest in ethical engagement with young children in other institutional contexts. This chapter responds to this interest by exploring ethical principles and practices for consulting children in diverse educational and policy contexts. To develop those principles and practices we draw on data from a two-year multi-method research project on consulting children called Respecting children as citizens in local government: participation in policies and services. It commenced in 2006. Respecting children as citizens in local government: participation in policies and services is a collaborative research project between the City of Port Phillip (CoPP), a local government municipality in inner Melbourne, Australia and the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood (CEIEC) based in the University of Melbourne’s Graduate School of Education. The aim of this project is to build policies and practices in the CoPP that recognise children as active citizens who have a right to participate in local government and to be consulted about matters affecting them, irrespective of their age. In working toward these aims, the CoPP has committed itself to considering the views of children in the planning, development and implementation of council policies and services (refer to Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008).

32

Chapter Three

It is data from this work between the CoPP and the CEIEC that informs and illustrates the consulting with care principles and practices we outline in this chapter. We frame our discussion through a participatory rightsbased approach to children as citizens and outline its implications for building an ethics of consulting young children with care. We argue that behaving with honor and respect towards young children as citizens with participatory rights in our public institutions implies building a participatory, rights-based ethics for consulting them.

Ethics, politics and adult-child relations: shifting knowledge power relations Ethics codify what particular groups, institutions, and/or societies see as right and moral ways to behave. For Foucault, ethics are intimate with power and knowledge and with our sense of self. They produce what we believe we are obligated to do and what we desire to do to become the person we believe we should be (Foucault, in Rabinow 1997). Ethics are structured through power/knowledge regimes in which particular ideas come to dominate what is considered right, normal and proper relations and ways of being with others and with oneself. Ideas about what are right, normal and proper relations and ways of being with children for oneself as an adult have a long and shifting history that influences if and how we listen to and respond to children (as discussed by Margaret Coady in Chapter 1). How we see and understand the child in relation to the adult in specific institutional roles and contexts informs whether and how we consult young children. It guides the ethics of our consultations with children. For instance, if we see the adult as more knowing and more capable than a child, then we as adults will consult a child quite differently than someone we see as more knowing and more capable than ourself. Taking a participatory child-rights approach to children as citizens challenges us as adults to consult children in ways that honor their participatory rights to have a say in matters that directly affect them and to do so in ways that create more just, rights-honouring relationships with children. ‘Just, rights-honouring relationships with children’ seek to bring greater fairness to relations between adults and children and create more respectful relations of power between adults and children.

Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles and Practices for Consulting Justly with Care

33

Towards just, rights-honouring relationships with children: a participatory children’s rights ethic of consulting with care To create more respectful power relations between adults and children that enhance children’s participatory rights, adults need to reflect critically on if, why, how, when and where they engage children in consultations. Consulting young children with care rests on engaging with those questions of if, why, how, when and where young children should be consulted by adults. Three key aspects of consulting young children need consideration to address those questions: x the initial design of the consultation x the choice of tools and strategies used in the consultation x the creation of the consultation environment during and after consultation. More specifically, to design consultations with care there needs to be design that enables: x just intent in consulting young children x just informed consent for consulting young children x just timeframes for consulting young children. In choosing tools and strategies for consulting with care, adults need to: x begin with child choice x respond to children’s diversity. To create consulting environments with care, adults need to find ways to: x support children’s safety in speaking x support just documentation of children’s views and perspectives x support just responses to children. In what follows, we elaborate these principles for a just, rights-honoring ethic of consulting young children, drawing on the CoPP project to illustrate them in practice.

Designing consultations with care – just intent in consulting young children There is an increased interest in child participation and growing policy and legislative requirements that people consult children and increase child

34

Chapter Three

participation in decision making (e.g. City of Port Phillip 2005; Children Act 2004). Designing consultations with care means thinking carefully about whether or not consultations serve the best interests of the child by asking: x Why is this consultation occurring? x What is the topic of the consultation and why and who chose it? x In whose best interest am I undertaking this consultation? (Smith 2003) These questions can help to focus adults on the extent to which the consultation is an adult imposition on children or a practice of child participation. This is important. With the growing interest in child participation - influenced by documents and movements such as the United Nations Rights of the Child General Comment No 7 and UNESCO’s Child-friendly Cities - some children are facing ‘overconsultation’, while other groups of children remain silent. Further, meaningless consultations that are designed to, for example, advertise an event, product or service rather than to recognise that children have valid and important knowledge and to respect children’s beliefs are becoming more prevalent.

Designing consultations with care – just, informed consent for consulting young children The child as a rights-bearing citizen has the right to be asked to provide informed consent to participate in any consultation or effort adults make to seek children’s views and perspectives. Whilst children’s cognitive and linguistic skills and abilities may differ from adults’ and may differ between children of different ages and in different contexts, this does not negate their right to be informed and consenting participants in a consultation. Emerging research shows that children two to five years old are able to have conversations about participating in consultations and to negotiate how that participation may look (Mac Naughton, Smith & Davis 2007; Mac Naughton & Smith 2005; Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008). To provide informed consent, children need to have two types of information – why the consultation is occurring and how it will be used. Each will now be discussed in turn.

Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles and Practices for Consulting Justly with Care

35

First, information about why the consultation is occurring. Adults seek children’s views and perspectives in many ways and children should know why they are doing so. Whether adults are using interviews, or more incidental or less formal conversations, photographs or observations to seek children’s views and perspectives, children should know why adults are doing so. Children have a right to knowledge and information. They need to be provided with information about why a consultation is occurring. Second, information about how it will be used. Children have a right to know how what they share with adults will be used. This includes information about how it will be shared with other people and who those people are. Creating ethical and just consultation processes with informed consent - a case in practice An early childhood teacher - Callie - working in a long day care centre in the City of Port Phillip consulted children in a 3 to 5 year olds room. Callie asked one of the four-year-old children if he would like to talk about what he wanted for the centre’s end of year party and if she could video record the conversation. She explained that the end of year party would be developed based on what the children talked about with her. The child agreed to the conversation but asked for Callie to only record his voice, not his picture, as he did not want to be seen by others. Callie turned the video camera to face the wall so that only the sound was recorded. When the conversation was finished she played the recording back to the child so that he could see that only his voice had been recorded. She then asked if she could use what he said to create the end of year party. He agreed for his ideas to be used. (Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008)

Children also need to be told that they have the right to withdraw their consent if they decide that they don’t want to continue with the conversation or that what they have talked about is not to be used outside of the immediate conversation (Mac Naughton & Smith 2005).

Designing consultations with care – just time frames for consulting young children Time frames for consulting young children with care should recognise children’s right to be informed and to be invited to participate in a timely manner. It would be unfair and unjust for adults to arrive at a venue or

36

Chapter Three

service to consult children without giving the children fair warning prior to the consultation. Children, like adults, need time to consider if they want to be part of a consultation, to ask questions about the topic and the processes and to consider the interactions and the information they wish to share. Creating just time frames for consulting with care: a case in practice When developing the City of Port Phillip’s Municipal Early Years Plan (Port Phillip, 2005) community members, council employees, children’s services directors and parents were consulted on what children needed to grow and develop in a safe environment. It was not until the final stage of completion of this document that the City of Port Phillip realised that they had not consulted the citizens that this strategic document was for – the children. However, the City of Port Phillip chose not to undertake a tokenistic, one off, quick, small-scale consultation with children. Rather, they decided to recognise this gap and to develop skills and realistic, respectful and ethical timeframes to consult with children. (Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008)

Tools and strategies for consulting with care – beginning with child choice When considering the tools and strategies that you might use to consult children a just, rights-honoring and ethical practice is to ask children how they would like to express their views and understandings. For children who are having their first opportunity to participate in this process, it is important to share tools and strategies that could be used and to open discussion about other ideas children might have.

Tools and strategies for consulting with care – responding to children’s diversity Some of the tools and strategies for consulting children that support children’s diverse abilities, linguistic and literacy skills and cultural identities are: x Photographs. Providing photographs of spaces, places and events that children can choose to show what they enjoy, like, dislike or would want can support children with language delays, children under two years of age or from linguistically diverse backgrounds to share their thoughts and ideas.

Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles and Practices for Consulting Justly with Care

x

x

x

37

Photography and video-recordings. Providing cameras and videorecorders for children to take pictures or film of spaces, places and events can support children with language delays, children under two years of age or from linguistically diverse backgrounds to share their thoughts and ideas. Art materials (including drawing, collage, three dimensional construction with materials such as clay or boxes, weaving, mosaic, or painting). Art materials provide children opportunities to share their ideas without having to express themselves verbally. If you are providing opportunities for children to express their ideas through art materials, children need time and space to create their ideas, come back and revisit their work. Some children may take days or weeks to complete their idea and thoughts through these materials. Dialogue (one to one interviews, group conversations). When using dialogue to assist children to talk about their ideas and understandings, consider what language the conversation will take place in. Will it be the adult’s or the child’s first language? Do you need a translator or interpreter to support the use of diverse sign or verbal languages? Children may also want to use a Dictaphone to record their thoughts, where they can go off in a space and share their thoughts, ideas and concerns away from everyone else.

Creating ethical and just processes for responding to diversity: a case in practice Using an ethical lens to choose tools and strategies of engagement recognises that children have a right to information about what is being asked of them or what they are being asked to participate in. Andrea Devine and Keryn McMahon are Maternal and Child Health nurses who assess the health and development of children under the age of four years. They are required to undertake specific tasks and processes, such as measuring height and weight as well as language development. Andrea has developed a set of photographs of a child performing the activities she undertakes when children visit her at the centre. She uses these photographs to tell children what she is going to do and what she will ask them to do. Andrea then asks the children to choose which activity or procedure they would like to do at each stage. While the children need all the assessment done to ensure that they are developing and growing in healthy and appropriate ways, this process recognises children’s right to information and to have a say in matters affecting them.

38

Chapter Three Keryn works as an outreach nurse visiting children in long day care centres and kindergartens where families are unable to attend the Maternal and Child Health centre. Using the photographs of the procedures, she has developed a letter that she sends to the children before she visits them, so that they know who she is and what she will be asking them to do. The letter gives the children time and space to think about the order of the procedures or activities they will decide to choose and an opportunity to talk with their parents or guardians about any issues, concerns or questions they have. Like the photographs Andrea uses, this letter recognises children’s right to information and to have a say in matters affecting them. Further, it creates time and space to consider and question what is going to happen in their world. (Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008)

Creating consulting environments with care – supporting safety in speaking Creating consulting environments with care means creating safe and respectful spaces for children. What feels safe and respectful will differ between children. However, the following pointers offer some building blocks for creating safe and respectful environments for young children: x Young children often prefer to have familiar adults undertake the consultation process. It can feel fearful, puzzling or unsafe for children when unknown adults undertake the consultation. x Young children need to know that they ‘own’ their words and ideas. This means, for instance, that adults will read back what children have said and ask permission to include this in the consultation; and children have a right to refuse or withdraw their consent. Further, adults will ask if they can use the artefacts that children create. x Young children need to know how and where their words and work will be used and distributed and to know that they will be used for no other purpose unless further consent is given. Consulting with care is not about child’s artwork and words being positioned as ‘cute’ and a form of ‘decoration’ for advertising events, website, invitations or book backgrounds. x Individual children may need privacy during consultations so that they can speak in ways that are not censored by peers and adults. However, not all children will see this space as safe, especially children who have been involved with the protective services system. Such children may see this space as one where they are asked difficult questions about their life and their family and where removal from home may be connected with these

Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles and Practices for Consulting Justly with Care

39

conversations. For this reason, it is vital that adults ask children what space or environment they would feel most comfortable participating in.

Creating consulting environments with care – supporting just documentation of children’s views and perspectives It is essential that adults consider ethical ways to support children to document their ideas, needs and beliefs. Consideration needs to be given to: x giving children high quality, easily used materials with which to record their knowledge x supporting children to record their ideas regardless of whether adults believe that these ideas are relevant to the topic of the consultation x asking children who they want to document their ideas – this may be adults or it may be other children x displaying a child’s documentation only with her/his consent x returning original documentation to the child x archiving any original documentation that children have consented for adults to keep in respectful and ethical ways x maintaining the child’s confidentiality where this is requested by the child and her/his guardian x giving children an opportunity to choose their own pseudonym x acknowledging children as the owners of their work when using it in public spaces, documents and reports. Building ethical, just documentation: a case in practice Meg Selman, a Sustainable Transport Officer and Connie Costanzo, the Home Based Child Care Co-ordinator, worked with four children from 2 to 4 years of age with their home based caregiver to find out what made it easy or hard to be mobile in their community. The children’s care giver told the children about what Meg and Connie wanted to ask them and explained that their ideas would be shared as part of a Children’s Plan and gained verbal and written (the children drew a picture of themselves) consent. When the children’s ideas, their photographs and the adults’ photographs were written up, the report was taken back to the children so that they could decide in conversations with their care giver and parents if what had been written represented what they wanted said and if the photographs could be used. (Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008)

40

Chapter Three

Creating consulting environments with care – supporting just responses to children Like all citizens in a democratic society, children have a right to have follow-up conversations or information about how ideas or information they have shared are being used. It is tokenistic and unjust to ask children about their ideas, concerns and beliefs, place them in a report or on a website as evidence of a conversation, yet give no report back to the children about whether and how their issues and ideas have been addressed. It reinforces a view that the child is inconsequential and it misses the opportunity to support young children to learn about the complexities of acting on diverse ideas and perspectives in a democratic environment. If we are to honor and respect children as active citizens, then we must not only note what they say but take its politics seriously. With those politics come decisions about how we act with children once we have heard what they say. Inspiration for such action can come from a long line of educators led by Paulo Freire, who called education the ‘practice of Freedom’: … the practice of Freedom; the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. (Freire 1970, p. 15)

Responding to children with care is about working with children to transform our world so that is a more socially just and ethical environment to grow and live in together. Building ethically just processes for responding to children: a case in practice Cr Janet Cribbes is an elected member of the City of Port Phillip council who represents the Ormond ward. She asked children from two primary schools in the area what made it easy and/or difficult to live in the City of Port Phillip. Two of the issues that were raised by children were that the roads near the schools were unsafe to cross because of the cars and the lack of suitable crossings; and the need for more rubbish bins in public spaces, due to an overflow of rubbish. From this consultation Janet has acted on the children’s first concern and been part of negotiating the funding and development of a new crossing in the area to create a safer space to cross the road to get to and from school. It is important to note that local drivers have raised concerns with Janet (as their elected representative) about the decrease in mobility for cars in this street due to this crossing. Janet has explained the reason for the crossing based on the concerns and need of the children in her ward. This justification for the

Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles and Practices for Consulting Justly with Care

41

change has been more readily accepted by residents and alleviated most of the concerns placed forward by adults inconvenienced by the delay in movement. The second issue Janet addressed with the children related to their call for an increase in rubbish bins. Her response was not to increase the bins but to share information with the children about the City of Port Phillip’s recycling policies and education of the community to take their rubbish home rather than leaving it on the beach. Janet acted on issues that were possible for her change or improve but when she wasn’t able to enact changes the children raised, she ensured that she said why she was unable to and reassured children that she would continue to monitor the issues. This showed how Janet recognised young children as active citizens whose ideas and concerns are as valid and important as adults’. This is an ethical encounter, not a campaign for votes, as these children are unable to vote. (Smith, Alexander & Mac Naughton 2008)

Final reflections Consulting children ethically involves consulting with care for justice and for children’s rights. It cannot be assumed that this care will be present in a consultation with young children just because adults are overseeing or supervising it. Consulting children can only be an ethical, just and rightshonoring practice when the intent and processes of consultation are designed with care. The result can be encounters between children and adults in which children are recognised as citizens transforming and supporting communities for a more socially just world. Reflective and caring communities recognise and respect children’s voices alongside those of adults when they are reflective and caring in how they structure and enact consultations with young children.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

How could you consult young children with care in your current context? Which aspects of ethical, just, rights-honoring consultation would you find easiest in your current context? Which aspects of ethical, just, rights-honoring consultation would you find hardest in your current context? How would you describe in your own words an ethical, just, rights-honoring approach to consulting young children?

42

Chapter Three

Further reading City of Port Phillip. 2005, Creating a Child Friendly Port Phillip: Framework for Action. [Online] Available at: http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/families_children.html (sourced on 6th November, 2007) Mac Naughton, G., Smith, K. & Davis, K. 2007, ‘Researching with children: The challenges and possibilities for building “child friendly’’ research’, in Early Childhood Qualitative Research, ed. J. A. Hatch, Routledge, New York. pp. 167 - 205. MacNaughton, G. & Smith, K. 2005, ‘Exploring ethics and difference: the choices and challenges of researching with children’, in Exploring ethical research with children, ed. A. Farrell, Open University Press, Buckingham. pp. 112 - 123.

References Anderson, P. & Morrow, V. 2004, Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people, Barnardo’s, Barkingside. Children’s Act 2004, [Online] Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040031_en_1 (sourced on 20th February, 2008) City of Port Phillip. 2005, Creating a Child Friendly Port Phillip: Framework for Action. [Online] Available at: http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/families_children.html (sourced on 6th November, 2007) Farrell, A. 2005, ‘New times in ethical research with children’ in Exploring ethical research with children, ed. A. Farrell, Open University Press, Buckingham. pp. 166 - 175. Freire, P. 1970, Pedagogy of the oppressed, Penguin Books, London. Mac Naughton, G., Smith, K. & Davis, K. 2007, ‘Researching with children: The challenges and possibilities for building “child friendly’’ research’, in Early Childhood Qualitative Research, ed. J. A. Hatch, Routledge, New York. pp. 167 - 205. Mac Naughton, G. & Smith, K. (2005), ‘Exploring ethics and difference: the choices and challenges of researching with children’, in Exploring ethical research with children, ed. A. Farrell, Open University Press, Buckingham. pp. 112 - 123. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 2005, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7. [Online] Available at:

Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles and Practices for Consulting Justly with Care

43

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CRC.C.GC.7>En?OpenDo cument (sourced on 22 August, 2006) Rabinow, P. (ed.) 1997, Michel Foucault: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. Volume 1, The New Press, New York. Smith, K. 2003, Reconceptualising observation in Early Childhood Curriculum. The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Education, Department of Learning and Educational Development. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Smith, K., Alexander, K. & Mac Naughton, G. 2008, Respecting children as citizens in local government: participation in policies and practice (Report to City of Port Phillip), The University of Melbourne, Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, Melbourne.

Glossary x

x

x

Ethics. Ethics is a way of thinking, acting and reflecting on how we see, speak and act and the effects of this for others. Ethics concern what is fair and unfair for people and they highlight what is fair rather than what is easy in how we live our lives. Ethics often distinguish between what a person believes is right or wrong. Just. Just is a term to describe how we enact equity and fairness. It makes visible discriminative speech and practice and recognises non-discriminative environments and ways of interacting with others. Knowledge power relations. This term draws on Foucauldian understandings. Knowledge power relations acknowledge that certain perspectives or understandings of the world are privileged over others. One form of knowledge is seen as more legitimate and carries greater public authority which, in turn, produces power to silence other knowledges

CHAPTER FOUR YOUNG CHILDREN AND VOICE JEANETTE RHEDDING-JONES, BERIT BAE AND NINA WINGER

This chapter presents some theoretical positions about children and voice. It also describes some of the policy and research work from where we are in Oslo Norway, and connects this to the theories. We say what some of the implications of this might be, especially as they relate to children’s rights as addressed by the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Throughout the chapter, we point to critical issues related to practice. We write from our experience related in practice to Norwegian barnehager: preschools, day care centres and kindergartens, with children aged one to five.

Theories and concepts Within early childhood education and related research, there remains a strong focus on instrumentalism and managerialism, with increased testing of individual children (Dahlberg & Moss 2005). There is, however, a strengthening alternative discourse regarding how we recognize and acknowledge children and childhood (Bae 2004; Dahlberg & Moss 2005; James & James 2005). In many ways, this discourse represents a change in thinking and a redefinition of how we relate to children in everyday life and in research. A strengthened focus on, and a new recognition of children’s positionings and subjectivities challenges us to listen more carefully to children, and to become more sensitive, in committed ways, towards their agencies (Eide & Winger 2005; Moss, Clark & Kjørholt 2005). Today’s concept of childhood calls for a shift in adults’ own selfunderstandings, and it urges us to consider and seriously reflect upon our adult authority and power position in relation to children. Thus, taking children seriously demands a thorough and critical self-reflection by ‘non-

Young Children and Voice

45

children’. At all levels, we must work with this challenge in pedagogical practice, in our personal lives and in our early childhood research (Eide & Winger 2006; Johansson 2003). This means a strong focus on ourselves as professionals, as well as a sharpened sensitivity and commitment towards children who are no longer simply objects for pedagogical investment. Discourses of children’s positions and voices inevitably have cultural and political contexts. In contemporary western conceptualizations of childhood, children appear as qualified and competently contributing agents. In many ways, this reflects a strong focus on an individual child’s position as subject and citizen (Kjørholt 2007). If educational practice and research is to draw a more comprehensive picture of what goes on in everyday life, it needs to take children seriously and be really curious about what children have to tell or show (Eide & Winger 2005; Seland 2004). This requires the adoption of a critical attitude towards instrumentalist thinking and a rejection of a negative view of children that focuses on their ‘behaviour’ as a deficit. What happens when children are seen as capable and able, rather than as small people with problems that our institution has to fix? Laws and national guidelines give no guarantee that children’s voices will be heard and respected in everyday life. They are simply political statements. Practitioners need to link these policy documents to a discourse of power where children can act on their own behalf. To insist in practice on children’s rights involves an ethical stance by teachers, carers and other adults responsible for children’s education and care, in which they try to be receptive and responsible to embodied children, as adult bodies themselves. This is the opposite of being distanced from everyday events. Here, following Levinas (1998, pp. 162-168), practitioners let themselves be moved and influenced by the ‘face of the other’. Levinas used ‘other’ in the context of his ethics about an ‘I – You’ relation (Levinas 1998, p.150), where a dialogue ‘signifies the worth of the other’ and so performing ethical actions becomes part of the continuing process of creating one or more senses of ‘being in the world’ with others. From this perspective, both adults and children are continually re-creating their own beings, in company. This resists views of children as incomplete adults acting alone; and of adults as unaware of their own power and of the ethics of ‘being together’. In early childhood practice, such ethics challenge practitioners to see and recognize not only children but also themselves, and who they are. Such recognitions involve not ‘individual differences’ but the complexities of postmodern positionings and ethics.

46

Chapter Four

Here, cultures, ethnicities, languages and ‘races’ are intertwined and shifting. In practice, working with such complexities is not going to be easy. There are no simple answers to the question, ‘What will we do?’ We have to ask how we can keep on being critical of our own interactions with the children, and what we can do to share our understandings here with colleagues. We also need to remember children’s rights, so that we don’t decide for children what they will do and where they will be. Working towards an ethical position involves reconceptualising adultchild relationships in ways that emphasize intersubjectivity and mutual recognitions. Research in early childhood institutions in Norway (Bae 2004, 2005; Brandtzæg 2006; Gillund 2006; Øzalp 2005) is generating new ideas and practices in which relationships involve problematizing and being critical of dominating, normalising ways of observing children, and seeing how these function in reductionist ways (Bae 1996, 2004, 2005). Although researchers may have become more self reflexive and critical of dominating ways of observing children, higher education students, too, observe children, take notes and record what is heard, with the attendant risk of observing an ‘other’ (as in the binary splits between children and adults, the observed and the observer, the learner and the teacher). Normalised observation of children by adults risks losing the ethical relation and objectifying children. In Oslo, Masters students in early childhood education have worked to resist such practice in their projects, dissertations and publications (Brandtzæg 2006; Bøe 2006; Gillund 2006; Hognestad 2007; Johannesen 2002; Pedersen 2006; Rhedding-Jones 2005a; Sandvik 2000; Svenning 2006). We have to think about what we can do as researchers to make sure that we are not turning children into objects. Could our research have another focus? How critical can we be as researchers? To work towards an ethical position (as defined by Levinas) demands critical thinking about ways of seeing and giving ‘meaning’ to interpersonal communication and sociocultural relations. Levinas says ‘the I - You relation ... invites us to new reflection’ (Levinas 1998, p. 151). In his writing about ‘the right to be’ (pp. 168-169) Levinas says the ‘identity of the I or of the “oneself” … is tied to its ethic and thus to its election’. He speaks of ‘the return of the I awakened in responsibility’. This he says is ‘the return of the I as for-the-other … to its ontological “integrity” … ’ This perspective requires early childhood educators who wish to acknowledge children’s voices to undertake new work on theoretical, methodological and practical levels. From this perspective, higher

Young Children and Voice

47

education and in-service seminars would include critical views of childhoods and ethical relationships, and the discovering of critical issues of power inherent in everything. Ethics would not be simply delegated to ‘the ethics lecture’. For all children to have their rights of expression ‘realised’, we must take responsibility for how we use our positions of power; and counteract instrumentalist views of children as objects in planning, practice, theory and policy documents. This will require skills and arts in re-thinking, deconstruction and self-reflection. If adults see children only as objects to be treated or changed according to universal developmental schedules or programs, then the voices of those who do not fit normalised expectations will be weak or absent. Given the diversity that exists within any barnehage group today, those normalised expectations have to be deconstructed. This is a task not only for those researchers embracing poststructural theory (Rhedding-Jones 1995), but for anyone working with children. ‘Deconstruction’ refers to the practice of challenging the absoluteness or taken-for-grantedness of truths by demonstrating how they are constructed in texts, histories, work practices and belief systems (Rhedding-Jones 2005b, p. 123). Although much published writing about deconstruction is difficult to read, the practices of deconstruction or undoing are quite simple: just look at what is happening and what is not, and try to open things up so that change is possible. For example, MacNaughton (2003) examined what shapes early childhood, including particular models of the learner and particular approaches to curriculum and its contexts. Here the critical and the deconstructive blur. In practice, this involves decentering our own ideas so that we are more open to differences. Decentering includes deciding about the differences that we have not experienced. Some of this might happen through the practice of our own critical writing, as descriptions of small events in the preschool with the children. Sometimes when we think over what we did earlier, we see that maybe we could have acted differently. The problem is how to undo normalised practices. Woodhead (2005) sees early childhood development as a matter of children’s rights. From this perspective, to enact the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is to challenge traditional ways to think about children and their relationships with adults, and also to look for alternative conceptualizations. Young children have rights, and are qualified, to contribute to their community in their own ways – an idea that challenges their earlier marginalization as

48

Chapter Four

non-productive agents. There is, however, some ambivalence and confusion about children`s citizenship, participation and voices. There are those who find it hard to accept that children have rights. Continuing discussions related to children`s legal rights and positions are now prominent in research about children (Jans 2004; Kjørholt 2007). Further, there are now critiques of Western positionings of children and of the hegemony that this implies. The decentering of normalised pedagogy in early childhood education shows how colonising past practices have been and points to possibilities for a more just future for children (Viruru 2001). To put into practice the political intentions of children’s rights requires us to review and deconstruct the discourses within which teachers, carers, parents and children are embedded. These discourses direct practitioners’ attention and create premises for how adults meet children. Without a critical attitude, the risk is that only some children will be heard and have the opportunity to ‘express themselves’. Such children are likely to be articulate and to come from middle-class backgrounds, whilst less privileged children (e.g. recent immigrants) may be more or less silenced and invisible (Palludan 2005). In everyday life, this means that the intentions of the UN Convention will be realized for some children but not for all. Learning about citizenship will thus become an uneven affair, empowering some children and disempowering ‘others’. How far can we take critique in early childhood education? What about the youngest children? What about children with so-called ‘disabilities’? Part of the problem is that adults, whether educated for early childhood settings or not, have assumed that they know what is best for children. How does this balance with professional responsibility? Further, what happens when adults realise that when they work with many children, they are the minority? What happens to democracy here? Some of these questions – but not all of them – are addressed in two edited collections of international perspectives published recently. Contributors to Beyond listening: children`s perspectives on early childhood services (Clark, Kjørholt & Moss 2005) come from Denmark, New Zealand, Norway and United Kingdom. They discuss ideological perspectives and methodological dilemmas around listening to children`s voices. They present concern, critique and commitment regarding listening to children; and focus on practice, research and experience regarding children, voice and participation. Contributors to Power and voice with children (Soto & Swadener 2005) come from Argentina, Australia, Greece, New Mexico, Latino countries, Palestine, Taiwan and the USA. They address the critical

Young Children and Voice

49

issue of research methodology and children’s voice. In particular, they deal with decolonising methodologies and what these imply for children and for research practices. The editors say that the topic of children’s voices in research is part of a reconceptualization of early childhood education. They work with critical concepts and ideas we did not have in decades past, to show us the multiple identities of culture, social class, linguistic diversity, and gender. Further, they refuse to categorize children’s voices or to see children as passive beings who let things happen to them. This book addresses the political questions of who does research and whose views regarding children’s voices are heard in research and in everyday practice. The practices around the politics of young children and voice also move us to publish and edit. Producing texts for readers who can make a difference in practice is a political act. Taking up new ideas in theory involves finding new ways to do research and new ways to be professionals with children. If we really want to avoid colonising children, we must be more open to change. Practices in which we have engaged for a long time, and that others before us have shown us, can easily become what we do without thinking. Just repeating the research practices of others and the everyday ways of organising and interacting in schools and preschools, is not so difficult. However, if we wish to act ethically around issues of power and voice, we have to act and speak differently.

Theoretical arguments in policy and research in Norway This section of the chapter aims to show how the theoretical arguments we have outlined are put into practice in recent policy and research in Norway. There is not space here to go into everyday practices in barnehager. We are three women who teach and supervise/mentor students in the Masters degree in Early Childhood Education at Oslo University College. From different angles we have approached the theme of children and voice as part of our teaching and research. Developments in early childhood policy and research in English-speaking nations are not necessarily occurring in other nations. In English-speaking nations, many academics now see that in postmodernity everyday life conditions, standards of living and frames of reference are changing. On both individual and on collective levels there are changes in the ways that children interact with adults. Norway is one of the Nordic countries, along with Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. It has not only a different

50

Chapter Four

language, but also has some different values and practices regarding early childhood policy and research. In the Nordic tradition, our early childhood institutions have developed with a social, pedagogical and caring profile. To this has been added a strengthened focus on searching for children’s own perspectives, on giving them ‘voices’ and the time and the space to present their perspectives. This makes us committed to the ethical challenges and obligations that arise when children’s voices are heard and when their stories are listened to in new ways (Eide & Winger 2005, 2006). This commitment links to notions of postmodern societies and social justice, in which adults are, in many ways, unqualified to represent children’s interests. It is problematic when educators and researchers take for granted that they are able to be spokespeople for children and children’s interests. The challenge for practitioners is to listen to children’s voices in ways that are in everyday practice in barnehager; and the equivalent challenge for researchers is to listen to children’s voices in ways that accord with ethical and respectful research methodologies (Clark, Kjørholt & Moss 2005; Johansson 2003). This critical issue is on political and pedagogical agendas, and ‘everyone’ in the field seems to have a strengthened interest in children’s perspectives. Consequently, it is not enough to simply say that we accept the legitimacy of children’s voice. Instead, it is absolutely necessary to confront ourselves critically with questions like, ‘What gives us the right as grown-ups to search for children’s points of view?’ (Eide & Winger 2005, p. 75). A question like this connects closely to the politics and problematizations found in the critical work of Foucault (Foucault 2000). The politics of giving voice to young children in Norwegian barnehager is articulated in several national documents. These documents are influencing and shaping Norwegian children’s everyday lives, as they are lived in institutions of pedagogy and care. We give two examples of how political intentions come to the fore within a Norwegian early childhood education context. The first comes from Section 3 of the The Kindergarten Act that regulates all barnehager in Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research 2005, p. 2). This states: Children in kindergartens shall have the right to express their views on the day-to-day activities of the kindergarten. Children shall regularly be given the opportunity to take active part in planning and assessing the activities of the kindergarten.

Young Children and Voice

51

The children’s views shall be given due weight according to their age and maturity.

This is close to Article 12 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which proclaims children’s rights to expression, participation and agency. However, what kinds of voices might children use? For example, can they protest without words? Can they make clear their desires and opinions regarding ‘assessment’ of their activities? Will the very young, and the linguistic minorities, and those with disabilities be taken into account sufficiently? Is having the right to express views the same as being heard and causing adults’ ideas and plans to change? These are political issues that go beyond the rhetoric and statements of a government document. The second example of political intentions comes from the national curriculum document (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research 2006). This document allocates four paragraphs to children’s rights to expression and participation, including the following: Kindergartens must operate on the basis of children’s own ways of expressing themselves. Staff must listen to and attempt to interpret their body language, and must be observant in relation to their actions, aesthetic expressions and eventually their verbal communications. Kindergartens must allow for the different perspectives of different children, and must respect their intentions and realms of experience. Children’s right to freedom of expression shall be ensured, and their participation must be integrated in work on the content of kindergartens. Taking children’s participation seriously requires good communication between children and staff, and between staff and parents. (p. 9)

It seems that this document takes account of many of our critical questions. As part of its implementation of the new National Curriculum Frameworks Plan (2006), the government asked early childhood education professionals and experts to discuss what such rights are in everyday practice in barnehager (see Bae 2006; Eide & Winger 2006). Recent early childhood research in Norway has focused on adult-child relationships in preschool day care centres (Berke 2001; Sandvik 2000). In Bae (2004), young children and adults appear as experiencing subjects with their own independent voices, but with reciprocal relationships with each other. Bae suggests that research which does not show how adults and children create premises for each other’s actions will not make practitioners more attentive to how they influence, and are themselves

52

Chapter Four

influenced by, the diverse children with whom they work. Bae (2006) suggests also that relationship research in higher education and in-service courses can create a new knowledge base conducive to new ethical stances regarding children’s rights. Early childhood practitioners who have not been educated to regard children as experiencing subjects can have difficulty in granting children their rightful voices. When they/we are not aware of reciprocal influences in interpersonal relationships, they/we might have trouble recognizing the power at work in interpersonal communications. Research on interactions between children and adults in barnehage settings in Norway (Bae 2004) and in other Nordic countries (Johansson 2003) has shown that it is possible to create relationships where children’s voices are given space. In what Bae (2004) called ‘spacious dialogic patterns’ (in contrast to ‘narrow’ patterns), young children of different backgrounds with different styles of interacting express their views, challenge practitioners in serious and playful ways, take initiatives, ask questions and pursue their intentions in powerful ways. Spacious dialogical patterns appear to create spaces for children’s voices in ways that are in line with children’s rights to expression and participation. Research itself is a critical issue, requiring researchers to rethink their theoretical and practical positions. Bae (2004; 2005) decided to reconstruct her ways of analysing interactions so that the voices of both children and adults became stronger. Instead of working with traditional researchers’ focus on static categories of communicational modes and ‘behaviour’, Bae examined interactive processes and phenomenological ways to portray them. In this way, critical thinking and reflection about ethical questions, including issues of the researcher’s power, strengthened the voices of children and teachers in the research process. Being selfreflective and taking a critical perspective on her research methodology, Bae (2005) says that it became obvious to her that the original research design was in part reductionist and did not do justice to the subjectivities of adults and children involved. Other Norwegian research (eg. Eide & Winger 2005; 2006) points to the expansion in methodologies or strategies used in Norway to (re)search for children’s perspectives. This approach to research rests on the premise that children have multiple and complex perspectives that need to be contextualized. The aim is to enable a child to speak in many languages and in many different ways. For example, quiet or non-verbal expressions

Young Children and Voice

53

may be as powerful as those spoken in clear voices; the voices of younger and older children are equally important; girls’ voices are as important as boys’. Children from all cultures and socio-economic classes should have the same opportunities to speak; educational institutions become a forum founded on the importance of reciprocity and commitment; children learn that all children are listened to and that different opinions and stories matter. A current research challenge is to listen to the youngest children. In Norway, there are children under three years of age in barnehagen, and these small children also have a right to be listened to and recognized (Hognestad 2007; Sandvik 2007). Norwegian ‘child research’ has had a strong focus on ethical challenges and considerations regarding children and their voices, and there are formal rules to be followed (Eide & Winger 2005; Svenning 2006). No matter what approach is chosen to make space for children’s voices, what is done demands competence and high ethical standards from the person responsible: the adult. We must address the asymmetry in research relations between adults and children. We must consider our position of power when we listen to children, when we plan our listening and when we reflect critically on this and write about it. In interviews, in ethnographic research and in everyday conversations, we have to remember that adults might influence or manipulate children into saying things. The national curriculum document for early childhood education and care with children aged 0-5 (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research 2006) emphasizes the importance of documentation (Kristoffersen 2007). Here ‘letting a child speak’ is coupled with written documentations of this and with more visual forms of presenting children’s voices, such as still photography, drawings and videos. Documentation is said to provide a solid ground for reflection and reconstruction of practice; and this sometimes links to contemporary research practice that blurs the everyday with theoretical and methodological writing. Here, a critical question (Brennhovd 2007; Svenning 2006) is: To what extent has a child voice and power to say that she or he does not want a specific kind of attention or self-presentation (e.g. a photo, video or other documentation)? A further question regards children themselves as photographers and documenters, and the ownership and the direction of such documenting. Who has the right to stories that are told? Whose voices are heard, and how will knowledge be presented from children’s supposed positions?

Chapter Four

54

In nations such as Norway that are known as socially democratic, the notion of social democracy needs to be extended to the youngest citizens. As members of society, children are citizens. They are not waiting until they are adult to become this; they have citizens’ rights now. They attend preschools and schools as part of national and state agendas. These rights are no less important for children whose families have arrived Norway recently, as refugees or as voluntary immigrants.

Summary Giving children a voice, listening to their stories, watching their agentic actions and really seeing them has to be grounded in an awareness of the asymmetric power relations between children and adults. A focus on children’s voices is not just a convenient way to legitimise postmodern knowledge. Respect for children requires: x x x x x x

New understandings of the complexities of situations and relationships Commitment by researchers and practitioners who are willing to make changes Self-reflective and self-critical attitudes from early childhood practitioners, policy makers and researchers Continuing to ask critical questions Attentiveness to and engagement with others’ subjectivities An ethical stance which evolves through interactions between children in preschools, practitioners, parents, researchers, theorists and higher education students.

This chapter has drawn from ethical and political positionings regarding young children in pedagogical and caring institutions to develop some principles for action. It has linked theories to make political statements about how professionals can be with children as they enact their practices of pedagogies, care and/or research. Political textual practices are intended to direct readers towards appropriate action principles. The chapter has emphasized that children inhabit space or place in their relations with others, and it has asked how these ideas apply in practice. Additionally, the chapter has challenged the belief that choice is simple, that research is finding out, and that pedagogy is a solution.

Young Children and Voice

55

Questions for reflection 1. How might you see children differently when you recognise them as capable and able? 2. What policy documents do you use to support you to listen to children’s voices in everyday practice? 3. What other policy documents exist that might support you to listen to children’s voices?

Further reading Clark, A., Kjørholt, A.T. & Moss, P. (eds) 2005, Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services. University of Bristol: Policy Press. Jans, M. 2004, ‘Children as citizens : towards a contemporary notion of child participation’, Childhood, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 27 - 44.

References Bae, B. 1996, Det interssante i det alminnelige, (The interesting in the ordinary.) Pedagogisk Forum, Oslo. —. 2004, Dialoger mellom førskolelærer og barn – en beskrivende og fortolkende studie. (Dialogues between preschool teachers and children – a descriptive and interpretive study.) Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Oslo, Norway. (Also published in the HIO series Rapport no 25, Høgskolen i Oslo, 2004.) —. 2005, ‘Troubling the identity of a researcher: methodological and ethical questions in cooperating with teacher-carers in Norway’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 283 - 291. —. 2006. Perspektiver på barns medvirkning i barnehage, i Barns medvirkning i barnehage, Temahefte utgitt av Kunnskapsdepartementet, Oslo. (Children’s Participation in Kindergartens. Publication by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.) pp. 6 – 27. Berke, L. 2001, Barns selvbestemmelse og innflytelse i dialoger med voksne i barnehagen. (Children`s self-definition and participation in interactions with adults in barnehagen.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. Brennhovd, M. 2007, Pedagogisk dokumentasjon i barnehagen – en etnografisk studie. (Pedagogical documentation in the kindergarten – an ethnographic study.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway.

56

Chapter Four

Brandtzæg, K-M. 2006, ‘Underground: early childhood and ageism in a perspective of power and disempowerment’, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 91 - 102. Bøe, M. 2006, Faglig utvikling i en aksjonsrettet kontekst – førskolelæreren som endringsagent. (Academic development in an action research context: the preschool teacher as agent of change.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway: HiO-masteroppgave 2006, nr 8. Clark, A., Kjørholt, A. T. & Moss, P. (eds) 2005, Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services. University of Bristol: Policy Press. Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. 2005, Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education, Routledge-Falmer, London. Eide, B. & Winger, N. 2005, ‘From the children’s point of view: methodological and ethical challenges’, in Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services, eds. A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt and P. Moss, University of Bristol: Policy Press. pp. 71 90. Eide, B. J. & Winger, N. 2006, ’Dilemmaer ved barns medvirkning i barnehage.’ (’Dilemmas concerning children’s participation in barnehage.’) In Barns medvirkning i barnehage, Temahefte utgitt av Kunnskapsdepartementet. (Children’s participation in Kindergartens. Publication by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research). pp. 28 – 50. Foucault, M. (2000). ‘Polemics, politics and problematizations.’ In P. Rabinow (Ed.) Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. Vol. I, Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press, pp. 111 - 120. Gillund, M. 2006, De yngste barnas medvirkning i barnehagens hverdagsliv. (The youngest children’s collaborations in day care centres’ everyday life.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. Oslo, HiOmasteroppgave 2006, nr 6. Hognestad, K. 2007, Medvirkning og ettåringene i barnehagen - et kritisk blikk påmøter mellom mennesker. (Participation and the one-year olds in barnehagen – a critical view on relationships.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. Jans, M. 2004, ‘Children as citizens : towards a contemporary notion of child participation’, Childhood, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 27 - 44. Johannesen, N. 2002, "Det glemte språket". Hvordan de minste barna i barnehagen bruker imitasjon i kommunikasjonen seg imellom. (‘The forgotten language.’ How the youngest children in barnehagen use

Young Children and Voice

57

imitation in communications between themselves.) Dissertation for Masters degree, Faculty of Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. HIO-hovedfagsrapport 2002 nr. 25. Johansson, E. 2003, ’Att närma sig barns perspektiv. Forskares och pedagogers möten med barns perspektiv.’ (‘To approach and understand a child`s perspective as a teacher and a researcher.’) Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, (Educational Research in Sweden.) vol. 1-2, pp. 42 - 57. James, A. & James, A. 2004, Constructing Childhood, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Kjørholt. A. T. 2004, Childhood as a Social and Symbolic Space: discourses on children as social participants in society. Norsk Senter for barneforsknin. (Doctoral dissertation, Trondheim Norway: Norwegian Centre for Child Research). —. 2007, ‘Childhood as a symbolic space: searching for authentic voices in the era of globalization’, Children`s Geographies, vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp. 29 - 42. Kristoffersen, A. E. (2007). ‘En forskjell som må fore til en forskjell – om barns medvirkningi planleggings - og vurderingsarbeidet.’ (‘A difference that has to lead to a difference – about children`s participation in planning and evaluation work.’) In Barns medvirkning i barnehage, Temahefte utgitt av Kunnskapsdepartementet. (Children’s participation in Kindergartens. Publication by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research). pp. 52 – 79. Levinas, E. 1998, in French 1986, Of God Who Comes to Mind. Stanford, Stanford University Press, California. Mac Naughton, G. 2003, Shaping Early Childhood: learners, curriculum and contexts, Open University Press, Berkshire England. Moss, P. Clark, A. & Kjørholt, A. T. 2005, ‘Introduction’, in Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services, eds. A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt & P. Moss, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 1 - 16. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. 2005, Act no. 64 of June 2005 relating to kindergartens (The Kindergarten Act). (English language version) Oslo, Norway. —. 2006, Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens. (English language version) Oslo, Norway. [Online] Available at: http://odin.dep.no/filarkiv/285775/rammeplanen-engelsk-pdf.pdf (Accessed 10 November 2006) Palludan, C. 2005, Børnehaven gør en forskel (Kindergarten makes a difference), København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitets forlag.

58

Chapter Four

Pedersen, K. E. 2006, Barns subjectiveringer i tid og rom. En etnografisk reise med en poststrukturell tilnærming: til en barnehageavdeling for barn under tre år. (Children’s subjectivities in time and space. Ethnographic travel with a poststructural approach: one section of a kindergarten with children aged under three.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. HiOmasteroppgave 2006, nr HiO-masteroppgave 2006, nr 6. Rhedding-Jones, J. 2005a, ‘Decentering Anglo-American curricular power in early childhood education: learning, culture and “child development” in higher education coursework’, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 143 - 165. (Section editors: G. S. Cannella and R. Viruru.) —. 2005b, What is Research? Methodological practices and new approaches, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Norway. —. 1995, ‘What do you do after you’ve met poststructuralism? Research possibilities regarding feminism, ethnography and literacy’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 479 - 500. Sandvik, N. 2000, Når munterhet rommer livets alvor. Fenomenet munterhet blant 1-3åringer i barnehage. (When joy/mirth holds the seriousness of life. The phenomenon of joy/mirth amongst one to three year olds.) Dissertation for Masters degree, Faculty of Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. —. 2007, ‘De yngste barnas medvirkning i barnehagen’, (‘The youngest children`s participation in barnehagen.’) Barn, vol. 1, pp. 27 - 45. Seland, M. 2004, Barnesamtalen. Narrative gruppeintervju med barn som en vei til medbestemmelse og nye erkjennelser i barnehagen. (Talking with children. Narrative group-interviews with children as a way towards participation and new ways of thinking in barnehagen.) Hovedfagsoppgave i førskolepedagogikk (Dissertation for Masters degree, Faculty of Early Childhood Education) DMMH/NTNU Trondheim, Norway. Soto, L. D. & Swadener, B. B. 2005, Power and Voice in Research with Children, Peter Lang, New York. Svenning, B. A. 2006, Hva forteller du om meg? Barn rett og mulighet til eget informert samtykke i datainnsamlingsprosesser i barnehager. (What do you tell about me? Children`s rights and possibilities to informed acceptance to attend data-collecting processes in barnehager.) Masters dissertation in Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway. HiO-masteroppgave 2006, nr 15

Young Children and Voice

59

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989, FN`s konvensjon om barns rettigheter av 20 nov, Oslo:Statens forvaltningtstjeneste ODIN. [Online] Available at: www.dep.no/bfd Viruru, R. 2001, Early Childhood Education: postcolonial perspectives from India, Sage, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, London. Woodhead, M. 2005, ‘Early childhood development: a question of rights?’ International Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 79 - 98. Øzalp, F. (2005). “Når jeg snakket tyrkisk, sa alltid de voksne HÆÆ”. Oppvekst i norske barnehager sett med noen tyrkiskspråklige barns øyne. (‘When I speak Turkish, the grown-ups always say “Huh?”’ Growing up in Norwegian preschools, seen through the eyes of Turkish-speaking children.) Dissertation for Masters degree, Faculty of Early Childhood Education, Oslo University College, Norway.

Glossary x

Instrumentalism: Instrumentalists include those behaviourists who would motivate and reinforce for specific purposes by causing something they have planned to happen as they want. In early childhood education, instrumentalism can be about manipulating children, parents and practitioners. The instruments of manipulation include language, fear and isolation. The uncovering of instrumentalist practices is an effect of knowledge about discourses of power. x Managerialism: Management discourses mean professional practices in institutions are controlled by managers who may or may not know the field. In the case of cultural diversity, for example, the concept of diversity may be bent to suit economic rationalists and their aims. Managerialism can thus work against marginalised groups, minorities and even professionals wanting agency.

SECTION II: CHILDREN IN POLICY MAKING

CHAPTER FIVE WORKING WITH CHILDREN TO CREATE POLICY: THE CASE OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY’S CHILDREN’S PLAN MELANIE SABALLA, GLENDA MACNAUGHTON AND KYLIE SMITH

Enactment of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child places obligations and responsibilities on governments to ensure children’s views are sought and considered on all matters that affect their lives. Listening to children’s unique perspectives as a way to inform policy is a key step towards promoting and protecting children’s rights. Involving children in the decision making process has implications for how governments firstly engage with young children and then use this information in meaningful ways. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Children’s Plan (ACT Children’s Plan) is the first instance in Australia where a state/territory government has formally sought young children’s views on a major social policy initiative. To ensure young children were involved in the development of the ACT Children’s Plan, a specialised consultation project was developed in partnership with Professor Glenda Mac Naughton from the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood (CEIEC), University of Melbourne. During a series of action learning sessions, the project team (Dr. Kylie Smith, Ms Heather Lawrence and Professor Glenda Mac Naughton) worked with early childhood professionals from a range of settings in the ACT. These staff were trained as children’s consultancy leaders who went on to implement an action research project focused on consulting with young children in their own setting.

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

63

This chapter details the innovative strategies used to engage young children (birth to eight years old) in this policy process and the unique and powerful perspectives children shared on what they see they need for their wellbeing; what they value and wish for in their lives; and what makes them feel valued. The project clearly demonstrates how it is possible to consult young children and to engage children’s capacity to make insightful and meaningful comments about what makes the world a better place for them to be in. The consultation project highlights a number of significant implications for policy makers. These include the obligations of policy makers to create opportunities to engage children’s voices, the pivotal role of early childhood practitioners in bringing these voices to the fore and possibilities and practicalities to ensure that children’s unique contributions inform the policy process. The chapter concludes with observations of how the ACT Government’s construction of a social policy and legislative framework that recognises the rights of children to participate in decision making that affects their lives has been the catalyst for a number of subsequent research projects. In these projects, children have informed decision making on responsive and inclusive policies, programs and services for children and their families.

Project overview The Consulting with Children Birth to Eight Years of Age Project was part of the a wider consultation process for the development of the ACT Children’s Plan, where the ACT Government consulted with key stakeholders (including children) to develop a strategic policy framework concerning children in the ACT aged between birth and 12 years old. The ACT Government outlined the vision, goals and principles of its Children’s Plan in The ACT Children’s Plan: a Draft Discussion Paper, which it launched in August 2003. The vision was for the ACT Children’s Plan, to support all children in the ACT to be given, ‘the best chance to achieve their full potential’. There were three objectives within this for children to: x x x

live in strong and supportive families and communities achieve physical, cognitive, social and emotional wellbeing be valued members of the community.

Chapter Five

64

As part of the consultation strategy, 2,500 children (eight to twelve years of age) filled out a survey distributed through schools that asked questions about their lives: for example, what is good about being a child, what is not so good and what would make Canberra a better place for children. In late 2003, the ACT government decided to include children from birth to eight years of age in the consultation strategy. This decision recognised: x x x x

the importance of early years development young children and their families access a range of services the view of children as capable and agentic the participation of young children (under eight years of age) was new and innovative work requiring specialist consultation strategies.

The ACT Government engaged the CEIEC to facilitate this consultation using an action learning strategy. The consultation project was designed to support the ACT Children’s Plan consultation process by enhancing the ability of early childhood staff within the ACT to: x x x x x x

encourage children, families and early childhood staff to participate in the ACT Children’s Plan consultation process enact the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in a practical way that other early childhood staff and families can emulate enhance the life of families and children in the ACT by increasing their awareness of children’s roles and perspectives in their everyday lives enable early childhood staff to improve their capacity to relate children’s ideas and perspectives to their everyday work build the capacity of early childhood staff to share their knowledge about young children’s rights with children, families and the early childhood community in the ACT generate an archive of information about a practical, strengthsbased approach to working with young children and their families.

In August 2003, information on the ACT Children’s Plan and an accompanying Expressions of Interest form for involvement in the Consultation with children birth to eight years of age project was sent widely to early childhood settings and programs across the ACT. A diversity of settings was viewed as important in engaging both mainstream

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

65

and targeted groups of young children, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, children in the care and protection system and children with a disability. Settings included all ACT licensed children’s services, Children’s Services Early Intervention Programs, ACT Government Preschools (including Indigenous Preschool), ACT Government and Non-Government primary schools (including special schools) and a number of community agencies working directly with young children. Sixteen children’s services agreed to participate in the project. These services included family day care, play group, child care services, primary school, preschool, a special education unit (school for children with a disability) and a women’s refuge.

Learning to consult children Part of the vision for the ACT Children’s Plan was to ensure that children were actively involved in the consultation process and to gain from them information about what a child focused environment feels like. Early childhood professionals are uniquely placed to take a lead role in consulting young children. Their professional training in early childhood pedagogies and practices equips them with a sound knowledge base in seeking children’s views, listening to children and documenting children’s learning. However, they cannot do this work without appropriate resources and support. The action learning training program and the professional networking opportunities provided in the Project were crucial to the capacity of participants to consult with young children. Specifically, they: x x x x x x

provided participants with time to plan how to engage best practice strategies for consulting young children expanded participants’ repertoire of strategies that they could use to consult young children increased participants’ desires and capacity to consult young children increased the time participants gave to listening to young children increased understanding for participants about young children’s knowledge and preferences enabled participants to network with other professionals and engage in critical reflection with them about how best to consult young children.

Sixteen early childhood professionals participated in the action-learning program. The program explored how to access and present children’s

Chapter Five

66

perspectives in ways that are age-appropriate and appropriate to the specific circumstances of the consultation process. The sessions included the following: x x x x x

diverse interactive teaching strategies and resources to support teaching and learning during the consultations research-based insights into children as competent citizens research-based insights into the role of early childhood staff in eliciting children’s views in ways that are meaningful and are developmentally and culturally appropriate research-based studies by practitioner-researchers who have included children’s voices in their programs and daily decisionmaking in meaningful ways a learning process that is strategic, supported in practical and theoretical ways and is geared to changing their practices through critical reflection.

Mac Naughton and Williams (2004) argue that to listen carefully to young children requires adults to: x

x x

x x

make specific times to seek children’s views and listen to their responses. Children’s lives in early childhood centres can become dominated by adult directions, expectations and thoughts, as children spend between 25 percent and 50 percent of their time listening to staff (Renck Jalongo 1995). Clearly, adults who are seeking children’s views on specific issues need to address this imbalance. They should find time to listen to the children, so that the children see that staff are interested in their perspectives and feel that they can direct the conversation. wait a few seconds before responding, so that the children realise that their comments are taken seriously (Seefedlt 1980). help children to learn to listen to others by actively listening to them. Many adults are poor listeners who are, ‘... preoccupied, distracted and forgetful nearly 75 percent of the time.’ (Renck Jalongo 1995). If staff want children to become thoughtful and active listeners, they should display such qualities in themselves. respond to children’s comments with care and thought. act as a scribe for what children say, rather than as a commentator on it.

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

67

These techniques need to be accompanied by processes that help children to share their views and come to a position. Some tried and true examples of such processes are: x x x x x x x

raise a question or an issue on which you would like children’s comments offer children different ways (e.g. images, voice, text) to share their knowledge talk with children, listen to them and then document/record what they said look for similarities and differences in what children share and tell the children about them explore how to use what children shared (and what they didn’t) to create a sense of what might happen explore who is advantaged, disadvantaged, silenced or marginalised in the process of seeking and sharing ideas engage children in discussions of what is fair and not fair about what they see, feel and believe and try to find the fair way forward.

The consultation questions Children invited to participate in the project were asked three questions derived from the broader consultations about the ACT Children’s Plan. These questions were: 1. What do the children think that they need for their wellbeing? (The practitioners who consulted children used several words for ‘wellbeing’, including good, happy, safe, okay, belonging, included, excited.) 2. What do the children value and wish for in their lives? 3. What makes the children feel valued? These questions were developed further so that they were age appropriate and socially and culturally relevant. Thus: 1. What do the children think that they need for their wellbeing? Examples of questions teachers asked children who were verbal were: x

When do you feel good, happy, safe, okay, belonging, included, excited, sad, angry?

Chapter Five

68

x

What makes you feel good, happy, safe, okay, belonging, included, excited, sad, angry?

Teachers working with children who were non-verbal used observation and documented: x x x

body language social interactions reactions.

2. What do the children value and wish for in their lives? Examples of questions teachers asked children who were verbal were: x x x x

If you had your best day at preschool what would you be doing? Who would be there? Where would things be? What would it look like?

Teachers working with children who were non-verbal created opportunities for the children to move around and documented the results. For example: x x

Where do they go? Where do they enjoy being?

3. What makes the children feel valued? Examples of questions teachers asked children who were verbal were: x x x x

How do you know this place is for children? What do you like to do with your family in Canberra and why? What makes you feel welcome? What makes you feel special, important or needed?

Teachers working with children who were non-verbal created opportunities for the children to move around and documented the results. They explored: x x x

Taking the inside out and the outside in. Where do the children go, especially in relation to the adult/s? Who decides where babies go - adults or babies?

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

69

Consultation strategies Children were invited to using various media to express their ideas and feelings in response to these questions. Data generated by the children in response to these questions included paintings, drawings, a CD-ROM, poems, a quilt, audio-tapes and text. Adults also gathered data from children in response to these questions through field notes of discussions with and observations of children, plus photographs and audio-recordings.

What we learnt One hundred and thirty-seven children participated in the consultation. Those children who participated in the project identified what they needed for their wellbeing, and what they wished for in relation to three domains of their life: Family and home Children in this project highlighted the prime importance to them of safe and caring families in their lives. They wanted time with their families and it was key people within their families that made them feel safe. A home in which members of the family have time together and time apart was also important for many of the children. These needs were expressed in different ways by different groups of children. For those children in a Women’s Refuge, being reunited with their family and having a place that was their family home were the things that they wanted most strongly. For those children who were living with their family in their family home, maintaining the status quo was important. For example: Jasmine who was seven years of age said: My family is special because they are all ways there for me.

Another example was at the Daintree early childhood centre. Staff there observed six children between 23 and 26 months old, noting with what and with whom they preferred to play, to understand how these children sought to achieve ‘wellbeing’. Shannon (the practitioner) analysed these observations and found that time and space with family was important to four of the six children.

70

Chapter Five

As a result, staff at the centre re-examined their practice of grouping children according to age and are considering grouping children in family groups. 2. The early childhood curriculum Children valued and enjoyed the opportunity to have a say in things that affect them. They also demonstrated their capacity to express their views on those things that affect their daily lives. This has direct implications for how early childhood staff take decisions about programs for young children and the extent to which their voice is present in those programs. Children’s desire for family, for friends, for play, for time with others and time by themselves, for home-like spaces in which they have choices and for sharing their ideas and having them documented link directly to questions of how best to design an early childhood curriculum that values children and that supports their sense of wellbeing. For example, four-year old children attending one preschool and long day care service were asked what they value and wish for by pretending that they were going to ‘the best preschool in the whole world’. The teacher asked the children what that would look like. Luca (4 years) talked about being able to do what he did at home and having his own belongings. He said: You can watch the Sharkies on TV at this preschool. You get to snuggle up on a great big teddy bear to watch TV. There’s no sleeptime at this preschool. The teacher is Sandra and sometimes it’s Beth too. The teachers hug me at preschool. You can eat roo-ups and bickies at this preschool. You can stay there all day and you ride your bike there and you ride it home, too. … I’m happy on this day because I’ve got all my toys at preschool. I’ve got my dog there, too, and he can even come inside to the preschool.

Bronte (4 years old) talked about how she was happy when she was in a quiet place at preschool and there is time to talk with adults. She said: I’m happy in this picture at the lucky, lucky preschool because it’s no noisy there. There aren’t too many kids. The teachers sit down and talk to you all the time. They let you decide what to do all the time. They don’t tell you what to do.

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

71

Darius (4 years old) focused on the importance of preschool being a place where he could relax with friends in comfortable spaces and make choices about what he did and what he ate. He said: There’s a lovely couch with heaps of colourful cushions for all my friends. You can sit there and watch ‘Hairy Maclary’ on the TV. I’ve got the remote for the TV so I can choose what’s on next. You can eat some crackers with Vegemite.

3. The environs of Canberra and their local community Children of different ages were clearly aware of the Canberra environs. The children valued space for play, meeting friends and being in nature. Having a safe environment was also important to the children. For example, an aquarium was identified as valuable infrastructure in the ACT by one of the children. Nimmo, five years of age, demonstrates his capacity to compare the attributes of different aquaria and to design what he sees as the best aquarium in the world: Well, this is a dark tunnel which you go into - like the one in Sydney - and this girl catching Dory and the big one is Marlin but he got away from the jelly fish. This is the best aquarium but I haven’t been to it yet, but I certainly want to. I went to the one at the zoo in Canberra and it was pretty good and I saw some penguins there.

Bob (5 years) identified Parliament House as a place of value. In what he said he demonstrated knowledge of the relationship between politicians and Parliament House: This is Parliament House, which we need because all of the politicians work there.

The ACT Children’s Plan 2004 - 2014 Consulting children in the development of the ACT Children’s Plan provided the catalyst to increase the visibility of issues for children. The strong themes of ‘having a say’, ‘being involved in decision making’ and ‘being respected’ were reflected in the ACT Children’s Plan priorities, strategies and actions to improve the lives of children. For example:

72

Chapter Five

Priority 12: Children are unique and valued citizens with equal rights. Strategies: Promote and increase children’s participation in the community. Improve and enhance programs and services in response to feedback from children. Actions: Skill communities in how to participate with children in program development and decision making by developing good practice guidelines and providing advisory services. The ACT Children’s Plan also reflected a shift in language, talking about children as active citizens who shape as well as being shaped by their relationships and experiences. Children as citizens and rights holders and children as unique and valued citizens are also captured in the ACT Children’s Plan priorities and actions. The ACT Human Rights Act 2004 and the Children and Young People Act 1999 provided a legislative framework articulating a strong human rights focus and recognition of children’s and young people’s right to be involved in decision making that affects them. Recent amendments to the Children and Young People Bill 2007 include a section on engaging children and young people in research and the structures for this to happen in appropriate and ethical ways.

Subsequent research projects in the ACT Consulting children in the development of the ACT Children’s Plan tested a set of methodologies that have been influential in the development of subsequent research work with children in the ACT. Consultation for the ACT Children’s Plan showed that: x Children can and do provide insightful comment on public policy. Increased visibility of children’s issues helps policy makers improve accountability of policy decisions. x Engaging young children’s perspectives and understanding more about their current realities require specialist strategies that are based on relationships in familiar environments and settings. x Early childhood staff and policy makers play an important intermediary role in conveying children’s voices to decision makers. The Hearing Young Children’s Voices Project also made recommendations for research practice that acknowledges the input of children in ethical and

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

73

respectful ways. This included explaining to children the reasons for the research, acknowledging their expertise, letting them know how their views would be used and feeding back on outcomes of the research. The ACT Children’s Plan documents included a poster for children and cardboard brochures with key themes, from children’s input to the development of the Plan. Since the launch of the ACT Children’s Plan in 2004, the ACT Government’s commitment to seeking children’s views on issues that affect them has been demonstrated in a number of projects. These include (but are not limited to): x

x

x

Children as a principal group were engaged in consultation to inform the role and function of an ACT Commissioner for Children and Young People (a key commitment of the ACT Children’s Plan). The consultation strategy included the views of vulnerable children through the engagement of key adults and networks that work with children. Children residing in out of home care, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young children and children with a disability assisted in informing government on the role and function of Commissioner for Children and Young People. ‘Listening to kids; kids having a say; and a Commissioner respecting and knowing about children’ were recurring themes raised by children. Establishment of the Children’s Advisory Council to seek children’s advice on the design and construction of the ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services Gungahlin Child and Family Centre (a range of integrated services for children and families) in 2005. 20 children from local primary schools participated in a range of activities that included site visits, discussion of building plans, conducting surveys with their peers on design features and developing a range of recommendations to make the new Centre ‘Everyone’s Centre’. These recommendations included how to make the Centre accessible for children, for people with prams and for people with a disability (including visual disability). For example, the children recommended that the new Centre should have ‘a retreat for guide dogs (water bowl, rest spot and grass)’. The Institute of Child Protection Studies (ICPS) was established in June 2005 and is a partnership between the ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services and the

Chapter Five

74

Australian Catholic University’s Canberra Campus. The ICPS aims to carry out research that leads to improved practice in the care and protection of children and young people. The Institute actively seeks the views of those affected by a program or service, including children and young people. In 2007, the Institute researched children and young people’s perspectives on homelessness.

Final reflection and chapter summary In the Hearing Young Children’s Voices Project, children gave the ACT Government much to think about. Children’s areas of concern and interest touched several policy areas, including: x family and children’s services policies x housing policies x care and protection policies x community safety policies x policies on community infrastructure and public spaces. This range of policy areas children told us touched their lives and their sense of wellbeing and happiness highlights that the policies that affect young children range well beyond services aimed directly at young children. They point to the wide range of financial and resource allocation decisions in public policy - such as housing policy and environmental policy - that make a difference to young children’s rights and wellbeing. The ACT Government accepted recommendations from the report of this project and they are playing a key role in promoting children’s understandings and their implications across government as well as in the broader public arena.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

Do governments need child policy advocates to document and speak children’s politics about their world? Can children ever have a meaningful voice in policy making when they don’t have the right to vote or when they offer opposing views to the government and/or their parents? How can we not only hear but act on children’s ideas? When we cannot, for whatever reasons, enact policy that honours all children’s views and opinions, how (and why) do we make visible the voices of children who have not been privileged?

Working with Children to Create Policy: The Case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan

5.

75

How do we consider the complex intersections of culture, ‘race’, class, gender and sexuality in representing children’s voices in policy making?

Further reading Australian Catholic University 2007, Finding their way home: children’s experiences of homelessness, Institute of Child Protection Studies. [Online]. Report available at: http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/51359/FINALFindi ngtheirWayHome.pdf ACT Government 2004, ACT Children’s Plan 2004-2014, [Online]. Available at: http://www.children.act.gov.au/documents/childrensplan.pdf —. 2006, Listening to Kids Report: Emerging themes from children’s responses to a Commissioner for Children and Young People. Available at: http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/4899/Listening _to_Kids.pdf Mac Naughton, G., Hughes, P. & Smith, K. 2007, Young children’s rights and public policy: practices and possibilities for citizenship in the early years. Children and Society. [Online]. Available at: http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.10990860.2007.0 0096.x Mac Naughton, G. & Smith, K. 2004, Consulting with Children Birth to Eight Years of Age: hearing young children’s voices (Report), ACT Government and Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, University of Melbourne. [Online: Available at: http://www.children.act.gov.au/documents/under5report.pdf

References Mac Naughton, G. & Williams, G. 2004, Teaching Techniques for Young Children, 2nd edn, Addison, Wesley Longman, Melbourne. Renck Jalongo, M. 1995, ‘Promoting active listening in the classroom’, Childhood Education, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 13 - 18. Seefeldt, C. 1980, Teaching Young Children. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Chapter Five

76

Glossary x

x

Children’s Plan. A Children’s Plan is a document that outlines the needs of children within an organisation or community and how that organisation or community will support children and their environment so that children can grow and develop in safe and healthy spaces. Action learning. Action learning is a form of professional development that grew out of action research. It is an especially effective form of professional development, because it starts from participants’ current issues and concerns and builds on their existing strengths and knowledge. At the heart of action learning is the practice of critical reflection, i.e. questioning your takenfor-granted practices and their effects and considering alternative ways to speak and act that imply changes in your view of yourself and of others.

CHAPTER SIX CHILDREN’S VOICES IN DECISION-MAKING ABOUT THEIR BEST INTERESTS: THE CASE OF THE VICTORIAN CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM SHARNE A. ROLFE

When children become clients of a child protection system, decisionmaking about their lives broadens beyond the family to include diverse professional groups, including protective, legal and medical practitioners, psychologists and social workers. Through Children’s Court (Family Division) processes, these professionals contribute to profoundly significant decisions about children’s lives, including case plans about where and with whom children will be reared. Issues around safety and protection of children’s physical, emotional and psychological welfare must be weighed against the impact on their development of experiences such as supervision of the family, or at the extreme, removal from the family and placement in foster or permanent care. ‘In the child’s best interests’ is the guiding legislative principle for decision-making in the Children’s Court, but who contributes to this process, and how a particular course of action is decided upon, is in reality quite fuzzy. This chapter will explore some of the complex and multi-faceted challenges and possibilities around children’s voices being heard in such complex processes. Whether, how and by whom children are consulted, and what priority their views are given, are pressing concerns at a time when children are being re-visioned as active, competent and rightful citizens. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the child protection legislation in the Australian state of Victoria. It goes on to explore views about what ‘in the best interests of the child’ means. It then considers some of the dilemmas that arise in incorporating the voice of the child in

78

Chapter Six

the process of protective decision-making and case planning. Finally, it illustrates what exemplary practice might look like if maltreated children are to become powerful partners in decisions affecting their lives. The chapter draws on the author’s experience of providing child and family relationship assessments to inform case planning and judicial decisionmaking in Victorian Children’s Courts for over 10 years. It is grounded in Attachment Theory and theoretically-driven perspectives on children’s rights as encapsulated in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.

The legislative context The State of Victoria has recently enacted new legislation pertaining to child protection and care. In 2007, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA), assented to on 7/12/2005, replaced existing legislation The Children and Young Persons Act 1989 (CYPA) and part of the Community Services Act 1970 (CSA). There are a number of substantive changes in child protection policy introduced under the new Act, including emphasis on use of community-based services for at-risk families without recourse to court proceedings, and provisions aiming to achieve greater stability of care for children in out-of-home placements. But there has been only limited change concerning the place of children’s voices in decisions. The CYFA and the CYPA include statements regarding the need for the Children’s Court to consider wishes expressed by the child, but in both Acts, these provisions are conservative in nature. For example, in the new Act, under the Best Interests Principles of the child (s10), it is stated that the child’s views and wishes must be considered, ‘where relevant … if they can be reasonably ascertained, and they should be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances’ (emphasis added) (CYFA, 2005, s 10(d), p. 22). To all intents and purposes these words are the same as those in the earlier Act. This circumscribed role accorded the voices of maltreated children in decisions about their best interests is consistent with the thrust of current Australian legislation generally and the views of children and childhood encapsulated therein. In Australia, parents not only have the legal obligation to provide for their children’s needs - provision of food, shelter and clothing, education and protection - until they are 18 years of age, but in most circumstances they alone have the right to decide what is in their child’s best interests. Only recently in some Australian courts have children been able to enter into a direct relationship with their legal representatives, rather than having another adult, usually the parent, acting

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

79

as go-between (Ross 2005). For example, in the Family Court of Australia, a Federal jurisdiction, child representatives are appointed (under section 68L of the Family Law Act, 1975) to promote the child’s best interests in family law matters. However, while the guidelines require that child representatives give children opportunities to express their wishes and ensure these are put before the Court, the representative is free to take expert advice and make a submission to the court that the child’s interests would be best served by decisions that contradict the child’s expressed wishes. Some courts allow children to make decisions about matters such as moving out of home, or with whom they want to live, but only if the court decides that they have sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding of that matter, and can make an informed decision about it.

Unraveling the concept of ‘in the child’s best interests’ Within the CYFA, the best interests of the child are the paramount guiding principle for determining a decision or course of action for that child. Best interests, for the purposes of the new Act, include the need to protect the child from harm, to protect the child’s rights, to promote the child’s development, to strengthen relationships between the child, parent and family, and to protect and promote the cultural and spiritual identity of the child. The Act identifies the parent and child as the fundamental unit in society. Whilst this list appears straightforward enough, weighing up the various factors to reach a decision about best interests is an extremely complex and fuzzy process, not least because there are significant tensions between how each of the various stated goals might best be achieved. Given life’s complexities, prioritizing one goal more often than not puts another at risk. As just one example, and based on my own case experiences, children exposed to severe domestic violence between their birth mother and her live-in partner may well be removed from the family to protect them from this harm if other interventions such as family support and parent education have failed, and the couple will not separate. Whilst children are thereby protected from direct exposure to ongoing violence, the act of removal in and of itself places their general psychological wellbeing at risk, since it undermines their ongoing relationship with their mother. From the perspective of attachment theory, removal disrupts a child’s primary attachment relationships, and this affects both current and future psychological health profoundly through its negative effects on the

80

Chapter Six

core of personality, the emergent self, especially if removal occurs during the early childhood years. The child’s sense of self emerges via relationships with primary attachment figures. Removal of the young child from the attachment figure(s) is inevitably interpreted by the child as rejection and abandonment (e.g. Cummings & Cicchetti 1990) with subsequent negative effects on the developing psyche and self esteem. Disruption to the attachment relationship is not only a physical separation, but also a psychological loss. This loss threatens the ‘integrity of the self’ (Howe 1995, p. 57), that is, the child’s core concept of self as lovable and worthy. As Fahlberg (1991) describes it, ‘when that [attachment] bond is broken, the very structure of the personality is endangered’ (p. 143). At each stage of the child protection process, from initial investigation of protective notifications, during case planning and through to Children’s Court Orders, decision-makers grapple with a multitude of complex dilemmas such as these every day. Making sense of, working with and taking action around slippery, complex concepts like ‘unacceptable harm’, ‘promoting development’, ‘strengthening relationships’ and ‘identity’ are the everyday grist to the mill of professionals within the child protection system. There is a constant weighing and re-weighing of facts, impressions, possibilities and hunches regarding an ever-changing human canvas (people, relationships, contexts) of great complexity, vulnerability and sensitivity. For example, parents whose children have been removed will often complain that child protection services require them to jump one hurdle after another, and even though they may be under the impression that achieving the next hurdle will be sufficient for their child to be returned, it is usually followed by yet another. Hurdles might include achieving clean drug screens, undertaking counseling and/or parent education and/or anger management programs. In reality, these rarely come together at the same time, or there is often uncertainty as to whether success has been achieved, or even how this might be evaluated. As a result, protective practitioners struggle with whether it is yet safe to recommend that a child should return home and, as result, may erect still further hurdles. Inevitably, the holy grail of a definitive answer to an unknowable future remains elusive, with children often waiting years for final decisions. This, then, is an inexact science, yet decisions reached about best interests are often cloaked in implied ‘evidential certainty’. Whilst this may partly assuage the anxiety, uncertainty and guilt of the professionals involved, it does not and cannot change the messy, lived reality of the children – and families – who have little choice but to enact

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

81

over ensuing days, months and years the decisions taken by others on their behalf. As many others have discussed, objectivity and rationality are privileged to such an extent within modern Western discourse that binary oppositions are de rigueur, even within the murky waters of child welfare (e.g. see Atwool 2000). Modern, Western constructions of child protection assume there is a right or correct course of action that can be taken, a right or correct set of decisions that can be made that will, in essence, and at the very least, protect the child from harm. In reality, decision-making is more often than not about best guesses, hopeful conjectures, least-worst options and wait-and-see tactics, quite often based on shaky information from inadequately-resourced professionals whose input is rendered questionable by its subjectivity, and limited depth, breadth and richness (for further discussion of these issues, see Wilkinson 2005, and King 1997). Children see this happening whilst adults continue to pretend. Recently, Mudaly and Goddard (2006) have focused on the silencing of children within child protection systems, drawing on a qualitative, interview/conversation-based study of nine Victorian children assessed by the police and/or child protection authorities as having been maltreated. Mudaly’s and Goddard’s book reveals the power of the voices of maltreated children and extensive quotations from the study’s participants raise important arguments for the inclusion of maltreated children’s voices in decision-making processes. The quotation from which the title of their book is drawn (The truth is longer than a lie) makes explicit one child’s insight that the child protection system is based on a search for simple ‘answers’, rather than complex truths: That’s always the problem with these people, they don’t want to believe the truth, they just want the easiest side, the side that is … the simplest, basically … They don’t want to hear the truth because the truth is so much harder to understand and so much longer than a lie about the truth. (12year-old girl who has experienced sexual abuse and family violence.)

Mason (2005) has also critiqued the concept of ‘the child’s best interests’. She states that the, ‘rhetoric reinforces paternalistic decision-making and legitimates adult power or authority over children’ (p. 95) and that, ‘these assumptions work to camouflage the extent to which “best interests” decision-making is based on individual adults’ discretion and therefore subjectivities’ (p. 96). Courses of action decided by adults on behalf of children simply redistribute power over children from one set of adults to

82

Chapter Six

another, rather than increasing a child’s power. Mason concludes that some protective interventions actually increase the vulnerability of maltreated children.

Some dilemmas in incorporating the voice of the young child in the process of decision-making and case planning in child protection Moving from any system based on relatively simple binary oppositions to one that genuinely embraces complexity is a challenging and fraught process. Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to how to empower the child within the child protection system. Smedley (1999) has sought to ‘unpack’ a system of child protection dominated by fear and anxiety. Based on her own extensive experience as a professional working within the child protection system in Wales, she discusses how organisational pressures, media coverage and the interpersonal stresses of the job can collude to produce professionals who undertake, ‘not child protection work but risk insurance’ (p. 113). Fundamental to her thesis is that fear and anxiety – at societal, organizational and individual levels – about a phenomenon such as child maltreatment prevent full engagement with the complexity and diversity of that phenomenon. At the individual level, this becomes manifest in professionals who are prevented from developing a genuine understanding of the maltreated children with whom they work. At the system level, it is manifest in policies and organizations unable to adequately meet the real needs of children and families. There are thus two main dilemmas: firstly, how to ensure children’s genuine participation in decision-making processes; and secondly, how to ensure children’s genuine representation by those charged with this responsibility. Fattore and Turnbull (2005) draw on Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy (Habermas 1990) to argue that decisions are only legitimate when they are reached through a process that allows all who wish to participate to do so as equals. This radical proceduralism, in their view, paves the way for adult-child communication that is non-coercive, ‘taking the form of a dialogue rather than unilateral instruction’ (Fattore & Turnbull 2005, p. 49 - 50). The challenge is not only to include children, but to learn how to listen, rather than question and/or interrogate. As things stand, there is a great risk of maltreated children being traumatized and re-traumatised by professional interviews. In my own case experiences, it is not unusual for children to be interviewed by many people, often being asked the same questions over and over again. This

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

83

can be pronounced, especially when children express a wish (e.g. to be reunited with a parent) that is not in accord with the case plan. Similarly, a child’s instructions to their legal representative about crucial decisions (for example, reunification with one or other parent) might have to be taken over the telephone, without preparation and in the context of the child having been peremptorily summoned from their classroom. These sorts of experiences are consistent with the conclusion of Chris Sidoti, former Australian Human Rights Commissioner, who wrote recently that, ‘… often children are silent in courts, or rather are treated simply as the victims from whom information is to be extracted with the maximum degree of pain.’ (2005, p. 20). What might exemplary practice look like if maltreated children are to become powerful partners in decisions affecting their lives? There are no easy solutions to the challenge of facilitating and honoring children’s genuine participation in decision-making (Wilkinson 2005). However, there are three core ‘givens’: x x x

Acknowledge children as competent, knowing partners in decision-making Allow children to engage with adults in genuine power-sharing Create relationship contexts of emotional security in which the authentic voice of the maltreated child can be expressed.

Acknowledge children as competent, knowing partners in decision-making The new sociology of childhood sees children as competent ‘beings’, not as ‘becomings’ (Mason 2005, p. 92) who have a right to act with adults rather than have adults act on their behalf. This requires arriving at shared or intersubjective understandings. Fattore and Turnbull (2005) have argued that this can only happen when the focus is on genuine acknowledgement of difference, rather than on ‘the merging of ideas’: Because significant differences and similarities exist between adults and children, some of which are embodied and some of which reflect different communicative competencies, interpretation is possible not on the basis of being in the other’s position, but by virtue of co-acting in a shared social world. Therefore we can avoid either defining children entirely in adult terms or excluding them from social relationships … Appreciating the partial nature of intersubjective understanding … safeguards against objectifying children as a group of inferior status. (p. 54)

84

Chapter Six

Allow children to engage with adults in genuine power-sharing Fattore and Turnbull (2005) have also discussed the significance of such child-oriented communication for genuine power-sharing between maltreated children and the adults who work in child protection systems. Drawing on the case of child protection in the Australian state of New South Wales, they argue that management practices in that state compromise the ability of workers to provide the sort of ‘radical and intensive casework’ (p. 55) required to promote the needs of the maltreated child, i.e. to allow them to be powerful agents in decisionmaking processes. The form of casework they imagine would allow for the participation of children so that they determine their needs. Without this, the child is relegated to the position of a powerless, ‘virtual’ actor (Wilkinson 2005, p. 64). Time to Listen to Children (Milner & Carolin 1999) is a collection of chapters written by experienced professionals who have dared to listen truly to children. The authors’ experiences provide encouraging directions for practice. Their efforts to hear what children think, feel and need challenges complacency born of denial or rejection of the need to know what truly concerns children. Milner and Carolin’s thesis is that the ‘not knowing’, i.e. the inability to engage with a truly child-centred perspective, is an outcome of adult fears – fear of children’s power, fear of losing control, fear of the feelings that might come if one’s own memories of childhood experiences rouse one’s ‘inner child’. Drawing on the person-centred approach of Carl Rogers (e.g. Rogers 1961), Milner and Carolin (1999) argue that hearing children requires genuineness (through self awareness); care, acceptance and respect (often referred to as unconditional positive regard); and empathy (sensitive, active listening): … empathic understanding is a sensitive, active listening that respects difference, and this is rare. We may think we listen, but we rarely do so with real insight or true empathy … We listen to words rather than to “meanings”, which can clearly put children at a verbal disadvantage, and we are often too busy forming our own response to value what we hear. (p. 6)

Create relationship contexts of emotional security in which the authentic voice of the maltreated child can be expressed. Attachment theory emphasises the interpersonal dimension of trust as a pre-requisite for genuine communication (Bowlby 1988). Children will only share their feelings, be they positive or negative, and the depth and complexity of their views and wishes within a trusting relationship. By

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

85

definition, a relationship can only exist when it has been allowed to develop. This takes many things, including time, patience and respect. Trust will only exist to the extent that children have experienced, time and time again, that they are secure with this adult, and that their needs will be met sensitively, consistently and responsively. Attachment theory also emphasises the particular challenges of establishing trust with children who have been maltreated. Each person develops a unique view of themselves and their self worth through their earliest attachment relationships, referred to as the person’s inner working model of the world (see also Merleau-Ponty 1964). When children are maltreated by significant attachment figures, the inner working model that forms is insecure, bound up with feelings of self doubt and expectations of rejection that are carried forward into new relationships. Change is always possible, and attachment theory is a pathways model of development, emphasizing the power of new, positive experiences to transform past negative experiences. This, however, is a long process, and for most children, child protection proceedings occur at a time of great disruption, uncertainty, hurt and anxiety, rendering almost futile the efforts of other adults, no matter how caring, to gain the child’s trust. Therefore, finding ways to engage maltreated children so that their voices may be heard requires highly creative ways of listening. Achieving a ‘private space for safe, free expression, rather than a collusive experience that burdens and inhibits’ (Giles & Mendelson 1999) is not easy, and often means that one-to-one, verbally-based communication is inappropriate. Techniques including art, music and play-based approaches meaningful to children need to be explored and utilized to a greater extent, particularly by lawyers and case workers whose evidence is most commonly relied upon in the current legal context. For example, there is an extensive literature on the use of doll play and family drawings by young children as a means to explore feelings and family relationships (see Rolfe 2004). Both techniques offer young children age-appropriate means of expression. In my own work, children’s drawings often reveal complexities that may well be difficult or impossible for young children to articulate, and that fly in the face of the efforts by legal representatives to present to the court children’s views that are simple and clear-cut. For example, one child who had lived with her paternal grandmother since infancy drew a family picture that only included her grandmother and other members of the paternal extended family when I saw her in her

86

Chapter Six

grandmother’s home. However, when I saw her during access with her birth mother and siblings, her family drawing was of these people – i.e. her mother and siblings – although, interestingly, she turned the page to draw her siblings. She did both drawings without any input from the adults involved, and it seemed to me that this child was revealing quite complex concepts of ‘family’ in her perception of her world. Furthermore, the drawings presented both ‘families’ as sources of happiness and belongingness for her. This child’s drawings of family are open to many interpretations. However, in my professional view, they challenged any simple suppositions that her concepts of family belongingness would reflect only (even primarily) where and with whom she had lived. Rather than just therapeutic tools, approaches such as these, especially if used within a relationship that has had time to develop, are essential to the decision-making process. Case studies of exemplary practice provide new directions for radical child advocacy in which children are active and powerful participants. For example, Kenkel and Couling (2006) privilege the voices of children who have witnessed domestic violence; and Aubrey and Dahl (2006) examine how vulnerable children can contribute to the creation of democratic communities. However, international experience reveals how difficult it can be to achieve this form of practice without adequate resources, despite concerted efforts over many years (e.g. see Monro 1999). Another important initiative is family group conferencing which includes the voices of children actively and deliberately (Kiely 2005). The family group conference may be an ideal process through which the child’s voice can be empowered, given that each individual is supported actively before, during and after the conference. Kiely highlights the complex ethical issues to be considered when incorporating children’s voices in these and other kinds of decision-making processes. As Kiely states, for this to work for children, the process must be child-centred: … expecting children to perform like adults in adult processes will only emphasize the differences between adults and children and not address the needs of the child or create the best and most appropriate conditions for the child’s full participation. Just attending a meeting does not ensure participation … The process must be accessible and comprehensible. This obliges adults to design methods with which children feel comfortable in order to truly include the voice of the child. (p. 219)

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

87

Conclusion The Victorian child protection system has yet to resolve whether a child will ever be regarded as fully competent to make the sorts of decisions about their life that arise in child protection proceedings. Current legislation acknowledges, albeit conservatively, children’s right to express their views and wishes, but this has not guaranteed that children’s voices are powerful. The judiciary determines the extent to which children’s views will be taken into account and whether a child is developmentally competent to contribute to decisions about their lives. Legislation - in and of itself - is insufficient to ensure that children’s voices are heard in decision-making. Oversimplifying, discounting, marginalizing and trivializing children’s knowledge is an outcome of systems that construct childhood as a period of passive dependency. Taking children seriously (see Mason & Fattore 2005) means more than interviewing them briefly in contexts that lack any sense of genuine relationship. Open communication about highly complex and challenging issues must be founded on a trusting relationship. As adults, we know firsthand just how difficult it is to explain our feelings and views about emotive issues and to articulate clearly what we really want from life or a relationship, even with people we know well and with whom we feel secure. Yet we seem to expect just that from children when they meet with professionals who may be virtual strangers and who are disconnected from the child’s past and future. Further, such professionals may be poor at explaining their role and explaining whether and how the child’s responses to their questions may affect the child’s future, and/or the future of other family members. Mason (2005) calls for a, ‘re-conceptualisation of children … as active, individual and competent, acknowledging children as beings with “rights” to participate in decision-making. Taking children and their knowledge seriously will mean confronting structural inequalities in child-adult relations through child-welfare policy – and, more broadly, social policy – as a fundamental strategy for reducing adult abuse of children’ (p. 97). In this chapter I have argued that this will only work if at the same time we rethink how we allow children to express what they know and feel and if we look again at the relationship contexts within which we ask them to do so.

Chapter Six

88

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Why is the principle ‘the child’s best interests’ problematic as a guide to decision making about courses of action for maltreated children? Why might professionals have a vested interest in maintaining the lie of ‘evidential certainty’? How can simple binary oppositions within societal discourses silence children’s voices? What are the similarities and differences between a) enabling children to participate genuinely in decision-making and b) ensuring there is genuine representation of children by those charged with this responsibility? How are ‘deliberative democracy’ (Habermas 1990) and ‘radical proceduralism’ relevant to a discussion about children’s voices in decision-making? How can attachment theory help us to understand how practice can make children’s voices more powerful?

Further reading Mason, J. & Fattore, T. (eds) 2005, Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, Jessica Kingsley, London. Mudaly, N. & Goddard, C. 2006, The Truth Is Longer Than A Lie: children’s experiences of abuse and professional interventions, Jessica Kingsley, London. Milner, P. & Carolin, B. (eds) 1999, Time To Listen To Children: personal and professional communication, Routledge, London.

References Atwool, N. 2000, ‘Trauma and children’s rights’ in Advocating for children. International perspectives on children’s rights, eds. A. B. Smith, M. Gallop, K. Marshall & K. Nairn, University of Otago Press, Dunedin, NZ. pp. 19 – 31. Aubrey, C. & Dahl, S. 2006, ‘Children’s voices: The views of vulnerable children on their service providers and the relevance of services they receive.’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 36, pp. 21 – 39. Bowlby, J. 1988, A Secure Base: clinical applications of attachment theory. Routledge, London.

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

89

Cummings, E. M. & Cicchetti, D. 1990, ‘Towards a transactional model of relations between attachment and depression.’ in Attachment in the Preschool Years, eds. M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M. Cummings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Fahlberg, V. I. 1991, A Child’s Journey Through Placement. Perspectives Press, Indianapolis. Fattore, T. & Turnbull, N. 2005, ‘Theorising representation of and engagement with children: The political dimension of child-oriented communication’, in Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, eds. J. Mason and T. Fattore, Jessica Kingsley, London. pp. 46 – 57. Giles, H. & Mendelson, M. 1999, ‘“I’m going to do magic …” said Tracey: Working with children using person-centred art therapy’, in Time To Listen To Children: personal and professional communication, eds. P. Milner and B. Carolin, Routledge, London. pp. 161 – 174. Habermas, J. 1990, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Howe, D. 1995, Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice. Macmillan, London. John, M. 2005, ‘Foreword’, in Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, eds. J. Mason and T. Fattore, Jessica Kingsley, London. pp. 11 - 13. Kenkel, D. & Couling, M. 2006, ‘Child advocacy: A dialogue of inclusion’, Community Development Journal, vol. 41, pp. 481 – 491. Kiely, P. 2005, ‘The voice of the child in the family group conferencing model’, in Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, eds. J. Mason and T. Fattore, Jessica Kingsley, London. pp. 218 – 228. King, M. 1997, A Better World for Children: explorations in morality and authority, Routledge, London. Mason, J. 2005, ‘Child protection policy and the construction of childhood’, in Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, eds. J. Mason and T. Fattore, Jessica Kingsley, London. pp. 91 – 97. Mason, J. & Fattore, T. (eds) 2005, Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, Jessica Kingsley, London. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964, The Primacy of Perception, and Other Essays on Phenomenological Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics, Northwestern University Press, Evanston. Milner, P. & Carolin, B. (eds) 1999, Time To Listen To Children: personal and professional communication, Routledge, London.

Chapter Six

90

Monro, P. 1999, ‘Children and the law’, in Time To Listen To Children: personal and professional communication, eds. P. Milner & B. Carolin, Routledge, London. pp. 216 – 228. Mudaly, N. & Goddard, C. 2006, The Truth Is Longer Than A Lie: children’s experiences of abuse and professional interventions, Jessica Kingsley, London. Rogers, C. R. 1961, On Becoming A Person. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Rolfe, S. A. 2004, Rethinking Attachment for Early Childhood Practice: promoting security, autonomy and resilience in young children, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, Sydney. Ross, N. 2005, ‘Agency, Article 12 and models for legal representation of children in Australia.’ Paper presented at the 4th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, Cape Town, South Africa, 20 - 23 March. Sidoti, C. 2005 ‘The law and taking children seriously’, in Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, eds. J. Mason and T. Fattore, Jessica Kingsley, London. pp. 17 – 21. Smedley, B. 1999, ‘Child protection: facing up to fear’, in Time To Listen To Children: personal and professional communication, eds. P. Milner and B. Carolin, Routledge, London. pp. 112 – 125. Wilkinson, M. 2005, ‘Virtual reality: children as constituents in social welfare and social policy constructions’, in Children Taken Seriously: in theory, policy and practice, eds. J. Mason and T. Fattore, Jessica Kingsley, London.

Glossary x

x

In the child’s best interests. This term is the paramount guiding principle for decisions made on behalf of maltreated children in the Victorian Children’s Court. It includes the need to protect the child from harm, to protect the child’s rights, to promote the child’s development, to strengthen the child’s relationships with parent/s and family and to protect and promote the child’s cultural and spiritual identity. In reality, weighing up these various factors to reach a decision about best interests is an extremely complex and fuzzy process. Primary attachment relationships. The relationships infants and young children form with their main caregivers, usually their parents, in which there is an expectation of care and protection, and from which develops the child’s fundamental sense of self worth and trust in other people.

Children’s Voices in Decision-Making about their Best Interests: The Case of the Victorian Child Protection System

x

x

x

x

x

x

91

Evidential certainty. The implied credibility or ‘truth’ of the case planning and judicial decisions about best interests arrived at through professional assessments, despite the inherent limitations, subjectivity and biases of these assessments and the decisions based upon them. Deliberative democracy. A system of political decision-making based on the deliberations and direct input of citizens themselves, including children, rather than, or in addition to, decision-making by representatives who have been democratically elected by the citizenry. (First used by Joseph M. Bessette in his Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government. [1980].) Intersubjective understandings. Mutual orientations or shared understandings between people, in which there is a genuine acknowledgement of difference, rather than an imposing of ideas by the more powerful on the less powerful or the more cognitively mature on the less cognitively mature. Inner working model. The view that children develop about themselves and others ‘in-relation-to-them’, based on interpersonal experiences within their primary attachment relationships. Pathways model of development. A model or theory of development which acknowledges explicitly that new developmental directions are always possible in response to change in relationship experiences. Family group conferencing. A process which actively supports all family members - including children – to develop their own decisions and course of action for case planning through a collaborative discussion.

CHAPTER SEVEN THREAT, PROMISE OR JUST DEFICIENT? MODELS OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA POLICY PATRICK HUGHES

Children are rarely regarded as citizens with a right to participate in civic life. Instead, adults generally develop laws, policies and practices concerning, for example, education, health and welfare services for and on behalf of children, arguing that children’s innocence and immaturity renders them incapable of taking decisions for and about themselves (see Cohen 2005). This approach underpinned policies concerning children and broadcasting in the twentieth century, many of which expressed a broad consensus that broadcasters could influence people – especially children - for better or worse. That consensus led many democratic societies to enact very broad, national, statutory regulations concerning broadcasting (e.g. that broadcasters should act ‘in the public interest’) that embodied an ideal of public accountability - they offered citizens a way to hold broadcasters to account through the formal processes of parliament. These national, statutory regulations generally implied that children are both a threat and a promise. Children were seen as a threat because they represented humanity’s potential to slip from civilization into barbarism. That potential is encapsulated in Hobbes’s view that, ‘the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.’ and that, unless humanity is disciplined by the state, it unleashes, ‘A war of everyman, against every man.’ (Leviathan, chapter 14). From a Hobbesian perspective, state regulation of the media sought to prevent children from experiencing the ‘nasty, brutish … war of everyman, against every man’ that may trigger the slide into barbarism. At the same time, children were also seen as a secular or a sacred form of a promise. The secular form was the belief that children are the promise of a better future on earth for humanity. Each child represents a new blank page (tabula rasa) on which to write the

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy

93

European Enlightenment’s grand narrative of human actualization and emancipation; and state regulation of the media sought to create conditions conducive to fulfillment of that narrative. The sacred form of the child as a promise was the belief that children are the promise of a life in paradise for humanity. Each child represents the Christian ideal of humanity - innocent and unsullied by ‘the Fall’ from grace; and state regulation of the media sought to prevent a decadent and depraved media committing a second ‘slaughter of the innocents’. Whether children appeared in these policies as a threat or a promise, they always appeared as deficient compared with adults. They were ‘notadults’ or ‘adults in waiting’, as it were - ‘embryo adults in preparation for life’ (Woodrow & Brennan 2001). In this ‘deficit’ model, children are naïve and innocent, incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction, right from wrong, fantasy from reality. They are incapable of making meanings and choices by themselves and for themselves; and they lack the maturity, sophistication and rationality with which adults resist potentially malign influences such as the media. Parents - indeed, adults in general - are meant to guide and protect children, preventing their descent into Hobbesian barbarism and, thereby, fulfilling their promise of Enlightenment emancipation or Christian salvation. The adults in the European Union Council sought to fulfill this role through their Directive 89/552/EEC, Television without frontiers. The Directive called for measures to, ‘ensure that minors in the area of transmission would not normally hear or see broadcasts … likely to impair their physical, mental or moral development.’ (cited in Price & Verhulst 2002, p. xiii). However, the Directive was silent on the question of who should assess whether and to what extent such impairment is happening and we can only assume that it expected adults to do so on children’s behalf. Similarly, a European Commission report about parents’ control of their children’s television viewing suggested that, ‘The protection of minors from harmful (television) content is a matter of strong public interest … (because) … Children are presumed, quite justifiably, to be different from adults, to be more vulnerable, less able to apply critical judgmental standards and more at risk.’ (Price & Verhulst 2002, pp. vii, xi). The report’s assertion that children are ‘different from adults’ is self-evident and uncontentious. However, the report’s equation between ‘different’ and ‘more vulnerable, less able to apply critical judgmental standards and more at risk’ is far from self-evident and reflects a particular deficit model of children that many would contest.

Chapter Seven

94

Indeed, alongside the continuing concern to protect young children from malign media influences, there is a growing belief that children have a right to be involved in decisions that affect them and that they can and should participate in public debate and policy-formation (see, for example, Christensen and James 2000; Children’s Rights Alliance and the National Youth Council of Ireland 2001; Stafford, Laybourn, Hill & Walker 2003; Hill, Davis, Prout and Tisdall, 2004; Franklin and Sloper, 2005). That belief owes much to the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which made children’s rights - including the right to have a voice in decisions about them - legally binding in the same way as other (adult) human rights (United Nations, 1989). The UNCRC underpinned UNICEF’s 1996 ‘Child Friendly Cities Initiative’ (CFCI), in which children appear as active citizens who can participate in local government decision-making as partners with ‘adult facilitators’ - such as early childhood professionals. The UNCRC also underpinned the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, which gave children the same rights as adults (Fortin 2003).

Ambivalence in the UNCRC There is no doubt that the UNCRC raised the profile of children’s rights significantly and, in doing so, provided a moral platform on which researchers and activists have developed a rights-based model of the child as an active participant in her/his society. However, for all the UNCRC’s high ideals, it retains the view that children are deficient compared with adults. Article 12 proclaims children’s rights to be consulted and heard in matters affecting them, but gives adults the final say over whether and how children should exercise these rights. Article 12 states that: 1.

2.

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the rights to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

This Article begs several questions. How do you judge whether a particular child ‘is capable of forming his or her own views’? How do you

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy

95

weigh a child’s views ‘in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’? Who is the best person to make those judgments? Article 14 proclaims children’s rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, but gives parents or guardians the right to direct their children on how to exercise those rights. Article 14 states that: 1. 2.

States Parties shall respect the rights of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

This article, too, begs some questions. If parents and guardians have the right to ‘provide direction to the child’ about how to exercise their rights, whose rights take priority? How do you judge whether ‘the evolving capacities of the child’ have reached the stage where s/he can exercise these rights? Who is the best person to make that judgment? Similarly, while Article 13 proclaims children’s right to freedom of expression and to access the cultural resources with which to exercise that right, Article 17 still regards children as deficient in their vulnerability to media influence and calls on adults to protect them. Article 13 states that: 1.

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

However, Article 17 (e) calls on signatories to the UNCRC to; Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being …

The UNCRC and the contemporary communications industry So far, I have focused on the negative side of the UNCRC’s ambivalent attitude to children – the view that they are deficient compared with

96

Chapter Seven

adults. The positive side is the view that, like adults, (some) children can form their own views and express them in a variety of media. Children – like adults - actively explore their world, rather than taking it for granted; and they actively create their own identities, rather than adopting whatever is on offer. However, such active exploration and creation doesn’t always happen in circumstances of our choosing. Many children - and adults – now live in circumstances suffused with the ‘global’ products, ideas and values of the multi-billion dollar communications industry dominated by a handful of multinational corporations such as Viacom, Disney and AOLTime Warner. These corporations have enormous influence over which movies, programs, music, news, features and images we see and which ones we don’t because of three continuing trends in the development of the communications industry. First, ownership of the communications industry is concentrated increasingly in the hands of a decreasing number of multinational corporations. For example, the world’s advertising is controlled by half a dozen companies, each with a global reach and with subsidiaries in each media market (McChesney & Nichols 2002, p. 88); and those advertising companies buy advertising time and space from an oligopoly of USA-based global media companies, such as News Corporation, Disney, Viacom and AOL Time-Warner (Nixon 2003). The sheer decrease in the number of companies in the industry reduces the diversity of story lines, news priorities, imagery and songs that the industry produces. Second, ownership concentration is reinforced by cross-ownership, i.e. one company’s shareholders include other companies. For example, Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, the US movie-maker; Disney owns ABC, the US television network. Companies in this interlocking mesh of cross-ownership create broadly similar products, because they have broadly similar aims, values and priorities. Finally, both ownership concentration and cross-ownership are reinforced by sectoral integration, i.e. the process by which corporations integrate within themselves sectors of the communications industry that had been distinct and separate. For example, through a series of amalgamations, takeovers and share-swaps, News Corporation now owns television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing companies, film studios, record companies and sports teams, together with several satellite- and cable-based telecommunications networks; and it runs Internet-based classified advertising around the world. Such corporations use their integrated structures to recycle a product through several incarnations as the ‘tee-shirt of the game of the movie of the cartoon of the book of the news coverage of the sports event’.

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy

97

Each of those three trends was evident in the communications industry when the UNCRC was ratified in 1989, but they have increased in significance in the past two decades. The combination of ownership concentration, cross-ownership and sectoral integration has resulted in an industry dominated by multinational corporations that are beyond the effective reach of any one national government (a ‘States Party’ in the language of the Convention); and many governments have, in any case, virtually abandoned the national regulations that constrained the ‘mass media’ in the last century. Those regulations were never especially onerous, but over the last two decades, many governments have diluted media accountability still further, replacing weak ‘public interest’ requirements with what they called a ‘light touch’ of regulation that they also applied to other sectors of the entertainment industry, including movies, computer games and telecommunications (including the Internet). Such governments have argued that ‘strong’ media regulation was warranted when people’s access to information and entertainment was limited to a few newspapers and broadcasting channels, but that regulation is unwarranted when new technologies of distribution and reception give people access to an unprecedented ‘free market’ of news, views, ideas and entertainment. They point out that print and broadcasting have been supplemented by new technologies of distribution such as CDs, CDROMS, DVDs, and high-capacity (‘broadband’) cable and wireless networks; and that cinemas, radios and televisions have been supplemented by new technologies of reception such computers and mobile phones. New technologies of distribution and reception are certainly increasing the number of communications channels. However, the increase in the number of channels hasn’t been matched by an increase in the diversity of their content. Unhindered by regulations concerning the social and cultural implications of their products, communications corporations can now concentrate primarily on profits. Those profits depend (at least, partly) on sales, so each corporation seeks to maximize its global sales by producing and distributing ‘global’ products based on formulae that have created profits already. These tried-and-tested formulae include movie series (e.g. Rocky, Jaws, Star Wars, Star Trek, Jurassic Park) featuring stock actors (e.g. Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts), sentimental characters (e.g. cute talking babies, cuddly talking animals) and stock narratives in which heroic individuals overcome adversity (e.g. urban disasters, sickness, plane hijackings). Implementing these tried-and-tested formulae creates bland and homogeneous cultural products that minimize

98

Chapter Seven

local cultural diversity in favour of universal acceptance. Wilson (1978) spotted this trend early on, identifying what he called the ‘global film’: (T)ranslation is what … (the ‘global film’) … must excel at, so witty repartee, even by the likes of Neil Simon, is definitely out. Instead, the stars serve as foils for action; they exist to shoot and get shot. For global films are engineered to play heavily on the elemental magic of the medium and (on) actions against exotic backgrounds. Mayhem and carnage need no subtitles.

More recently, Lehmann (2003) criticized the homogenized, transitory character of much popular culture, capturing the conflict between the rhetoric of ‘choice’ and the reality of oligopoly: To be sure, the global cultural market now offers countless new points of access, but it has done so while standardizing its products in an unprecedented manner. … (A)ll the while we are assured that we possess exponentially greater cultural choices than any known generation of Earth’s inhabitants … (but) … how are we to characterize a new global culture that, in the very logic of its dissemination, makes it harder to assign any lasting value to its content? … (L)et us glory indiscriminately in a market we never made; let a thousand Oprahs bloom. (pp. 78/9)

Articles 17 and 31 of the UNCRC proclaim children’s right to material that promotes their social, cultural and moral well-being and to participate in cultural, artistic and recreational activities. Each Article proclaims high ideals, which deserve enthusiastic support. However, the Articles now appear idealistic in the face of major changes in the structure and operations of the communications industry or ‘mass media’. Article 17 of the UNCRC states: States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral wellbeing and physical and mental health. To this end the States Parties shall: a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of Article 29;* (* PH: Article 29 concerns children’s right to education that promotes their emotional, intellectual and physical development; that fosters awareness and understanding of parents’ roles and of the importance of cultural identity, language and values; and that prepares children for a responsible life in society.)

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy

99

b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources; c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books; d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous; e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.** (**PH: Article 13 concerns children’s right to self-expression; Article 18 concerns parents’ responsibility to their children.) .

The communications industry’s continuing search for formulaic and ‘global’ cultural products whose primary aim is to maximize profits significantly undermines children’s right to, ‘information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health’. Further, since the multinational corporations that dominate the industry are beyond the effective reach of any one national government (a ‘States Party’ in the language of the Convention) – many of which no longer seek to regulate them anyway – this Article’s exhortation to ‘Encourage the mass media …’ appears idealistic or even just empty rhetoric. Article 31 of the UNCRC states: 1.

2.

States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate fully in cultural life and the arts. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

Children’s ‘leisure … play and recreational activities’ and, indeed, their choice of identities is being transformed by a handful of multinational firms for whom children are (merely?) a new market for a range of brand name commodities created especially for them (Gunter & Furnham 1998; Kenway & Bullen 2001). A child who lacks these commodities risks missing out on contemporary childhood itself. The communications industry’s ‘global’ products suffuse many children’s ‘leisure … play and

100

Chapter Seven

recreational activities’, as a walk down the aisles of any major toy store and of the toys and games section of any supermarket will show; and many children’s ‘cultural and artistic life’ depends heavily on those products – from playing with the ‘toys of the movie’ that accompany the breakfast ‘Happy Meal’ at McDonalds through watching the Teletubbies at a lunch of Barbie spaghetti hoops to putting on the Winnie the Pooh pajamas at bedtime (Hughes 2005; Hughes & MacNaughton 2001, 2000a, 2000b). The UNCRC’s proclamation of children’s right to ‘participate fully in cultural life and the arts’ takes no account of the thorough and continuing commercialization of ‘cultural life and the arts’ that has created a cultural ‘marketplace’ dominated by a few multinational corporations and that has reduced (active) cultural participation to the (passive) consumption of branded cultural products. Acknowledgment that young children recognize leading brands is usually couched within a ‘deficit’ model of childhood that leads to concern that children are, once again, being influenced by the media. For example, Valkenburg and Buizen (2005) found that children as young as two years old recognized eight out of twelve brands offered to them and that this ability was related to how much television they watched. The authors argued that their results show the ethical problems that arise when manufacturers regard young children as ‘targets’ for advertising and marketing. However, Buckingham (2000) had argued earlier against seeking to protect children from the marketplace into which they are born and through which – to a greater or lesser extent – they express themselves: Children’s social and cultural needs are unavoidably expressed and defined through their relationships with material commodities and through the commercially produced media texts that permeate their lives. … Children are always already consumers, even if much of the actual purchasing that takes place on their behalf is done by parents. … Rather than seeking to protect children from the marketplace, we need to find new ways of preparing them to deal with it. (pp. 166 - 167. Original emphases.)

A new rights-based model? There is now a well-established tradition of researching children which takes as its starting point the idea that children are active producers of meaning – in particular, around cultural and media products. Livingstone (2003) surveyed the growing body of research around children and the

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy 101

Internet, noting that while some researchers had reproduced traditional concerns about children’s vulnerability to the media around the internet, others had emphasized that children’s use of the internet was opening new possibilities around communication, identity, participation and education. More recently, Livingstone (2007, 2006) drew on two major UK surveys of children’s use of new media at home to argue that however ‘new’ the medium, children’s use was the outcome of negotiations with their parents that reproduced traditional relationships between them; and Woodrow and Press (2007) juxtaposed the growing commercialization of childhood, which tends to make children passive consumers, with the idea that children are citizens, i.e. meaning-making actors in civic spaces. The view that children are active meaning-makers around cultural and media products has made little impression on the early childhood field, which remains attached firmly to the view that adults (especially parents and early childhood staff) should protect children from ‘inappropriate’ media and cultural products, rather than seek to understand just how children are engaging with them. As an illustration, when Early Childhood Australia (the ‘peak body’ in the early childhood field in Australia) updated its Position Statement on Children and the Media in October 2007, it called on, ‘Children's services … (to) … develop in conjunction with parents, their own policy on media …’ and proclaimed the need for, ‘all those who work with children to advocate for high quality programs for children and for the removal of inappropriate programs, classifications and advertising as well as inappropriate use of children in programs and advertising. Staff and parents need to understand complaints procedures.’ (Early Childhood Australia 2007). These are laudatory statements in themselves, but they assume that children’ views about these issues are irrelevant. As the belief that children have a right to be involved in decisions that affect them and that they can and should participate in public debate and policy-formation began to permeate the early childhood field, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child released (in November 2005) its General Comment No. 7, Implementing child rights in early childhood. The General Comment emphasized that young children’s right to express their views and feelings should be recognised in, ‘the development of policies and services, including through research and consultations’ (OHCHR 2005, p. 7); and it stressed that these rights apply to all children, irrespective of their age. General Comment No. 7 noted the increasing prominence of the model of children as active meaning-makers: The Committee notes the growing body of theory and research which confirms that young children are best understood as social actors whose survival, well-being and development are dependent on and built around

102

Chapter Seven close relationships … Respect for the young child’s agency - as a participant in family, community and society - is frequently overlooked, or rejected as inappropriate on the grounds of age and immaturity. (OHCHR 2005, pp. 4, 6)

Rather than devising new regulations to protect the innocent from the communications industry, adults need to recognize the commonalities between children’s experiences of that industry and their own; to explore how the industry influences the circulation of information, ideas and values; and to explore how adults and children can act together to create shared visions of their futures as citizens. Much of the contemporary research into children and media offers rich possibilities to explore these alternative directions, but it has generally involved older children and adolescents. However, the new model of young children as active meaning-makers, together with the insistence by the General Comment No. 7 that all children should be accorded the rights set out in the UNCRC (including the rights concerning media and culture) offer a potentially very productive space in which to explore whether and how to apply these research approaches in early childhood settings. This could involve actions such as: x x x

examining how children can use the media to confront social and cultural change in their lives understanding how new media relate to their predecessors and to children’s circumstances at home, in early childhood settings and in the broader public sphere creating universal and equitable access to the resources – mental and material – with which children can express their own views and ideas; and encouraging and enabling them to do so. Such encouragement could include an expanded role for media education in schools and early childhood settings, introducing young children to the ways in which symbols, sounds and words ‘work’ to offer particular meanings in say, movies and cartoons.

Adults often concentrate solely on child-oriented regulation of the entertainment industry because they see it as a way to resolve the inherited problems of that industry – a ‘quick fix’ that avoids the awkward question of how to hold firms in that industry to account. Just as ‘(Adults) hope that “early interventions” can put right the social havoc wrought by neoliberalism or that school teaching can make good declining democratic participation.’ (Moss & Petrie 2002, p. 53), so we also hope that childoriented regulation can counter the problems associated with the communications industry’s combination of ownership concentration,

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy 103

cross-ownership and sectoral integration. In contrast, a rights-based approach to children’s relationships with the media clearly involves more than merely writing new regulations. At least, it implies new research with children (rather than about children) that explores their current relationships with the media and their views about it. Such research would be a precondition of any rights-based regulations. At best, however, such an approach implies that children and adults act together to devise new ways to hold the media to account for its actions and new forms of decision-making in and by the media in which the voices of its various audiences – currently absent – are prominent and effective features. Rather than looking for better ways to increase adults’ control over children’s leisure, we need to increase democratic control by children and adults over the entertainment industry. Rather than devising new regulations to protect the innocent from the industry, adults need to look for commonalities between children’s experiences of that industry and their own and to find new ways to work with children to create shared cultural futures.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

Who should decide whether a particular child is vulnerable to the media? How and to what extent has the communications industry influenced you? Does it continue to do so? Count the number of girls wearing pink you see today. How do you account for the number? If you had the power to introduce one new regulation covering the communications industry, what would it be? If it was introduced, who would benefit and who would lose?

Further reading Marsh, J. (ed.) 2005, Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood, Routledge Falmer, London, New York. Lievrouw, L. & Livingstone, S. (eds) 2007, Handbook of new media: social shaping and social consequences of ICTs. London: Sage. Pecora, N., Murray, J. P. & Wartella, E. A. (eds) 2007, Children and television: 50 years of research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

104

Chapter Seven

References Buckingham, D. 2000, After the Death of Childhood: growing up in the age of electronic media, Polity Press, Cambridge. Children’s Rights Alliance and the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI). 2001, Consultation Models with Children on Policy and Poverty. [Online]. Available at: http://www.youth.ie/research/intro.html (Accessed 1 September 2005) Christensen P, & James A. 2000, ‘Childhood Diversity and Commonality: Some Methodological Insights’, in Research With Children: perspectives and practices, eds. P. Christensen & A. James, Falmer Press, London and New York, pp.160 – 178. Cohen, E. 2005, ‘Neither seen or heard: children’s citizenship in contemporary democracies’, Citizenship Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 221 – 240. Early Childhood Australia. 2007, Position Statement on Children and the Mass Media. www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/position_statements/children_and _the_mass_media (Accessed: 16 January 2008) Fortin, J. 2003, Children's Rights and the Developing Law, Butterworths, London. Franklin, A. & Sloper, P. 2005, ‘Listening and responding? Children’s participation in health care within England’, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, vol. 13, pp. 11 - 29. Gunter, B. & Furnham, A. 1998 ‘Perceptions of television violence: effect of programme genre and the physical form of violence’, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 155 - 164. Hill, M., Davies, J., Prout, A. and Tisdall, K. 2004, ‘Moving the participation agenda forward’, Children and Society, vol. 18, pp. 77 96. Hughes, P. 2005, ‘Mickey and Barbie and Strawberry Shortcake: children growing up in promotional webs’, International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 98 - 117. Hughes, P. & Mac Naughton, G. 2001, ‘Fractured or Manufactured: gendered identities and culture in the early years’, in Embracing Identities in Early Childhood Education: expanding possibilities for thought and action, eds. S. Grieshaber & G. S. Cannella, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 114 - 130. (Spanish version, 2005.) Hughes, P. & Mac Naughton, G. 2000a, ‘Take the money and run: toys, consumerism and capitalism in early childhood conferences’, in The Politics of Early Childhood Education, ed. L. Soto Diaz, Peter Lang Publishing Inc, New York, pp. 85 - 98.

Threat, Promise or Just Deficient? Models of Children and Media Policy 105

Hughes, P. & Mac Naughton, G. 2000b, ‘Identity-formation and popular culture: learning lessons from Barbie’, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 57 - 67. Kenway J. & Bullen, E. 2001, Consuming Children: educationentertainment-advertising, Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Lehmann, C. 2003, Revolt of the Masscult, Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago. Livingstone, S. 2007, ‘Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 23, no 2, pp. 920 – 941. —. 2006, ‘Drawing conclusions from new media research: reflections and puzzles concerning children’s experience of the internet’, The Information Society, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 219 – 230. —. 2003, ‘Children’s use of the internet: reflections on the emerging research agenda’, New Media and Society, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 147 – 166. McChesney, R. W. & Nichols, J. 2002, Our Media Not Theirs: the democratic struggle against corporate media, Open Media/Seven Stories Press, New York. Moss, P. & Petrie, P. 2002, From Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces: public policy, children and childhood, Routledge Falmer, London. Nixon, S. 2003, Advertising Cultures, Sage, London. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2005. General Comment No. 7 (2005): 01/11/2005. Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm (Accessed 21 November 2005) Price, M. E. & Verhulst, S. G. 2002, Parental Control of Television Broadcasting, (Report by the Programme in Comparative Media Law at the University of Oxford to the European Commission), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Stafford, A., Laybourn. A., Hill, M. and Walker, M. 2003, ‘Having a say: children and young people talk about consultation’, Children and Society, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 361 - 373. United Nations.1989. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm. (Accessed 1 December 2005) Valkenburg, P. M. & Buizen, M. 2005, ‘Identifying determinants of young children’s brand awareness: television, parents and peers’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 456 – 468. Wilson, J. M. 1978, ‘The global film: will it play in Uruguay?’ The New York Times, 26 November.

106

Chapter Seven

Woodrow, C. & Press, F. 2007, ‘(Re-)Positioning the child in the policy/politics of early childhood’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 312 – 325. Woodrow, C. & Brennan, M. 2001, ‘Interrupting dominant images: critical and ethical issues’, in Resistance and Representation: rethinking childhood education, eds. J. Jipson & R.T. Johnson, Peter Lang, New York, pp. 23 – 44.

CHAPTER EIGHT CHILDREN INFORMING GENDER EQUITY POLICY GLENDA MAC NAUGHTON WITH SHIRLEY DALLY AND SALLY BARNES

This chapter reports on the aims, processes and outcomes of Including Young Children’s Voices – an action learning consultation conducted during 2004 and funded by the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS). The consultation was facilitated by Glenda Mac Naughton and this chapter draws from a consultation report produced by Mac Naughton, Barnes and Dally (2004). The chapter examines some implications of the consultation for those wishing to include young children as citizens in educational policy making. The consultation was, ‘designed to support three and four year old learners to take part in the consultation on the national review and recast of Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools at the South Australian jurisdiction level’ (Lountain, 18th Feb, 2004). It was the first time within Australia that young children had been consulted about their views on gender policy in early childhood contexts.

Australian gender policy context 1980s – 2004 The South Australian public education system has a proud history as a leader in Australia in equity and justice in education and in consulting children as part of this work. For example, in 1983, South Australia became the first state to have an Equal Opportunities policy statement for the Education of Girls (South Australian Department of Education 1983), just ahead of the establishment of South Australian Equal Opportunity legislation. South Australia also played a leading role in the development of A National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools

108

Chapter Eight

(Commonwealth Schools Commission, 1987). This policy emphasised the education of girls, but also identified issues concerning the education of boys. Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools (Gender Equity Taskforce, 1997) was the policy under review when the Including Young Children’s Voices action learning consultation was conducted. Its central premises were that the social construction of gender involves power relations and that gender inter-relates in complex ways with other social constructs of, for example, race, class, time and place - including schooling. In 2000, the Australian government’s House of Representative Standing Committee on the Inquiry into the Education of Boys was established and, after collecting data in all states and territories - including boys’ voices - it published a Report, Boys: Getting it right (2002). This report’s first recommendation was that there should be a ‘review and recast’ of the Gender Equity Framework and a consultant was employed to develop a new Framework and to organise associated consultation. Including Young Voices informed part of South Australia’s response to this process.

Australian gender policy context in the pre-compulsory schooling years The years before pre-compulsory schooling had been overlooked regularly in the development of Australian national and state gender equity policies for education. The consultations leading to Including Young Children’s Voices were innovative and significant in that they actively sought to consult preschool children as part of South Australia’s response to the Gender Equity Framework (2004) - itself part of educational policy development. The Including Young Children’s Voices consultation sought to build on the capacities of learners and educators to inform gender policy. In doing so, it honoured children of three and four years of age and it brought young children to the centre stage as social actors. This was no accident. South Australia has the only Birth to Year 12 curriculum policy in Australia. The South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability (SACSA) Framework has an Early Years component, comprising the Birth to Age Four phase and Reception to Year 2. This curriculum policy was exciting

Children Informing Gender Equity Policy

109

in its intent to understand the worth and dignity of very young children as learners and knowers.

Ideas informing the consultation We construct children as citizens when we see them as competent social actors who have ideas, values and understandings of themselves and the world independent of adults (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr 2000). When children are consulted about their lives, their ideas are seen as valid, are used often in policy and are implemented in practice. The potential exists for them to become equal partners in the policy process. Consulting preschool children about gender policy is not a common policy making strategy, yet contemporary research and thinking about young children and gender suggests that preschool children are quite able to comment on matters of policy and its effects in their lives and that gender is likely to affect their experiences of and outcomes from early childhood education. These broad assumptions underpinned the Including Young Children’s Voices action learning consultation.

The consultation in overview Including Young Children’s Voices unfolded in five phases. Preliminary planning phase The children’s consultation and its associated action learning sessions for teachers had two interconnected aims: x ‘to design, deliver and report on an action learning consultation that would support preschool teachers within DECS to consult preschool children on gender policy in their services x to support three and four year old learners to take part in the consultation on the national review and recast of Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools at the South Australian jurisdiction level’. (Lountain, 18th Feb, 2004) Five preschools were invited to participate in the project. Action Learning sessions for participants The consultation lasted 2 months. Specific action learning sessions for teachers ran for 3 hours over 3 sessions. Session 1 introduced the aims of the project and principles for engaging with children ethically during the

110

Chapter Eight

consultation. In Session 2, participants debriefed and problem-solved around the final consultations with children. In Session 3, participants coded, analysed and evaluated the data they had gathered from consulting the children. Consulting children At the first action learning session, participants worked with facilitators Shirley Dally, Glenda Mac Naughton and Sally Barnes - to form the key questions that drove their consultation with the children. These questions were designed to elicit children’s views on three areas that Shirley Dally (Policy and Programs Officer, Gender; Learning Outcomes and Curriculum, DECS) had identified as significant to the DECS response to the national Gender Equity Framework 2004: x Children’s construction of gender in their preschool years x Gender in curriculum, teaching and learning in the early childhood setting x The gender relationships, culture and ethos of the early childhood setting. Participants in this first session developed six core questions to drive their consultation with preschool children around those three areas: x What’s it like to be a girl/boy at kindy? (Children constructing gender) x What would be fun for girls and boys to learn about together? (Curriculum/teaching and learning) x Do you think that girls and boys should learn the same things, for example, how to cook, look after a baby, to dance and sing, build robots, run and climb and jump? Is there anything that girls or boys shouldn’t learn? (Curriculum/teaching and learning) x How would you make kindy fair for girls and for boys? (Relationships/culture/ethos) x Is it always safe/fair for you at kindy? (Relationships/culture/ethos) x When does it feel like it’s been a great day at kindy? (Culture/ethos) Shirley Dally sent a letter to each of the five participating centres, inviting children (and their parents) to participate in the consultation. In her letter, Shirley explained to the children what a gender policy was and how the children could help the current review of gender policy.

Children Informing Gender Equity Policy

111

Whilst teachers all used the core consultation questions to explore children’s perspectives and views on gender and its effects and possibilities in their early childhood setting, they used diverse strategies to engage children with those questions. Broadly, over a three-week period, teachers did the following: x conducted individual interviews with children x initiated group discussions with children x invited children to take photographs or produce artwork as responses to the questions x read stories or used specific props to encourage children to reflect on gender in their early childhood settings. Collating and evaluating data Participants documented their consultations with children in various ways, but they generally relied on each participant’s knowledge of the children attending their centre and on their beliefs about the most appropriate way to gather accurate information from each child. Their methods were: x Individual structured and semi-structured interviews x Group structured and semi-structured interviews x Annotated drawings x Digital photographs identifying favourite places to play x Taped interviews, later transcribed x Puppet plays followed by discussion groups x Stories (e.g. Claire’s Dream), followed by discussion groups x Informal conversations x Sorting games using photographs, toys and drink bottles x Y-chart activities (‘What do girls/boys look like, feel like, sound like?’) x Informal play with pink and red play dough x Forced choice questions x Requested drawings (e.g. ‘Draw a boy and a girl’ or ‘Draw clothes for a boy and for a girl.’). The resulting data about children’s gender understandings were analysed for the consultation report (Mac Naughton, Barnes and Dally 2004). Mac Naughton (2007) summarised the key findings. The final phase In April, Shirley Dally wrote to the children who participated thanking them for their participation and including a Certificate of Thank You.

112

Chapter Eight

Building gender policy with young children: reflections on the consultations This small consultation project about how gender affects children’s lives demonstrated that children actively construct gender in their early years and, more importantly, that they construct it in early childhood settings. It showed that gender policy is relevant to early childhood education because gender matters to young children. Gender mattered to the children in this consultation because it helped them to describe themselves and others; it affected what they should or shouldn’t do, like and own; it influenced what they thought they could and should learn and with whom they could and should learn. Most importantly, gender mattered to the children because it was implicated in what made kindergarten feel fair and unfair. A gender policy can alert teachers to the importance of gender in their early childhood settings and can support them as they decide how to engage with young children’s construction of gender. In this consultation project, the children’s views and perspectives on gender in their lives suggested the need for gender policy in early childhood education that can: x recognise that gender has different effects in different early childhood settings. Policies should respond to the specific and changing gender dynamics associated with different children’s different ways of constructing gender in their early years. x address gender fairness and safety explicitly. Children see gender as a key factor in what makes kindergarten unfair and unsafe for them - especially girls who experience gender harassment and boys or girls who want to ‘do’ or perform gender (their gender identity) differently. x recognise teachers as change agents who can disrupt the negative and limiting effects on children’s learning and safety associated with stereotyped and binary ways to think about gender. x recognise children as gendered ‘knowers’ who are sensitive to gender effects in their own and their peers’ lives. Children know about gender and its effects and they have ideas about what will make it work more fairly and safely in their specific early childhood settings. x recognise and honour the Rights of the Child and, especially, their right to participate in decisions that affect them directly. Each of these points will now be discussed in turn.

Children Informing Gender Equity Policy

113

Gender policy should recognise that gender has different effects in different early childhood settings Gender didn’t matter in the same way and to the same degree to all the children in this project and it did not always restrict and limit what they did and the peer relationships they formed. Some children felt able to cross gender boundaries and they and their peers felt comfortable with this, at least for a while. Gender seemed to matter more in some play spaces than in others. In some settings, teachers may need to reduce the ways in which gender limits specific children’s choices of learning activities or with whom they can or should play. In other settings, teachers may need to explore ways to disrupt children’s stereotyped expectations of each other’s behaviours and abilities. Still other teachers may need to support children who cross gender boundaries, encouraging and enabling them to be strong in their choices; and to support and encourage children to make non-stereotypical choices and to build non-stereotypical expectations. Thus, a gender policy should provide a framework that teachers within a specific early childhood setting can use to analyse the specific gender relationships, their dynamics and their educational effects. Gender policy should address gender fairness and safety explicitly For many of the children, gender was implicated in what made kindergarten feel fair and unfair. In many instances, the girls felt less safe than the boys and the girls linked their unsafe moments to harassment by boys. The children suggested various ways to make the kindergarten safer, but felt that clear rules, backed by teacher authority, was essential. They said that kindergarten was fairest when the teacher established rules of fair play and ensured that children adhered to them and when children felt able to use those rules to assert their rights. The children did not always want to or were not always able to sort things out for themselves. Rather, they wanted the teacher to be active in creating and policing broad gender rules that supported each child’s safety and fairness for all. A gender policy in early childhood education can draw on these suggestions from the children to monitor and respond to moments of gender harassment and/or violence in a specific setting. Gender policy should recognise teachers as change agents In two areas, the children ‘told’ their teachers that teachers could act as change agents in disrupting limiting gender stereotypes and their effects in

114

Chapter Eight

children’s lives. First, teachers can disrupt children’s binary thinking about gender by presenting them with contradictory and confusing gender markers. Second, teachers can disrupt the effects of gender harassment by using their presence and their authority to assure fairness and safety for all children. Gender policy could highlight the fact that teachers can and do make a difference to how children construct gender in early childhood settings and to the gender culture and ethos in a specific setting. It could support teachers who wish to disrupt the limits that binary and stereotyped gender ways of thinking and acting place on young children. Gender policy should recognise children as gendered ‘knowers’ Children in this consultation were very ‘knowing’ about gender in their early childhood setting. They knew that gender mattered at kindergarten. For example, they knew that certain areas of the kindergarten were ‘gender marked’ and they knew how this happened. Gender policy can ensure that such insights inform local gender policies in early childhood settings. The best way for teachers to understand the importance of gender in their kindergarten is to ask those who live it daily – the children. For example, children in a specific early childhood setting can draw on their experiences and expectations of what feels fair and safe to tell teachers the sorts of rules that they need around gender safety and fairness. They can help teachers to identify the ‘gender marked’ learning areas and play behaviours that limit children as learners. Seeking children’s gendered ‘knowings’ can ensure that local gender policies make sense to the children involved, because they are based on how specific children live gender in their daily lives with each other, rather than based just on a theory of how gender touches children’s lives. Linking the consultations to contemporary thinking and research Contemporary thinking and research on gender in the early years and on differing images of children in policy-making reinforces the need to acknowledge that gender policy matters in early childhood and that involving young children as citizens in the policy process has merit in three ways. First, there is incontrovertible research evidence that young children build gender identities in their earliest years and that while some children build non-stereotypical gender identities, most do not (see Mac Naughton 2007). There is also strong evidence that early childhood services contribute to the development of gender stereotypes in young children’s lives (Mac

Children Informing Gender Equity Policy

115

Naughton 2008). This provides strong support for the need for gender policy that is specific to the early years. Second, much contemporary early childhood policy and practice works from within a sex-role socialisation perspective on gender (Mac Naughton 2000; 2007). Many teachers believe that gender meanings are ‘caught’, not ‘taught’ in and through the early childhood curriculum. When these beliefs are combined with a lack of gender policy specific to early childhood programmes, the result is that many teachers do not actively explore or teach gender meanings and possibilities in the early childhood curriculum. Contemporary research suggests that such a ‘hands off’ approach to gender inadvertently contributes to highly traditional, gender stereotyped practices in early childhood programs. It leaves children’s stereotypes unchallenged and it offers little support to children who challenge those stereotypes. Reframing gender policy in the early childhood curriculum towards more proactive gender pedagogies within a more relationally oriented perspective on gender in young children’s lives would bring it in line with contemporary research on what makes a gender difference in early childhood programmes and with contemporary theoretical perspectives on the complexity of gender in young children’s lives. Third, emerging research is showing that preschool children can tell adults a lot about what works for them in their daily lives - including what about gender works for them. Young children can and do make insightful and meaningful comments about what makes the world a better place for them and others to be in (see, for example, other chapters in this book). This research underpins strong calls internationally for early childhood professionals, researchers, policy makers and medical practitioners to consult children about how they understand themselves and the world (e.g. Mac Naughton, Hughes and Smith, 2007). When children are consulted, they can discuss and explain their actions and beliefs that adults may have misinterpreted; and they often offer solutions to difficult issues that adults cannot solve (e.g. Campbell 2001; Giugni 2003; Smith 2003). Such findings are good reasons to regard children as citizens when developing gender policy in early childhood programmes. Children may provide insights into gender’s specific effects and what would increase gender fairness within their specific setting and within early childhood programmes more broadly.

116

Chapter Eight

Final reflections Including Young Children’s Voices showed that gender is a powerful influence on the children who were consulted. The project also showed that it is possible to involve young children in policy consultations in ways that elicit valuable information and perspectives. Children’s insights can inform thinking about how to shape and review policy in ways that ensure that it is relevant to children’s daily issues and concerns. Whilst this consultation exercise concerned gender, its success shows that young children can engage with questions and issues of direct relevance to educational policy makers if given the opportunity and resources with which to do so.

Questions for reflection 1. 2.

What strategies for consulting children in this project could you use in your current contexts? How could you adapt the questions used to drive this consultation with young children to explore issues other than gender?

Further reading Mac Naughton, G. 2008, ‘Constructing gender in early years education.’ In C. Skelton, B. Francis & L. Smulyan (Eds.), Sage Handbook: Gender and Education, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks and New Dehli. (pp. 127 – 138) Mac Naughton, G., Hughes, P. and Smith, K. 2007, ‘Young children’s rights and public policy: practices and possibilities for citizenship in the early years.’ Children and Society. (Online at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.10990860.2007.00096.x)

References Campbell, S. 2001, A Social Justice Disposition in Young Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Commonwealth Schools Commission. 1987, A National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra.

Children Informing Gender Equity Policy

117

Gender Equity Taskforce of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. 1997, Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools. Giugni, M. 2003, Secret Children’s Business: the black market for identity work. Unpublished Honours thesis, The University of Western Sydney, Sydney. House of Representative Standing Committee on the Inquiry into the Education of Boys. 2002, Boys: getting it right, Australian Government, Canberra. Lloyd-Smith, M. & Tarr, J. 2000, ‘Researching children’s perspectives: a sociological dimension’, in Researching Children’s Perspectives, eds. A. Lewis & G. Lindsay, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 59 – 70. Lountain, K. Manager, Commonwealth Equity Programs, 18th February 2004, Letter of invitation for participants in the consultation. Mac Naughton, G. 2008, ‘Constructing gender in early years education’, in Sage Handbook: Gender and Education, Eds. C. Francis & L. Smulyan, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks & New Dehli, pp. 127 – 138. —. 2007, ‘Early childhood education’, in Gender and Education: an encyclopaedia, ed. B. Bank, Greenwood Press, USA, pp. 263 – 269. —. 2004, ‘Rethinking gender in early childhood pedagogies’, in Early childhood curriculum issues: international perspectives, Eds. E. Wassilios Fthenakis & P. Oberhuemer, Frühpädagogik international: Bildungsqualität im Blickpunkt VERLAG, pp. 345 – 355. —. 2004, ‘Exploring critical constructivist perspectives on children’s learning’, Early Childhood Education: society and culture, Eds. A. Anning, J. Cullen & M. Fleer, Sage Publications, London, pp. 43 – 56. —. 2001, ‘Equal Opportunities: unsettling myths’, in Advances in Early Childhood Education, ed. T. David, JAI Press an Imprint of Elseverier Science, London. pp. 211 – 226. —. 2000, Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education, Allen and Unwin, Sydney; Paul Chapman, London. Mac Naughton, G., Barnes, S. & Dally, S. 2004, Including Young Children’s Voices: a gender equity policy consultation, Department of Education and Children’s Services, South Australia and CEIEC, Australia. Mac Naughton, G., Hughes, P. & Smith, K. 2007, ‘Young children’s rights and public policy: practices and possibilities for citizenship in the early years.’ Children and Society. [Online] Available at:

118

Chapter Eight

http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.10990860.2007.0 0096.x Smith, K. 2003, Reconceptualising Observation in the Early Childhood Curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. South Australian Education Department 1983, Equal Opportunities for Girls in South Australian Public Education Schools, South Australian Education Department, Adelaide.

SECTION III: CHILDREN INFORMING PEDAGOGIES

CHAPTER NINE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROVISION MADE IN NATIONAL CURRICULA TO STRENGTHEN CHILDREN’S DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRES JOHN BENNETT1

This chapter focuses on provision made in national curricula to strengthen children’s democratic participation in early childhood centres. In addition to providing access to knowledge, an abiding purpose of public education is to enhance understanding of society and to form democratic attitudes in children. The chapter outlines the internationally recognised rights of young children in early education and care, in particular, the rights outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It presents also a rationale to show which approaches to early childhood education favour democratic processes and child participation. The chapter provides a brief comparative analysis of the pre-primary and social pedagogy traditions in the early childhood field, showing how each may limit or encourage the agency of the young child. It then describes early childhood curricula in three countries - France, England and Sweden – with regard to their emphasis on democracy and citizenship. In particular, early childhood centres in Sweden seem to ensure that democratic principles are not only taught but are also reflected in the organisation, relationships and daily life of the institution.

1 The opinions expressed in this text are the author's responsibility and should not be attributed to UNICEF, the OECD or to the OECD Starting Strong Network.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

121

What are the recognised rights of young children in early education and care? Differences of opinion arise between countries and across different political traditions concerning the rights of children. However, virtually all countries have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, a charter of children’s rights set out in 41 Articles (Part I of the Convention). (To date, only Somalia and the United States have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.) Although the Convention acknowledges the limits in resources and services available to countries and the progressive nature of the exercise of rights by young children according to their age and maturity, it insists that even the youngest children (including adoptive children and children with special needs) are vested with the full range of human rights. The authoritative source for the interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In September 2006, the Committee issued a detailed and comprehensive comment elucidating the rights of young children as incorporated in the Convention (CRC/C/GC/Rev.1, 2006). In summary form, the Committee urged the countries that had ratified the Convention: x

x

To recognize that young children are holders of all the rights enshrined in the Convention, including the right to education. With regard to the right to education, the Committee encourages countries to construct high-quality, developmentally appropriate and culturally relevant programmes for young children. They should achieve this by working with local communities rather than imposing a standardized approach to early childhood care and education. To understand central features of child rearing and early childhood development, including the notions: o That young children form strong emotional attachments to their parents or other caregivers o That parents are the first educators of young children and should provide their children with an environment of reliable and affectionate relationships based on respect and understanding o That young children make sense of the physical, social and cultural dimensions of the world they inhabit, learning progressively from their activities and their interactions with others, children as well as adults

Chapter Nine

122

o

o o

o

That the goal of education is ‘to empower the child by developing his or her skills, learning and other capacities, human dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence’ and that this must be achieved in ways that are child-centred, child-friendly and reflect the inherent dignity of the child That within early education, attention should be given to the child’s right to rest, leisure and play That young children’s experiences of growth and development are powerfully shaped by cultural beliefs about their needs and proper treatment, and about their active role in family and community That an overall aim of all education is to prepare children for participation, citizenship and a responsible life in a free society through building their confidence, communication skills and enthusiasm for learning, and through their active involvement in, among others, planned activities. The Comment condemns traditional views of young children as being underdeveloped or as lacking understanding, co-operation or the capacity to make reasonable choices.

In sum, the individual rights of young children will be respected in the early childhood centre, but tempered by the notion of citizenship. Citizenship implies membership of a society where decisions are taken not just in the interests of the individual, but for the collective as a whole or for a significant part of it. Participation in group work will be encouraged, so that children can learn to express themselves openly and confidently, while taking into account the opinions and wishes of others. A democratic centre will also create opportunities for diversity to be recognised and to flourish. It will welcome and encourage the active participation of all families, particularly those from diverse backgrounds.

Pragmatic reasons for respecting the rights of children in education Apart from the human rights rationale, there are other practical reasons why the rights of the child should be respected in education. New needs in education have emerged clearly in the last decade. Space allows me to describe very briefly only three of these emergent needs, viz., the need to maintain high educational levels and to keep alive in children the motivation to learn; the need to respond to the changing contents of education; and the need to see education as an instrument of social

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

123

cohesion and equity. These changes affect all levels of education, including the foundation stage of learning in the early childhood period. The need to maintain high educational levels and to keep alive in children the motivation to learn In all OECD countries, recent structural and technological changes have led to great diversification of economies, with a parallel need to expand the work force and raise educational standards. In response, education is becoming life-long, as opposed to the once-off, initial period that characterized the industrial society. Today, labour forces need to adapt continually to rapid market changes and to be continually re-educated. This means building positive attitudes toward learning from the earliest age. In many countries, traditional schooling has become highly demotivating for children and no longer suits the changing needs of the economy. In order to continue the adventure of lifelong education, children need to be involved and happy in their learning during their years in kindergarten and school. In the new educational theory, self-direction in learning is a key concept. A human rights approach to early education fits this concept extremely well. By giving due respect to young children, our education systems are more likely to have self-directed and motivated pupils, with a strong desire to continue learning. Although schools still remain bureaucratic institutions based on hierarchical relations and official curricula, change can be effected to encourage caring and respectful relationships. Already, many schools show that curriculum need not be imposed in such a manner as to extinguish the child’s desire to learn and to socialise. The need to respond to the changing contents of education Education research suggests that while cognitive skills are important in predicting individual economic success, cognitive achievement alone is insufficient to meet the needs of the emerging economies (Bowles & Gintis 2001). Schools traditionally prepared children for adult work rules by socializing them to function well and without complaint in the hierarchical structure of the modern corporation. The social interactions and individual reward system of schools replicated the individualistic environment of the workplace: deference, docility and diligence have been the characteristics of the good student and the valued worker. Today, this model is no longer valid in many parts of the economy. Owing to the large and continuing shift toward services, the skills profiles for contemporary job markets are changing rapidly. There is a growing need for creativity, new knowledge and new technological skills to meet the demands of the

124

Chapter Nine

expanding knowledge economies. Knowledge is becoming increasingly a product of networked entities. Education systems need to adapt to these changes, and produce students who have critical thinking abilities, flexibility, good networking skills, the ability to work in inter-cultural teams, with a knowledge of foreign languages. Many of these skills are nurtured first in kindergartens, which cultivate creativity and flexibility in young children, and encourage acceptance of diversity and project work in teams. The need to see education as an instrument of social cohesion and equity In the view of governments, a central purpose of education systems is to provide qualified human resources for the economy and to ensure to societies a necessary degree of cultural and social cohesion. Few OECD countries today can afford not to address the second issue. The costs of social exclusion, unemployment and delinquency are now so great that efforts must be made to retain children in school and give them a fair chance of having a qualification that can ensure future employment. To achieve this aim, educational institutions need to be marked by an ethos that values social cohesion based on relationships of consideration, trust and mutual respect. Part of the strategy of governments to meet this challenge has been to establish affordable and accessible early education and care, and to grant free or highly subsidised places to children from low-income and immigrant backgrounds. Research shows consistently that early childhood programmes make an important contribution to both equity and social inclusion: they contribute to the development of all young children and to their school-related achievement and behaviour (Brooks-Gunn 2003). Early participation in early childhood services is particularly important for children with diverse learning rights, whether these stem from physical, mental or sensory disabilities (about 5% of the child population) or from socio-economic disadvantage (over 20% of the child population in the US and Mexico, but much less in the Nordic countries). See Figure 1 on page 125.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

125

Figure 1. Relative child poverty rates according to national poverty line % 0

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic France Belgium Hungary Netherlands Germany Austria Australia Canada UK Portugal Ireland Italy USA Mexico

5

10

15

20

25

30

2.4 2.8 3.4 4.2 6.8 6.8 7.5 7.7 8.8 9.8 10.2 10.2 14.7 14.9 15.4 15.6 15.7 16.6 21.9 27.7

Source: Child poverty in rich countries, UNICEF 2005. (Source years range from 1997 - 2001)

Which approaches to early childhood education favour democratic processes and child participation? In so far as national curricula for young children are concerned, a useful distinction can be made between the pre-primary school tradition of the French- and English-speaking countries (New Zealand excepted) and the social pedagogy tradition of the Nordic and Central European countries. Particular understandings of childhood, education and society underlie each tradition and are important for the shaping of curricula (Rayna & Brougère [Eds.] 2000; Rayna et al. [Eds.] 1996). The pre-primary school tradition Over a century ago, early education in the English- and French-speaking countries was absorbed by a knowledge-transfer, primary education model, and was conceived chiefly as a junior school. Teachers are trained predominantly in primary education methods and may have little or no

126

Chapter Nine

certification in early childhood pedagogy. Teacher-initiated and large group activities predominate, with a pronounced downward dynamic toward the individual child. Less attention may be given to horizontal dynamics that encourage peer exchange and children’s own discovery and meaning-making. In sum, government and teaching aims are foregrounded, and the actual desires and natural learning strategies of the child may be overshadowed. This ‘schoolifying’ of the early childhood years is reinforced by the current focus on ‘readiness for school’ and learning standards. For example, in the USA, most States have adopted learning standards for preK and kindergarten children, focussed often on language/literacy and cognition/general knowledge areas. Reputable bodies such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) and the National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER) have issued statements about readiness, appealing in general for a broad interpretation of standards in accordance with the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) goals of 1997. In consequence, many States follow either Head Start or the NAEYC/NAECS/SDE (National Association of for the Education of Young Children, and the National Association for Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education) guidelines and include broad developmental areas for assessment.2 In practice, however, the priority areas privileged by States for assessment are language/literacy and cognition/general knowledge areas.

2 The guidelines recommend that early learning standards should include: incorporation of all developmental domains; emphasis on content shown to be important for children’s learning and development; grounding in knowledge of the processes through which children develop in the early years; inclusion of cultural, linguistic, community, familial, and individual perspectives.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula Box 1. The American NCLB framework

Part of the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) policy framework is the Good Start, Grow Smart (GSGS) initiative, which calls on school districts to set expectations for young children that are researchbased and aligned with the standards set for literacy and numeracy in elementary and secondary education. The initiative is clearly marked by the NCLB framework, which promotes accountability, adequate yearly progress, more highly qualified teachers and a more focussed preparation of young children before kindergarten entry (5 years) in early literacy and pre-mathematics skills. Spurred by the initiative, most States have established voluntary early learning guidelines that are clear statements of what children should know and be able to do when they enter kindergarten. As in Head Start, accountability systems are being put into place, although testing of children below Grade 2 is not mandated and is generally discouraged. Professional Development for Teachers and Caregivers NCLB does not include early childhood and pre-K teachers in its requirements for ‘highly qualified’ teacher. In most States, in fact, training requirements for child care staff are minimal, and many States do not require pre-service training beyond a high school diploma. The field is ‘plagued by high teacher turnover, low pay and a lack of meaningful career paths. The problem cannot be solved without significantly more public funding. NCLB does not provide substantial funding increases to improve the quality of teaching in early childhood and pre-kindergarten programs.’ (Kauerz and McMaken 2004). The law includes an Early Childhood Educator Professional Development Program, which provides grants to partnerships that provide high quality professional development to educators working with children from low-income families in high-need districts. Early Reading First NCLB includes a reading program - Early Reading First - for preschool children (3 - 5 years) designed to prepare them to start school with the language, cognitive and early reading skills needed to become proficient readers. The programme targets children from low-income families, focuses on professional development activities and requires research-based curricula and assessments.

127

128

Chapter Nine

Reliance on Research GSGS recognises early learning as a critical contributor to academic success in school, and emphasizes the importance of using the latest early literacy research to help families and teachers promote early literacy with young children. A $US45 million, five-year research initiative will seek to identify the most effective early pre-reading and language curricula and teaching strategies for early childhood educators and caregivers. To date, researchers understand that language development and, in particular, phonemic awareness and vocabulary are the foundations of later reading success. Reading researchers have identified reading skills, such as the ability to link letters with sounds, and practices such as interactive reading techniques, that are keys to children’s success. Source: Kauerz and McMaken, 2004.

Despite the weaknesses underlined by Kauerz & McMacken (2004) above, the model holds out the promise to education ministries of children entering primary school prepared to read and write and able to conform to normal classroom procedures. Recent research from the UK and the USA also supports a structured approach to curriculum and learning in preschool. The US Eager to Learn committee has proposed a mixture of selfdirected learning and teacher-directed instruction in early education (Bowman et al. 2001). Similarly, the recent EPPE study in the UK (EPPE 2004; Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2003) and the Preparing for School study in Australia (Thorpe et al. 2004) found that effective pedagogy includes interaction traditionally associated with the term ‘teaching’, the provision of instructive learning environments and ‘sustained shared thinking’ to extend children’s learning. These findings are not incompatible with the pedagogical approach adopted in the social pedagogy tradition, which makes, however, a more determined effort to increase the agency of the child and to pursue more holistic developmental aims. The social pedagogy tradition A distinctive early childhood approach and pedagogy characterises the countries inheriting the social pedagogy tradition (Nordic and Central European countries). In this tradition, early childhood pedagogues trust young children to be agents of their own learning as competent persons who desire to engage with the world. A broad concept of pedagogy is common to these countries, that is, an approach to children combining care, upbringing and learning, without hierarchy. A more holistic approach to

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

129

learning is practised and greater emphasis is placed on learning to live together and on supporting children in their current developmental tasks and interests. As Rinaldi (2006) noted, ‘The task of the teacher is to create a context in which children’s curiosity, theories and research are legitimated and listened to …’ (p. 126). The freedom, creativity and pleasure of the individual child are given primary importance, but within a learning environment in which the requirements of society are also met. National curriculum frameworks guide the work of the centres and orient, in general terms, the pedagogical work and the content of children’s learning. As these curricula are based on previous consultations with the main stakeholders (including parents and educators), they are not considered as external instruments of normalisation but rather as agreed orientations guiding the life and work of the centres. Each centre enjoys much autonomy and is expected to formulate its own curriculum or learning plan guided by the national framework. Educators are encouraged to create not only enriched learning environments (‘the third teacher’ according to Malaguzzi), but also an affective environment that nurtures growth and confidence. Educators seek to respect young children’s natural learning strategies - learning through play, interaction, activity and experimentation. Co-operative project work is emphasised, to give children a taste for working together and to build up shared and more complex understandings of chosen themes. Language, negotiation and communication are fundamental to much of this work. Activities around nature and the environment also lend themselves to investigation, measurements and hypotheses, and to the practice of working together in teams. A central aim is to encourage children to deepen their understanding of their daily experiences. Project work provides an authentic opportunity to teachers to challenge and extend children’s meaning-making. In curriculum design terms, the social pedagogy tradition favours holistic learning. In contrast, the pre-primary tradition generally adopts a sequential approach to learning focused on different developmental areas, including emergent literacy and numeracy. Teachers are expected to help children advance their knowledge and skills level in each of these domains, in accordance with carefully sequenced steps. At a given moment in the year, the teacher knows where the children are in that sequence (she is aware of the zone of proximal development) and can raise the level of complexity whenever she judges the children are ready to advance.

130

Chapter Nine

However, as van Kuyk (2006), author of the Piramide programme used extensively in the Netherlands, comments: The sequential approach is primarily teacher directed and offers limited opportunities for children to develop self-regulation. Activities often fail to tap into children’s intrinsic motivation, because they do not authentically meet the needs and interests of children. When this intrinsic motivation is missing, the teacher will have to work harder to engage the children in learning … and learning becomes artificial and uninteresting. Children seek a meaningful context for learning, and when learning activities are decontextualised, the teacher has to entice the children with functional contexts and playful activities. Even though the learning goals are very clear in the sequential approach, the developmental areas lack natural connection and integration. (p. 145)

Unlike the English or French systems, children are not graded or assessed in the Nordic pre-schools or early primary schools: … all children should develop a desire and curiosity for learning, and confidence in their own learning, rather than achieving a pre-specified level of knowledge and proficiency. The pre-school should be a place for play, exploration and love of learning, with practice that has the image of a competent child and takes seriously listening to children and respecting their thoughts, theories and dreams. This should lay a strong foundation for lifelong learning. (Martin-Korpi 2005, pp.10 - 11)

However, this holistic approach to early childhood development practiced in the Nordic countries should not be interpreted to mean that standards are absent. On the contrary, pre-school centres (not the children) need to demonstrate through annual reporting how they are fulfilling their aims and objectives, and meeting the aims of the national curriculum. In this exercise, the views of parents and the wider community play an integral part. Within the centres, children’s progress is assessed regularly – if unobtrusively – through observation, documentation and parent interviews. Staff performance is also assessed regularly, generally through documentation or other internal process, but also externally by the municipal pedagogical advisors (who often take charge of new quality initiatives), and by regular surveys carried out by the National Education Agency (Sweden) or Social Welfare Agency (Denmark, Finland). For example, perhaps the most thorough evaluation of an early education system that exists in the literature was undertaken in Sweden by the National Agency for Education in 2004 (Skolverket 2004).

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

131

Some of the contrasting features of these two dominant curricular traditions are presented in the following table: Table 1. Features of two curricular traditions

Understandings of the child and childhood

The early childhood centre

The readiness for school tradition The child as a young person to be formed, as an investment in the future of society: the productive knowledge worker, the compliant well-behaved citizen … A benevolent, utilitarian approach to childhood in which state and adult purposes are foregrounded. Pedagogy focussed on ‘useful’ learning, readiness for school. … A tendency to privilege indoors learning. Generally (though by no means always), the centre is seen as a service based on individual demand, a matter of ‘choice’ for the individual parents. It is viewed as a place for development, learning and instruction. Children will be expected to reach predefined levels of development and learning (goals to be achieved).

The Nordic tradition The child as a subject of rights: to autonomy, wellbeing … and the right to growth on the child’s own premises. The child as agent of her own learning, a rich child with natural learning and research strategies. … The child as member of a caring community of peers and adults, in which the agency of the child is promoted. An outdoors child of pleasure and freedom. A time for childhood that can never be repeated. The centre is seen as a public socio-educational service, in which the community interest – as well as the interests of individual parents – must be taken into account. It is viewed as a life space, a place in which children and pedagogues learn, ‘to be, to know, to do and to live together’ (Delors Report, 1996). The aim is to support child development and learning and provide experience of democratic values. Little pressure placed on children who are

132

Chapter Nine

Curriculum development

Frequently, a prescribed ministerial curriculum detailing goals and outcomes. Assumption that the curriculum can be ‘delivered’ by the individual teacher in a standardised way, whatever the group or setting.

Focus of programme

A focus on learning and skills, especially in areas useful for school readiness. Mainly teacher directed (Weikart et al. 2003). Teacher-child relationships may be instrumentalised through large numbers of children per teacher and the need to achieve detailed curriculum goals. A balanced mix of instruction, child initiated activities and thematic work is encouraged, generally managed by each teacher. The national curriculum must be ‘delivered’ correctly. Emphasis on individual autonomy and selfregulation.

Pedagogical strategies

expected to strive for general goals. A broad national guideline, with devolution of curriculum detailing and implementation to municipalities and the centres. Responsibility falls on the centre staff, a feeling of collegiality. … A culture of research on what children want to learn and how they learn. Focus on working with the whole child and her family broad developmental goals as well as learning are pursued. Programmes are child-centred - interactivity with educators and peers encouraged and the quality of life in the institution is given high importance.

The national curriculum guides the choice of pedagogical themes and projects, which are planned by the pedagogical team, helped by parents and children. Confidence is placed in the child’s own learning strategies and centres of interest, i.e. on learning through relationships, through play and through educator

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

Language and literacy development

Targets goals children

and for

Indoor and outdoor spaces for young children

A growing focus on individual competence in the national language. Oral competence, phonological awareness and letter/word recognition are valued. Emphasis on emergent literacy practices. Standards may be established for language skills, pre-reading knowledge, premathematical knowledge, cognitive skills and social development. Prescribed targets – generally pertaining to cognitive development – may be set at national level, to be reached in all centres, sometimes translated by each year of age. The indoors is considered to be the primary learning space, and resources are focussed here. Outdoors is generally seen as an amenity, a recreational area and perhaps as important for health and motor development.

133

scaffolding at the appropriate moment. A growing focus on individual competence in the national language, in terms of language production and the ability to communicate. An emphasis also on symbolic representation and the ‘100 languages of children’. Promotion of family literacies and intergenerational language experiences. Externally defined standards are rarely used.

Broad orientations rather than prescribed outcomes. Goals are to be striven for, rather than achieved. A diffusion of goals may be experienced, with diminished accountability unless quality is actively pursued. Indoors and outdoors have equal pedagogical importance. Much thought and investment is given to the organization of outdoor space and its use. Young children may spend 3 or 4 hours daily out of doors, both in winter and summer. The environment and its protection is generally an

Chapter Nine

134

Assessment

Quality control

Learning outcomes and assessment often required, at least on entry into primary school. Goals for the group are clearly defined. Graded assessment of each child with respect to pre-defined competences may be an important part of the teacher’s role. Quality control based on clear objectives, inspection and, frequently, on predefined learning outcomes. Standardised testing may be used – on a sample basis - in programme evaluation, but in most centres, child testing is not allowed. Assessment of skills mastery is generally ongoing and the responsibility of the lead teacher. An external inspectorate may also validate, but may be under-staffed (especially in child care) or staffed by personnel without training in ECEC pedagogy.

Source: Bennett (2007) revised

important theme. Formal assessment is not required. Broad developmental goals are set for each child by negotiation (educatorparent-child). Goals are informally evaluated unless screening is necessary. Multiple assessment procedures are favoured.

Quality control is more participatory, based on educator and team responsibility and, depending on country, supervised by parent boards and municipalities. Documentation used not only to mark child progress but also as a collegial research on staff pedagogical approaches. A wide range of child outcomes may be sought, and assessed informally in multiple ways. External validation undertaken by municipal pedagogical advisors and/or inspectors. The focus is on centre performance rather than on child assessment.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

135

An analysis of curriculum in three countries, focussing on democracy and citizenship To illustrate the pre-primary and social pedagogy traditions, I will analyse curricula from three countries: France, England and Sweden. The two former countries have strong pre-primary education traditions, while Sweden has inherited a social pedagogy approach that stressed traditionally social education and the holistic development of children. It is interesting to note the impact that the two traditions have on participation and democracy in the early childhood institutions of each country. France: Qu’apprend-on à l’école maternelle (2002. A5 - 155 pages) (What is learned in the French pre-school?). Overview Pre-school in France caters for children 2 - 6 years. The curriculum, or programme, as it is called, identifies five main areas of education: language at the heart of all learning (25 pages); living together (7 pages); acting and expressing oneself though the body (13 pages); discovering the world (15 pages); sensitivity, imagination and creativity (16 pages). Competences that the child should have mastered before entering primary school are set out in each area. From the number of pages devoted to each area, readers will notice the strong emphasis on language, understood primarily as an initiation into the French language, which is valued for integrating and utilitarian purposes. The then minister of education, M. Jacques Lang, writes in his Preface to the work that: ‘The national language constructs us and unites us’ (p. 8). Teachers are required to emphasise firstly, oral language and then – as children approach primary school age - preparation for reading and writing. This understanding of language moves away from the long tradition of children’s langages in the French pre-school, in particular, the focus on the structuring and meaninggiving signs of the child’s universe (mother, father, families, the group … the sun; the moon and the cycle of nature, etc.) and their artistic expression, as articulated, for example, in the work of Germaine Tortel (INRP 2003). The last section of the programme - ‘Sensitivity, imagination and creativity’ - devotes 16 pages to art and music, but in general, the emphasis is utilitarian and is placed primarily on preparation for the primary school. The new programme describes the main areas of learning for children in the école maternelle, and also sets goals that the child should meet in each domain before entering the primary school. (There are 3 competences for

136

Chapter Nine

Living together, but 26 for Corporal expression.) It also insists on pedagogy and the means of reaching these goals, e.g. directing teachers not to use the global method of learning to read. The curriculum does not address the issue of programme standards (e.g. child-staff ratios) or the certification of teachers in early childhood pedagogy – areas that are particularly weak in the French école maternelle but which research suggests are important for the successful implementation of an early childhood curriculum. Democracy and citizenship Surprisingly for a country that examines periodically its attachment to liberté, égalité, fraternité, the new curriculum has little to say about democracy or citizenship. Social inequality is defined primarily as cultural inequality. 3 According to the curriculum, the school has the mission to reduce social inequalities in respect to knowledge and culture, particularly through the mastery of the French language. The école maternelle offers in the final year at least 10 hours weekly of French language tuition. The section on living together - vivre ensemble – has no orientation to structured values. The reader is told that learning to live together is a primary objective of the école maternelle which provides to each child an educational context structured by explicit rules and taken in charge by responsible adults. The child will discover there the supports and limits of living within a group, and the pleasure of co-operation with her peers: ‘In finding the appropriate distance in her relations with others, she makes herself known as a person and progressively constructs her personality.’ (p. 98). Given the high child-staff ratios in the French pre-school and the directive role of teachers, one may ask what kind of personality can a young child construct in such circumstances? In addition, the French preschool is not noted for including young children with special learning rights, as often, the resources – financial, physical and human – are lacking to make inclusion possible. In sum, the issue of defining and protecting the child’s place and influence in the pre-school is treated summarily. This gap is illustrated in a number of ways. For example, the area of Language at the heart of learning

3

The notion of cultural inequality is a valuable one, but French and international research shows that it is strongly correlated with material poverty (Council for Employment, Income and Social Cohesion [CERC] 2004). To expect early childhood centres to resolve the issue of cultural inequality, without strong antipoverty policies by government, seems naive.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

137

includes 30 competences to be mastered, while the area of Living together includes only three rather banal competences (p. 104): x To be able to take one’s place in an activity while retaining one’s individuality and being aware of the supports and constraints of collective life x To identify and recognize the roles of the different adults in the school x To respect the rules of life in common (respect for others, for materials, rules of politeness …) and apply them in one’s conduct toward one’s comrades (listening, helping, taking initiatives). This is especially inadequate in a curriculum that speaks of civic education as one of the fundamental goals of the elementary school (p. 47). England: The (draft) Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum (2006, Department for Education and Skills, 142 pages - A4, double column) 4 Overview The 2006 draft of a new Early Years Foundation Curriculum attempted to bring together the existing Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, Birth to Three Matters and the National Standards for under 8s Day Care and Childminding. This integrated curriculum for children 0 - 5 years (obligatory school begins at 5 years in England) uses a ‘stepping stones’ approach influenced by psychological stages theory. It is a long and detailed curriculum, destined to be used by teachers in all early childhood settings throughout England. In general, practitioners reacted well to the draft, particularly its effort to provide a common curriculum across the age group 0 - 5 years, but because of criticisms expressed during the consultation phase, the draft has since been sent back for further revision. However, it is an interesting document and like the French curriculum Qu’apprend-on à l’école maternelle (France, 2002), it illustrates how topdown, ‘early education’ approaches tend to become over-directive and leave little space for initiatives by either children or teachers. The draft English curriculum falls into five sections: an introduction setting out the principles on which the Early Years Foundation Stage is based; an overview of the curriculum; progression through the areas of learning; meeting the welfare requirements; and regulation, inspection and quality improvement. Educators must take into account six development or leaning areas, each with its own set of learning goals, differentiated for five different age groups: 4

Since this analysis was written, a revision of the EYFS curriculum has been issued, which is a vast improvement on the first draft examined here.

Chapter Nine

138

x x x x x x

Personal, social and emotional development Communication, language and literacy Problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy Knowledge and understanding of the world Physical development Creative development.

The child-enhancing organisation of the previous Birth to Three Matters curriculum - a healthy child; a strong child; a skilful communicator; a competent learner – is abandoned for a more developmental psychology approach, enumerating development areas and stages. In each development area, the curriculum proposes several learning goals and formulates hundreds of prescriptions for educators to follow. It also presents four different teaching foci: identification of development matters; documentation (look, listen and note); effective practice; planning and resourcing. In diagrammatic form, the curriculum looks as follows: Table 2. UK - The (draft) EYFS curriculum, 2006

Stages

Learning areas

Teaching foci

Prescriptions

0 - 11 months

Personal, social and emotional development

287

8 - 20 months

Communication, language and literacy

Identify key development understandings, skills, attitudes Documentation look, listen and note

16 - 26 months

Problem solving, reasoning & numeracy

Effective practice – steps to take

266

22 - 36 months 30 - 50 months

Knowing/understanding the world Physical development

Planning, resourcing - good practice

220

40 60+ months

Creative development

333

254 178 Total 1,5385

=

5 The 1538 pieces of advice to teachers are not all directives. Some refer to various developmental milestones of young children to which teachers should attend.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

139

The curriculum also mentions (but does not include) a Common Assessment Framework (CAF) for the use of teachers with children having ‘low level’ additional needs. The overall impression is of a curriculum that is highly detailed and sequential, with no particular underlying theory of early learning, no clear objectives of the system and no clear view of the ethics and values that inform it. The focus is on competences to be acquired and the key role of the individual teacher. However, it includes much useful information. For example, the chapter on Progression through the areas of learning and development discusses (or rather directs teachers about) effective teaching; and the chapter on Meeting the welfare requirements provides a welcome sign that thought is being given to a regulatory framework, but rather than presenting a few agreed principles, it includes a disconcerting level of detail. In contrast, the section Registration, inspection and quality improvement consists of just one recto verso page, sufficient perhaps for a curriculum addressed primarily to teachers, but extremely summary for the inspectors, regulators and other administrative personnel responsible for quality. Sentences such as: ‘All settings will be inspected regularly, with some requiring more inspection than others’ (p. 131) give the impression that an adequate guideline is yet to be formulated for these upstream staff. Democracy and participation The section Knowledge and understanding of the world asks practitioners to give particular attention to twelve different items, including ‘opportunities that help children to become aware of, explore and question issues of differences in gender, ethnicity, language, religion and culture, and of special educational needs and disability issues.’ (p. 73). However, among the twelve items presented for the different age groups, this last item receives the weakest treatment. A clear ethical or children’s rights approach to the issues is lacking. Teachers and children are required simply to notice these differences, which pedagogically may not be a particularly sound approach if one can judge from successful practice in other countries. In many centres that deal successfully with ethnic issues, the attention of children is drawn to diversity in general – and not just to differences based on ethnic belonging. The discussion of diversity deliberately includes differences of personality, of learning patterns, of likes and dislikes, etc. among all children, which serves to relativise easily perceived ethnic features. Teachers and children are also made aware of the special rights of children with addition learning needs to full respect and better resources.

140

Chapter Nine

In the English curriculum, such issues are passed over in summary fashion: far greater attention is given to investigating objects and familiar technology in the outside world than to learning about relationships and about other children. More disquietingly, in the section, Meeting the welfare requirements, young children are classified into categories of colour/ethnicity - White, Mixed, Asian, Black, Chinese, Any other ethnic background. Such categorisation of children is not only inaccurate but can hardly facilitate the task of teachers – or society at large - in nurturing improved understanding and acceptance of diversity. Perhaps such issues are addressed in the section on Personal, social and emotional development. An analysis of the section shows once more that from a democracy perspective, the treatment of social education is weak. Practitioners are asked to give special attention to another twelve items, among which are these: x Planning activities that provide emotional, moral, spiritual and social development alongside intellectual development x Providing positive images in, for example, books and displays that challenge children’s thinking and help them to embrace differences in gender, ethnicity, special education needs and disabilities x Providing opportunities for play that acknowledge children’s particular religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds x Providing support and a structured approach to achieve the successful personal, social and emotional development of vulnerable children, and those with particular behavioural and communication difficulties. Undoubtedly, these are important areas for attention, but the curriculum is so weighed down in detail that it is not clear how teachers can attend to them. Over a thousand directives are given to teachers across the four teaching foci (identification of development matters; documentation [look, listen and note]; effective practice; and planning and resourcing) for the six different age groups. These directives include many examples of interesting practice, but in general, they are repetitious and at times trivial. Synthesis is weak, and there is a lack of any organising principle in the moral attitudes proposed to children. This could easily be overcome by reference, for example, to Kohlberg’s work in the field of moral development (Kohlberg 1981), to research by Callan (1997) or even by reference to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

141

In sum, from a democracy and citizenship perspective, this draft curriculum can hardly be considered a success. Teachers are directed throughout and are given little space in which to take initiative, to match their practice to local needs or even to work in teams. The strong emphasis on knowledge acquisition contrasts strongly with the weak focus on life and relationships within the centre. A strong desire to increase the agency of children or to organise the early childhood centre on more democratic and participative lines does not emerge. Sweden: The Curriculum for Pre-school (19 pages, double column) The first chapter of the Swedish Curriculum for Pre-school begins as follows: Democracy forms the foundation of the pre-school. For this reason, all preschool activity should be carried out in accordance with fundamental democratic values. Each and everyone working in the preschool should promote respect for the intrinsic value of each person, as well as respect for our shared environment. An important task of the preschool is to establish and help children acquire the values on which our society is based. The inviolability of human life, individual freedom and integrity, the equal value of all people, equality between the genders as well as solidarity with the weak and vulnerable are all values that the preschool should actively promote in its work with children. (p. 6) The Swedish curriculum sets out clearly and succinctly (in 19 A5 pages only: compare France: 159 A5 pages; England: 142 densely written A4 pages) the foundation values for the pre-school and the tasks, goals, and guidelines for pre-school activities. The primary stress on values is characteristic of the Swedish approach to education, which traditionally has been seen as having an important ethical and values dimension. In this very short curriculum, goals and guidelines for the preschool are given in the following areas: The fundamental values of the pre-school Among the values announced are: o Understanding and compassion for others: ‘All activities should be characterised by care for the individual and aim at developing a sense of empathy and consideration for others, as well as openness and respect for the differences in the way people think and live’. (p. 7)

Chapter Nine

142

o o

The freedom of the child: ‘Children should have the opportunity of forming their own opinions and making choices in the light of their personal circumstances.’ (p. 7) Counteracting stereotyped gender roles: ‘The pre-school should work to counteract traditional gender patterns and gender roles. Girls and boys in the kindergarten should have the same opportunities to develop and explore their abilities and interests, without having limitations imposed by stereotype gender roles.’ (p. 7)

The tasks of the pre-school (pp. 8 - 12) o The preschool should lay the foundations of life-long learning. o The preschool should help families in their role of bringing up their children and helping them to grow and develop. o Pedagogical activities should be related to the needs of all children. o The preschool should take account that children have different living environments. o The preschool should provide children with a secure environment, at the same time as it challenges and encourages play and activity. o The preschool should provide a foundation so that children can acquire the knowledge and skills that all society needs. o Children should have the opportunity of developing their ability to observe and reflect. o Play is important for the child’s development and learning. Children search for knowledge and develop it through play, social interaction, exploration and creativity. o Language and learning are inseparably linked together, as is language and the development of a personal identity. The preschool should put great emphasis on stimulating each child’s language development. o Creating and communicating by means of different forms of expression (pictures, song and music, drama, rhythm, dance and movement, words and written language) are to be used in the pre-school in promoting the learning and development of the child. o The preschool should put great emphasis on issues concerning the environment and nature conservation. o Children should be able to switch activities during the course of the day. Their activities should provide scope for the child’s

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

143

own plans, imagination and creativity in play, and learning both indoors and outdoors. Development and learning In the pre-school, care, nurturing and education form a coherent whole. The pre-school should try to ensure for children: self-autonomy and confidence and the ability to function individually and in a group; a respect for their own and other cultures; develop their motor skills; the ability to express themselves; language, math, design, creative abilities …; ‘develop an understanding of their own involvement in the processes of nature, and in simple scientific concepts, such as knowledge of plants and animals’ (p. 15). The pre-school work team should co-operate in providing a good environment for development, play and learning, and help children ‘experience a sense of enjoyment and meaningfulness in learning what is new’ (p. 15). All this corresponds closely to the 'education articles' (Articles 28 and 29) of the Convention and to the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in their General Comment, No. 7, referenced above. Pre-school and home ‘The pre-school’s work with children should take place in close and confidential co-operation with the home. Parents should have the opportunity within the framework of the national goals to be involved and influence activities in the pre-school.’ (p. 18). Again, this recommendation to teachers and municipal authorities corresponds closely to Article 18 of the Convention, which legislates: ‘States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.’ Democracy and citizenship There is no ambiguity about democratic values in the Swedish curriculum: ‘The pre-school provides the foundations for children to understand what democracy is …’ (p. 16). The pre-school will ensure that children: o ‘Have the ability to express their thoughts and view. o ‘Develop their ability to accept responsibility for their own actions.

144

Chapter Nine

o ‘Develop the ability to understand democratic principle and citizenship through participating in different kinds of cooperation and decision-making.’ (p. 14ff) The work team will prepare the child for participating in and sharing the responsibilities, rights and obligations that apply in a democratic society (p. 17). Teachers will ensure the influence of the child on all aspects of life in the centre and in the choice of contents.

Final reflections The spirit and articles of the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child offer a common values base to guide the development of early childhood services in most cultures. For example: ‘Governments will provide services to all children within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind’ (Art. 2); and ‘They will direct the education of children toward the fullest development of each child’s personality and abilities; towards peace, tolerance and solidarity with others; toward knowledge and respect for the natural environment: and toward the preparation of children for a responsible life in a free society’ (Art. 29). In addition to imparting scientific knowledge, an abiding purpose of public education is to enhance understanding of society and encourage democratic attitudes in children. For this reason, governments generally underwrite universal education systems to ensure equity of access and a mixing of classes and backgrounds within the local school. Curricula include modules on citizenship and social studies. Many ECEC centres strive to ensure that democratic principles are not only taught but also reflected in the institution’s organisation, relationships and daily life. The early years are particularly suited for nurturing in children selfregulation, sustained shared thinking, creativity, oral language skills, teamwork and positive attitudes toward learning – resources that can greatly assist later school success and work effectiveness (Bowles & Gintis 2001). Faced with this challenge, it seems particularly important that the early childhood centre should be conceived as a community of learners, where children learn to participate and share with others, and where learning is seen as primarily interactive, experiential and social. To strike a balance between the four goals of education announced by the Delors report (Delors, 1996) - learning to be, learning to do, learning to learn and learning to live together - is an important task for early education in all societies.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

145

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

How can the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child support you to develop a curriculum that encourages democratic attitudes in children? Which democratic values would be found in your current curriculum? Which democratic values would you find most challenging in your current context? How would you describe in your own words a democratic approach to curriculum?

Further reading Moss, P. 2007, Bringing politics into the nursery: early childhood education as a democratic practice (Working papers in early childhood development 43), The Hague: Bernard van Leer , The Hague. Foundation. [Online] Available at: http://www.bernardvanleer.org/publications (sourced on 12 September 2007) Skolverket, Swedish National Agency for Education. 2004, Preschool in transition: a national evaluation of the Swedish preschool, Swedish National Agency for Education, Stockholm. Swedish Ministry of Education. 1998, Lpfö 98: curriculum for the preschool, Swedish Ministry of Education, Stockholm.

References Bennett, J. 2007, ‘The OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care policy.’ In Learning with other countries: international models of early education and care, Daycare Trust, London. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. 2001, Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited. Basic Books, New York. Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S. & Burns, M. S. (eds) 2001, Eager to Learn: educating our preschoolers. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. National Research Council Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Brooks-Gunn, J. 2003, ‘Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs’, Social Policy Report, vol. XVII, no. 1, pp. 3 - 7.

146

Chapter Nine

Callan, E. 1997, Creating Citizens : political education and liberal democracy. Clarendon Press, Oxford. CERC (Conseil de l’emploi, des revenus et de la cohésion sociale) 2004, Les Enfants Pauvres en France, La documentation française, Paris. Children in Europe, 2005, Curriculum and Assessment in the Early Years, Issue 9, Children in Scotland, Edinburgh. CRC/C/GC/Rev.1, 2006, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Geneva. Delors, J. (ed.) 1996, The Treasure Within (The Delors report on education), UNESCO, Paris. Education International. 1998, E.I. Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 4, Brussels. Department for Education and Skills. 2006, The (draft) Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum, DfES, London. EPPE. 2004, The Final Report. Institute of Education Technical Paper 12, The University of London, London. Ministère de l’Education nationale. 2002, Qu’apprend-on à l’école maternelle. Ministère de l’Education nationale, Paris. INRP 2003, Se construire par les langages dès l’école maternelle: pédagogie d’initiation Germaine Tortel, Auteur, Paris. Kauerz, K. & McMaken, J. 2004, No Child Left Behind policy brief. Implications for the early learning field, Education Commission of the States (ECS) [Online] Available at: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/51/82/5182.pdf (Date of access, 10th January, 2008). Kohlberg, L. 1981, ‘The future of liberalism as the dominant ideology of the Western world’, in Essays on Moral Development: Vol. 1. The Philosophy of Moral Development: moral stages and the idea of justice, ed. L. Kolberg, Harper & Row, San Francisco, pp. 131 - 142. Martin-Korpi, B. 2005, ‘The Foundation for Lifelong Learning’, Children in Europe, vol. 9, Curriculum and assessment in the early years, Children in Scotland, Edinburgh, pp. 10 - 11. Rayna, S., Laevers, F. & Deleau, M. (eds) 1996 L’Éducation préscolaire : quels objectifs pédagogiques? Nathan/Pédagogie, Paris. Rayna S. & Brougère, G. 2000, Traditions et innovations dans l’éducation préscolaire : perspectives internationales, INRP/CRESAS, Paris. Rinaldi, C. 2006, In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: listening, researching and learning, Routledge, New York. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P & Melhuish, E. 2003, The EPPE case studies, Technical paper 10, Institute of Education, University of London/Department for Education and Employment, London.

A Comparative Analysis of Provision made in National Curricula

147

Skolverket, Swedish National Agency for Education 2004, Preschool in Transition: a national evaluation of the Swedish preschool, Swedish National Agency for Education, Stockholm. Swedish Ministry of Education. 1998, Lpfö 98: curriculum for the preschool, Swedish Ministry of Education, Stockholm. Thorpe, K., Tayler, C., Bridgstock, R., Grieshaber, S., Skoien, P., Danby, S. & Petriwskyj, A. 2004, “Preparing for School,” Report of the Queensland Preparing for School Trials 2003/4, Department of Education and the Arts, Queensland Government, Queensland. Avaliable at: http://education.qld.gov.au/etrf/pdf/qutreportqldpreptrial.pdf (Accessed 11th January, 2008) UNICEF 2005, Child Poverty in Rich Countries, UNICEF International Research Centre, Florence. United Nations 1989, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations, New York. van Kuyk, J. 2006, ‘Holistic or sequential approach to curriculum: what works best for young children?’ in The Quality of Early Childhood Education, ed. J. van Kuyk, CITO, Arnhem. Weikart, D. P., Olmsted, J., Montie, N., Hayes, J. & Ojla, M. (eds) 2003, A World of Pre-school Experiences: observations in 15 countries, the IEA pre-primary project phase 2. High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, MI.

CHAPTER TEN "YOU’RE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS BUT ..." LEARNING TO HEAR CHILDREN AS EXPERTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSROOMS GULLIVER MCGRATH, ZEN MCGRATH, SAM PARSONS, KYLIE SMITH GRETA SWAN AND SHARON SAITTA

Citizenship is not obtained by chance: It is a construction that, never finished, demands we fight for it. It demands commitment, political clarity, coherence, decision. For this reason a democratic education cannot be realized apart from an education of and for citizenship. (Freire 1998, p. 90.)

This chapter describes how a group of children and teachers are creating a pedagogy that recognises children as active citizens with a right to have a voice in how curriculum is developed, implemented and evaluated. We have reconceptualised the image of the child in ways that shift power/knowledge relationships between children and teachers; and our reconceptualizing led us to rethink the early childhood classroom by engaging with multiple voices and with the ethics and the politics of the classroom. This work has happened in Spider Room, an early childhood (3 to 5 year old children) classroom in a 41-place long day care centre in Melbourne, Australia. We aim to build and fight for an education of and for citizenship in Spider Room.

Recognising children as active citizens in Spider room We began to fight for a pedagogy of citizenship in Spider Room in a ‘catalytic moment’ (Campbell 2001). Kylie’s reflection recalls that catalytic moment.

Learning to Hear Children as Experts in Early Childhood Classrooms

Kylie’s reflection I have vivid memories of when I first recognised children as citizens in Spider Room, although I wouldn’t have described them as such – that happened two years later (2005) as a result of my theorising of the image of the child. In 2003, I started to reflect critically on how I might consider children’s voices as I constructed curriculum in practice in Spider Room. Gully triggered this early reflection. He taught me different, more ethical and respectful ways to listen to children’s voices and act on them. At the time, Gully was four years old and was attending the centre full time (Monday to Friday) in Spider Room. I ‘knew’ Gully, who had attended the centre full time for several years. Using a developmental gaze, I had - through my observations (narrative and checklists) - assessed Gully as having advanced language skills. He could articulate his ideas and feelings clearly. He also had excellent social skills – he could negotiate spaces with children and teachers and he could both lead play and also follow other children’s lead. He had positive relationships with the teachers in Spider Room and in the centre’s three other rooms. He appeared confident and able to raise issues or concerns with the teachers and he asked us for assistance when he was unable to resolve an issue with another child. One week, Gully arrived at the centre every morning extremely upset crying and angry. Each morning, as Heidi (his Mum) or Craig (his Dad) dropped him off at the centre, he said that he didn’t want to be there. He rejected any teacher’s attempts to contact or comfort him and he told me that he hated me and told me to leave him alone: ‘I hate you … I just need space … Leave me alone!’ He sat on a chair under the tree by himself, crying. After three mornings of watching him really distressed and feeling unable to help him, I said to him: ‘I feel really bad that you are upset and I can’t help you. Can you tell me what would make it easier for you to be here at the centre?’ Gully turned to me and said, ‘I just want to be at home, so I can play with my Harry Potter Lego.’ I reflected critically on how I understood Gully’s statement and on why I understood it in this way. I asked myself: x Why couldn’t we have Harry Potter Lego at the centre? x Do I only put toys and equipment out that I regard as ‘educational’? x What equipment would the children want if I asked them? x Would this look different to what I have planned, based on my observations and interpretations of what they are interested in and or enjoy exploring? x How do my current observations and assessment tools of children’s development and interests restrict my understandings of the child?

149

Chapter Ten

150 x x

What would I do if children asked for equipment that I didn’t think they should have? Would I lose control of the classroom? What discourses am I using that lead me to think that I control the classroom?

I told Gully that we didn’t have any Harry Potter Lego and asked him if he would like to bring his into the centre the next day. As I said this, concerns rushed through my head – we always say ‘No home toys’, but here I’m saying ‘Bring home toys in’ … What if the pieces go missing? … What if Gully doesn’t want to share the Lego? Gully said to me, ‘Can I really?’ When Heidi (Gully’s mum) collected him from the centre that night, Gully and I talked with her about bringing in his Lego. The next morning, Gully arrived with his Lego, I set up a table and he shared it with the other children … and none of the pieces went missing! But more importantly, Gully appeared happy to be at the centre and was not upset when Heidi left him there.

In Gully’s reflection on the incident, he talks about how it felt to say what he wanted in Spider room.

Gully’s reflection It made me feel l had a say in what I got to play with at crèche. I actually got to say what I wanted to play with. I felt more in control. I felt really happy.

Spider Room: a ‘political active’ classroom? My ‘catalytic moment’ led the centre staff to explore how we could recognise and support children as active citizens with a right to have a say in matters affecting them in the early childhood classroom. We did this by illuminating the politics of the classroom around program planning, observation and service evaluation; but this chapter will focus just on program planning. We drew from John Dewey’s (1916) argument that education should draw on principles of freedom, equity, community and ethics. These principles prompted questions that guided our critical reflections about the taken for granted ‘truths’ of our classroom. Michel Foucault (1980) named such taken for granted truths ‘regimes of truth’: Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and

Learning to Hear Children as Experts in Early Childhood Classrooms

151

procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. (Foucault 1980, p. 131.)

We made these regimes of truth visible by reflecting critically on these questions: x Why do we understand and implement curriculum, observation and evaluation the way we do? x What image of the child informs our curriculum, observation and evaluation? x What knowledge is privileged and what is silent in our curriculum, observation and evaluation? x How do we engage with freedom, equity, community and ethics in our everyday work with children in the classroom? x How (if at all) do children participate currently in our curriculum, observation and evaluation? x How do teachers’ epistemologies constrain or limit children’s participation? x What are some other democratic ways to understand and implement curriculum, observation and evaluation in Spider Room? Our answers to these questions, together with Giroux’s (1995) understandings of critical pedagogy, helped us to recognise curriculum and the classroom as a political, social and cultural site that we needed to re-negotiate and reconceptualise if we wanted to create a pedagogy of citizenship. We began to explore ‘border pedagogies’ to find a ‘pedagogy of difference’ (Giroux 1995, p. 57), i.e. to create sites where children can speak about their ideas and understandings of their worlds and where teachers listen differently to what children say. Border pedagogy allows a space to shift identities and power. Border pedagogy encourages tolerance, ethics, openness and critical reflection; and it encourages debates about identities, power and meaning (Romo & Chavez 2006; Giroux 1991). Giroux wrote about these issues as follows: As part of the process of developing a pedagogy of difference, teachers need to deal with the plethora of voices, and the specificity and organization of differences that constitute any course, class, or curriculum so as to make problematic not only the stories that give meanings to the lives of their students, but also the ethical and political lineaments that inform their students’ subjectivities and identities. … By being able to listen to the voices of their students, teachers also become border crossers through their ability to not only make different narratives available to themselves and students but also by legitimating differences as a basic

152

Chapter Ten condition for understanding the limit of one’s own knowledge. By viewing schooling as a form of cultural politics, critical educators can bring the concepts of culture, voice, and difference together to create a borderland where multiple subjectivities and identities exist as a part of a pedagogical practice that provides the potential to recognise the limits of one’s own voice so that one can enter into dialogue with others. (Giroux 1995, p. 57.)

Crossing the border to a curriculum based on citizenship To create a borderland in Spider Room, we followed Giroux’s (1995) advice. As teachers, we recognised the limits of our knowledge. We explored our understandings of curriculum, where they came from and their implications for a pedagogy of citizenship. Within Australia, concepts such as democratic curriculum and child citizenship are seen rarely in early childhood curricula. Instead, terms such as ‘child centred practice’ and ‘emergent curriculum’ are used to describe early childhood curricula that recognise children’s learning, interests and ideas (Department of Education and Children’s Services 2005; Queensland School Curriculum Council 1998; Stonehouse & Duffie 2003; Tasmanian Department of Education 2004). Such terms assume that the early childhood practitioner is an ‘expert’ who observes the child to assess her/his development and interests and who plans a curriculum accordingly (Cannella 1997; Smith 2003). Those terms also assume that the early childhood practitioner makes decisions about the child and plans the curriculum for the child (Jans 2004). The child has a voice only within the early childhood practitioner’s agenda; and what the child says is subject to interpretation by the early childhood practitioner. For example, when an early childhood practitioner observes a child playing with dinosaurs, s/he asks the child about dinosaurs and plans a curriculum around the child’s responses. Such a process results in what is described as an ‘emergent’ or ‘child centred’ curriculum which the child can ‘co-construct’. However, that curriculum is still based on and driven by the early childhood practitioner’s observations and interpretations (Patterson & Fleet 2003; Dahlberg, Moss & Pence 1999; Edwards, Gandini & Forman 1998). Our next step across the border was to explore how children appeared in other curricula and to discuss principles of democracy and citizenship (Alverstad & Samuelsson 1999; Clark & Moss 2005; Rinaldi 2006; Skolverket 1998). We also examined multiple identities and multiple epistemologies by exploring different discourses, such as:

Learning to Hear Children as Experts in Early Childhood Classrooms

x

x

153

the early childhood practitioner as subjective, partial, contingent and contradictory (Weedon 1987). The early childhood practitioner who creates curriculum with children based on observations with children about children, teachers and the world. The early childhood practitioner reflects critically and acknowledges the tinge of her gaze when seeing and listening to children and families. the child as a social actor who knows about the world in ways that are different from, not inferior to, adults’ knowledge of the world. The child is a ‘critical friend’ to teachers and has a right to participate in decisions affecting them.

Kylie’s border crossing took her through some rugged terrain, as she explains in her reflection (ii).

Kylie’s reflection (ii) As a teacher, I have consciously, strategically and politically tried to cross borders in order to know and understand my world through children’s eyes and in order to be a more ethical member of Spider Room. Previously, I had believed that multiple voices were heard in Spider Room, because I believed that Spider Room was co-constructed by adults and children. However, the episode with Gully (see above) showed me that my ‘objective’ observations and interpretations of children and my questions and conversations with them were subjective, partial and limited. Consequently, I began to engage within border pedagogies that recognised children as citizens with knowledge about the world that is different - not inferior – to adults’. I began by meeting with all the children in Spider Room. I asked them what activities, toys or games they would like to have in Spider Room. The children talked over the top of each other to express their ideas as I frantically wrote down their ideas. My list included Barbies, Transformers, aeroplanes, animals, painting, cars, Batman, Superman and Spiderman. We had aeroplanes, animals, painting and cars in the centre, but not the other items. When I explained this to the children, Gully said: ‘Kylie, just go to the K-Mart near my house - you can get them from there (but) don’t go down the pink part, ’cause that’s the dolls and Barbies.’ Off I went to K-Mart! I began selecting Barbies, despite my feminist identities! I began to ask myself questions – and quickly looked up and down the aisle to see if anyone was watching me as I mumbled;

Chapter Ten

154 x x x

Why do all the Barbies have white Anglo-Saxon identities, mostly with blond hair and blue eyes? What does Barbie tell us about gendered and sexualised identities of being female? By providing Barbies in the classroom, am I condoning and supporting these ideas?

I moved across several aisles to the ‘boys’ aisle’, with its cars, trucks, superheros, toy guns and dinosaurs. Again, I started talking to myself as I tried to select the toys on my list. My trip to K-Mart showed me that in many cases I had no idea what I was looking for … so I arranged for the children to take me shopping for the things they wanted the centre to have. Subsequently, the presence in Spider Room of materials and equipment that weren’t ‘educational’ or ‘appropriate’ generated conversations with the children that were quite different to those we’d had previously. Our new conversations were about, for example, constructions of identities (including gender, class and culture), superheroes, fighting and weapons. Also, the presence in the centre of these ‘non-educational’ or ‘inappropriate’ materials meant that when children wanted to play with them, they weren’t contravening any centre rules. For example, one Monday morning, Eric rushed into Spider Room and said, ‘You’re not going to like this but …’ and then told me all about a Spiderman DVD that he had watched over the weekend. He advised me against getting it from the video shop because, ‘You wouldn’t like the fighting’!

Gully, too, explained how he felt about crossing borders in his reflection (ii).

Gully’s reflection (ii) I really liked that. I got to talk about what I really wanted to play with. Not like playing in the sandpit and on the monkey bars. We finally got to have a say in the toys we really play with. We got to choose.

Like a rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 1988), border crossing has no beginning and no end. Instead, there is just constant and conscious rigour and critical reflection on the ethics and politics of children’s voices in the classroom. Children in Spider Room continue to decide what equipment, activities, spaces and environments they want in the room. The teachers also decide what they want in the room, in order to create and share multiple perspectives, histories, cultures and knowledges. The teachers now regard Spider Room as a site of ethical and political activism. For

Learning to Hear Children as Experts in Early Childhood Classrooms

155

example, when teachers Sam and Kylie asked the children in Spider Room what they would like to do this year, many of the children wanted excursions. Previously the teachers and parents had decided where to go on excursions, but this time we asked the children where they wanted to go. This resulted in a ‘Spider Room excursion series’. Through their negotiations around these excursions, the children and the teachers learnt that citizenship in a democratic society comes with rights and responsibilities. The children had to recognise that not all excursions were possible. For example, one child asked to go to ‘London Town’ and another child asked to go to Fiji. Not surprisingly, all the children (and the teachers!) thought that these were great ideas! However, we agreed eventually that they were impossible because each meant that the children would be separated from their families for a long time and many families and teachers couldn’t afford the cost of the flights. The teachers had to recognise that if they ask children for their opinions and ideas, then they must either put them into practice or explain why they can’t. For example, Zen asked to go snorkelling. In the past, teachers did not take children to a pool or beach, as they would have regarded it unsafe. However, on this occasion, Sam and Kylie reflected critically on what would make it possible for Zen to go snorkelling and, as a result, found a way to make it happen. Zen described what this meant for him.

Zen’s reflection I liked the big shower thing in the pool where the water sprayed down and the bridge where the water sprayed out. I liked swimming and going under the water and going up to the teachers while I was swimming under the water.

For Sam, the snorkelling excursion was a ‘catalytic moment’, as she shows in her reflection.

Sam’s reflection The snorkelling was a wake up call for me of what we can actually do with children. Thinking outside the square by listening to children and enacting what children want creates other possibilities. We often listen to children but fail to act on what they say, because we think that it is too hard. We let the regulations and governing bodies make us feel that it would be tricky to do, rather than exciting to work out how we could do it. So for me, taking the children to the beach (another excursion) and to the swimming pool was scary but, at the same time, exciting. Both excursions were so

156

Chapter Ten successful that I am enthusiastic about continuing to listen to children and find ways to make it possible to enact children’s ideas. Now I work with children aged 3 months to 1 year and I am looking for different strategies and cues so that I can give them choices in activities and routines. I really believe that if we acknowledge young children - including children under two years of age - as citizens, we need to recognise and respect them as competent meaning makers. We also need to rethink who we are as teachers - to support children to have voice in matters affecting them, rather than just listen to their ideas and views and then silence them under the gaze of the expert teacher with ‘educational’ (and therefore superior) knowledge.

Greta was challenged - but also inspired - by the notion of acting on children’s voices, as she describes in her reflection.

Greta’s reflection I returned to work after 12 months leave to hear, ‘We’re going on a snorkelling excursion next week’. Knowing the people I work with as well as I do, I thought I was having my leg pulled: ‘Snorkelling?! You’ve got to be kidding!’ I was then told about the excursion series that had been happening in my absence. As exciting as it was to hear, I also thought, ‘If only my leave had been a week longer.’ Not only were we taking the children to the pool where there is lots of water, we were also going to encourage them to put their heads under! For me, this was a perfect example of the work that was happening before I went on leave. Not only were we listening to the children, but we were really following through with their ideas. It was a real joy to see the children have so much fun on this excursion. They were so excited by it and afterwards they couldn’t stop talking about when we were going to go again. The enjoyment also came from knowing that we had collaborated with the children and that it would have been impossible without them - they took charge and led us. Through honouring the children’s ideas and contributions, we learnt from them to extend our own boundaries, take risks and enjoy ourselves.

Conclusion From the moment I could talk I was ordered to listen. (Cat Stevens 2000.)

In many early childhood classrooms, either children’s voices are absent or teachers listen to children within epistemologies that effectively silence what children say. Consequently, we need to fight for a pedagogy of citizenship that deconstructs the politics of the classroom in order to

Learning to Hear Children as Experts in Early Childhood Classrooms

157

foreground ethical and respectful engagement with, and enactment of, children’s voices.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3.

How do children participate currently in curriculum, observation and evaluation in your classroom? How is child participation limited or constrained by your understandings of what the early childhood classroom should look like? What are some other democratic ways of understanding and implementing curriculum, observation and evaluation in your classroom?

Further Reading Clarke, A. & Moss, P. 2005, Spaces to Play: more listening to young children using the Mosaic approach, National Children’s Bureau, London. Rinaldi, C. 2006, In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: listening, researching and learning, Routledge, London.

References Alverstad, M. & Samuelsson, I. P. 1999, ‘A comparision of the national preschool curricula in Norway and Sweden’, Early Childhood Research and Practice, vol. 1, no. 2, [On line] Available at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n2/alvestad.html (Accessed 17th August 2007) Campbell, S. 2001, The Definition and Description of A Social Justice Disposition in Young Children, Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Cannella, G. 1997, Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: social justice & revolution, Peter Lang, New York. Clarke, A. & Moss, P. 2005, Spaces to Play: more listening to young children using the Mosaic approach, National Children’s Bureau, London. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. 1999, Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: postmodern perspectives, Falmer Press, London.

158

Chapter Ten

Department of Education and Children’s Services. 2005, South Australian Curriculum Standards and accountability framework, Government of South Australia, Adelaide. Available at: http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/splash.asp (Accessed 17th August, 2007) Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. 1988, A Thousand Plateaus: capitalism & schizophrenia. The Athlone Press, London. Dewey, J. 1916, Democracy and education, Available at: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/education/Democr acyandEducation/toc.html (Accessed 23rd August, 2007) Edwards, C., Gandini, L. & Forman, G. (eds.) 1998, The Hundred Languages of Children: the Reggio Emilia approach - advanced reflections, Ablex, Connecticut. Freire, P. 1998, Teachers as Cultural Workers - Letters to Those Who Dare Teach, Translated by Donoldo Macedo, Dale Koike, and Alexandre Oliveira, Westview Press, Boulder. Foucault, M. 1980, Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison, Penguin Books, London. Giroux, H. 1995, ‘Border pedagogy and the politics of postmodernism’ in Postmodernism, Postcolonialism and Pedagogy, ed. P. McLaren, James Nicholas Publishers, Albert Park. pp. 37 - 64. Giroux, H. A. 1991, ‘Democracy and the discourse of cultural difference: toward a politics of border pedagogy’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 501 – 520. Jans, M. 2004, ‘Children as citizens: towards a contemporary notion of child participation’, Childhood, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 27 - 44. Patterson, C. & Fleet, A. 2003, Meaningful Planning: rethinking teaching and learning relationships, Australian Early Childhood Association, Canberra. Queensland School Curriculum Council. 1998, Preschool Curriculum Guidelines, Education Queensland Open Access Unit, Brisbane. Available at: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/early/preschool/index.html (Accessed on 17th August , 2007) Rinaldi, C. 2006, In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: listening, researching and learning, Routledge, London. Romo, J. & Chavez, C. 2006, ‘Border pedagogy: a study of pre-service teacher transformation’, The Educational Forum, vol. 70, pp. 142 153. Skolverket. 1998, Preschool Curriculum Lpfo 98. Available at: http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/354 (Accessed 6th December, 2007) Stevens, C. 2000, Father and Son. Available at:

Learning to Hear Children as Experts in Early Childhood Classrooms

159

http://www.rhapsody.com/catstevens/theverybestofcatstevens/fatheran dson/lyrics.htm (Accessed 17th August, 2007) Stonehouse, A. & Duffie, J. 2003, NSW Curriculum Framework for Children’s Services. The Practice of Relationships: essential provisions for children’s services, New South Wales Department of Community Services, Office of Childcare, New South Wales. Available at: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/documents/childcare_framework.pdf (Accessed 17th August, 2007) Smith, K. 2003, Reconceptualising Observation in the Early Childhood Curriculum, Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Tasmanian Department of Education, 2004, Essential Learnings, Essential Connections: a guide to young children’s learning, Department of Education, Hobart. Weedon, C. 1987, Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Oxford.

CHAPTER ELEVEN THE LEARNING COMMITTEE: CHILDREN’S VOICES IN PLANNING EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM GLENDA HENDERSON AND GLENDA MAC NAUGHTON

This chapter documents the journey taken by teachers and children at a kindergarten in South Australia as they worked to shift power relations between children and teachers by using a Learning Committee to increase children’s voice in the curriculum decision-making process. Their journey started with a group time when the kindergarten teacher, Glenda Henderson, asked the children, ‘Whose kindergarten is this?’ The unanimous answer was, ‘Yours’. She then asked the children, ‘Who should decide what learning happens here?’ Not unexpectedly, the answer again was ‘You.’ Glenda discussed these issues with the children and suggested that they should create a weekly Learning Committee, where children and teachers could decide together the program for the following week. The Learning Committee generally included four or five children and one of the adults, with children giving ideas about what and how they would like to learn. In this chapter, Glenda Henderson explores what the Learning Committee revealed about power relations between children and adults and what it means in practice to see children as active citizens contributing to daily decisions in an early childhood centre.

Starting my journey Many, many years ago when I was 8, I told my mother that I wanted to be a kindergarten teacher. My goal never changed. In 1978 I started my first teaching job as a Junior Primary teacher. Close to my goal, but not quite

The Learning Committee: Children’s Voices in Planning Early Childhood Curriculum

161

there. For 23 years, I continued very happily in Junior Primary until in 2002 quite by ‘happenstance’ I became a Kindergarten Director. My last Junior Primary position (which I still hold one day per week) was fun, scary, challenging, exciting, uncomfortable/comfortable and satisfying. I was fortunate to work with a Principal and then a staff who believed that children should have a say in what and how they learn. The power should be shared. The Principal was so passionate about this that her beliefs began to resurface in her staff. The difference was that these were not only her beliefs, but also ours; the challenge for us as teachers was to let go of our old, comfortable methodologies and seek out new ones together. As daunting as this was for many of us, we believed that developing children’s ownership of their learning, sharing the power and really actively listening to them was important in developing successful citizens for the future - a future that will be vastly different to the present and one that we can only guess about. For me, the decision to share/negotiate the learning rather than to teach at the children didn’t come from readings and training. Instead, it came from my intuitive understanding that children are people who have their own needs, interests, feelings and talents and who are entitled to be respected, to express their own opinions and to be listened to. Fortunately, recent educational theory is congruent with this thinking. Having started the journey of change in my Junior Primary classroom (5 8 year olds), I was offered the position of Director in a kindergarten (3½ to 5 year olds.). After 23 years, I had reached my goal!

Kindergarten at last In January 2002, I walked tentatively into Bridgewater Kindergarten (Adelaide, South Australia), a two staff, part-time centre. As Director, I taught in all sessions as well as doing a multitude of administrative and leadership tasks. This was the start of a new journey for me. I knew a little about kindergartens, having had three of my own children attend them, but that was from the perspective of a mother. Now, I was The Teacher! Initially, I followed the centre’s existing routine. When programming, we took out our SACSA (South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework), turned to the pages concerning 3 - 5year olds and decided what to teach. We were covering the required curriculum. The children were occupied and learning and seemed happy. We could leave

162

Chapter Eleven

work at the end of the day knowing that we had fulfilled our obligations to our employers. I could have felt satisfied, but I didn’t. Programming in this way was an incredibly difficult task for me. In the ensuing weeks and months, my teaching partner and I had many conversations about this. She was comfortable, but could see that conversations with the children would be valuable! We started to speak to individual children, asking them what they would like to learn. Most of them didn’t know. They ‘just wanted to play!’ We wrote out Learning Plans for those who did know and promised to spend time with them individually, guiding their learning. In a centre with only two staff, this was incredibly difficult and the individual Learning Plans just weren’t successful. The children wanted to do their learning immediately, but we needed to answer phones, change wet clothes, attend to first aid, speak with visitors, set out and manage activities for the other children, manage the other individual Learning Plans, etc. The constant interruptions made it impossible to pursue individuals’ Learning Plans in any depth. We then decided to get a group decision by asking all the children at the same time what they would like to learn about. (At that time, our enrolment was only 17 children.) After a long silence (very unusual in a kindergarten setting) two or three children made suggestions, a few said that they were hungry, others wanted to sing a song … and many said nothing. We certainly didn’t hear from everybody. We programmed that week according to the two or three children who had made suggestions. Asking the whole group had been successful to a degree, but we were concerned about the children who rarely joined in at group time. Maybe the others were too loud, maybe they didn’t want to speak in front of the group, maybe they didn’t understand the discussion. Whatever the reason, they weren’t going to join in. So we went back to planning for the children. At least we knew what we were doing then; maybe their opinion wasn’t important. Programming was still a hard task for me. Why? I think it was because our method didn’t match my beliefs. I didn’t value what we did. I could argue that they were only three and four year olds, so they didn’t know what they wanted or needed. WRONG. I knew better than that. They were children, people who had needs, interests, feelings and talents and were entitled to be respected, to their own opinions and to be listened to. They were children with voices. Some were more comfortable with using their

The Learning Committee: Children’s Voices in Planning Early Childhood Curriculum

163

voices than others, but surely our role as teachers and facilitators was to help them all to have a say. Back to the drawing board! At this time, a new teacher was placed at our centre who was also looking to change and re-energize her teaching. Consequently, we decided to try to understand why children’s views were so important to us. We came up with four possible reasons: 1. It would be easier for us. (However, my experience in Junior Primary showed that this wasn’t so.) 2. Children have a right to be listened to. 3. We knew that when we learnt through choice, we enjoyed it more, we ‘owned’ what we knew and remembered it better. 4. Young children don’t necessarily see themselves as learners. We wanted to change this. Making the change. Whilst we were doing this soul searching, we realized that we had just assumed that the children wanted to have a say in their learning. We hadn’t asked them! So we did. This was to be the turning point in our programming. One morning at group time, I asked the children, ‘Whose kindergarten is this?’ The resounding answer - complete with fingers pointing towards me - was ‘YOURS’. We then discussed the things that we do at kindy and the people who come to our kindy and I asked the question again, ‘Whose kindergarten is this?’ This time, the resounding answer was, ‘OURS’. Then I asked, ‘If this is our kindy, then who should decide what we learn and do here?’ The resounding reply was ‘YOU’ … but further discussion led to the decision that we all should make those decisions. This discussion led to the formation of Learning Committees, which is how we design and develop individual and group Learning Plans at present.

What is a Learning Committee? Our Learning Committee generally consists of four or five children and one of the adults, with children giving ideas about what and how they would like to learn. (One Learning Committee also included a child’s mother, which was great!) All children are invited and encouraged to come to Learning Committee as an active member or as an observer. Many were very keen to be active members, others were unsure, but all of them came

164

Chapter Eleven

to at least one meeting and observed. The observers often become involved in our discussions, despite their initial reluctance to join in. Each member of the Learning Committee (including the adult) wears a badge saying Learning Committee and their name. People are very proud of their badges. The children often leave theirs on until every significant person in their life has had a chance to see it. This leads to discussion at home about the learning that occurs at kindergarten. We chose the name Learning Committee very deliberately. We hoped that the use of the word ‘learning’ would encourage the children to feel good about being learners; and we believed that it would help parents to see that their children’s experiences at kindergarten are learning experiences. In each case, we’ve been successful. Each week we take minutes of the Learning Committee’s discussions, using Texta pens. This is a very important part of the Learning Committee! Each child signs their name and draws pictures to show the points that they have added to the minutes. We then report our ideas to the other children and staff and ask them for their suggestions. The final document is put on display for the parents and children to read and refer to. Previous minutes are also accessible at all times. We always review the previous week's minutes to check that we have covered all suggestions. Each week’s minutes then become our programme for that week. The programme includes learning topics, activities, possible songs, stories etc. Some weeks, the ideas and plans flow thick and fast, while in other weeks it is hard to find an idea. On these weeks, we ‘think aloud’ our planning thoughts and ideas and the children often pick up on them and add to them. After each week’s Learning Committee, the children help to set up the activities. They go to the library shelves to choose books and accompany us to the storerooms to choose equipment for the next week. (Yes, that’s right - children in the storeroom!) Most of the children know what’s in the storeroom, so they can ask for what they need. When they see activities take place as a result of a suggestion they made in the Learning Committee, they are very pleased to claim ownership of the suggestion and we always make a point of thanking and congratulating them for suggesting the idea. Recently, while we were discussing our Learning Committees with a visitor to the kindergarten, two boys ran in almost on

The Learning Committee: Children’s Voices in Planning Early Childhood Curriculum

165

cue, loudly exclaiming to each other, ‘When we have Learning Committee, I’m going to suggest …’ Children’s voices in action!

Learning Committee outcomes Within and through the Learning Committee, children and adults play multiple roles, including learner, facilitator and mentor. Children and staff can initiate learning events and children are developing the skills of selforganization and negotiation. The Learning Committee enables us to cater for the child who wants to learn about that week’s topic/s, as well as to the child who wishes to pursue their own interests. As a result, we are developing a culture of empowerment rather than imposed power. We want a centre where the power is shared and we want to encourage parents to be part of this process. We remain concerned that all the children should feel comfortable to speak out, to have an opinion and to be heard. Working in small groups in an atmosphere of acceptance makes it easier for each child to speak. Even the quiet ones who rarely speak in whole group sessions offer ideas in smaller groups. As facilitators of this process, our role is to help the children to realize that some of their ideas will not be accepted by the majority, or may need to be amended to meet safety rules. For example, in a recent Learning Committee, Connor suggested that we have a kindergarten picnic in a park. (Connor is a four year old boy who is in his second term of full-time kindergarten.) We all agreed – ‘What a great idea. Tell us more.’ Connor then developed his suggestion until we were going to a park with a lake and a speedboat. Jenni (the teacher) would drive the boat and Glenda (me) would be on those ‘ski things’. We all agreed that that would be great fun, although the thought of me on ‘ski things’ was somewhat unsettling! We discussed the proposal further and after considering transport, safety and time frame decided to have a picnic in the playground of a neighbouring town. (No lake, phew!) In the next week, the children helped to draft a note to parents about this event and the following week we had a great morning at the playground, accompanied by many parents. Each time that we mentioned the upcoming picnic, Connor reminded us that it was his suggestion and that the other members of the planning group agreed. He and they enjoyed having their voices heard and their suggestions acted upon. By developing the learning programme with the children and actively following it, we show that we value and respect their voices.

166

Chapter Eleven

Programming has become easier. It’s more diverse, but it’s easier. We are no longer imposing themes on the group and we are never short of learning possibilities. Many of the learning topics are similar to those that we had planned previously, but some are far removed from the standard curriculum. For instance, while I had managed to avoid paper making previously, last year it became a part of our learning; and ‘Space zoos’ are a recent addition to my teaching repertoire! In the twelve months that we have used the Learning Committee to plan our work, we have noticed a change in the kindergarten’s energy. Many children are genuinely leading their own learning. One child came in a few days before her birthday, asked for a balloon and proceeded to set herself up to make a piñata. More children bring things from home that relate to current learning activities. One group of children made their own playdough, unfazed by the fact that they couldn't read the recipe (they got the ingredients right, but not the quantities). This led them to think about how to improve the quality of the playdough - the sort of initiative that hadn’t been seen in a positive light previously. Parents are asking about what their children are doing in Learning Committee, which leads to discussions about how Bridgewater Kindergarten can operate as a Learning Community. Recently we have started to collect data about our Learning Committee meetings. In the week following each meting, we check whether we have covered each suggestion in our daily sessions. This gives us a clear picture of which children and which activities we have (and haven’t) supported. We also record each child’s participation in the Learning Committee, which we use as an indication of their growing confidence in their ideas and their growing skill in presenting them. We send parents a small Learning Committee report regularly, including our decisions about our learning.

Final reflections and chapter summary Documenting the learning Our weekly programme consists of the minutes of that week’s Learning Committee, in the form of a series of A3 pages containing handwritten text and the children’s drawings. We believe that this is an authentic programme and we know that it covers the SACSA areas, but we should be tracking this. Occasionally, we transfer Learning Committee

The Learning Committee: Children’s Voices in Planning Early Childhood Curriculum

167

suggestions into a more traditional SACSA format, to keep ourselves familiar with the SACSA language. We are still contemplating whether we need to document the links between our programme and the SACSA areas more directly.

Making the time for the Learning Committee We have a regular day for Learning Committee, but we haven’t been able to set a regular time. There are only two staff, so when one staff member is involved in a Learning Committee meeting, the other has to manage the rest of the children. When we started with 17 children, this wasn’t as big an issue as it is now that we have 30 children. When given a choice, most of the children choose to play outside, so the staff member who is supervising inside for the week is the one who manages the Learning Committee. Sometimes she holds Learning Committee during playtime, at other times we have the other children involved in group literacy, numeracy or music activities. We have frequently debated whether holding Learning Committee once a week is too often. A weekly meeting allows us four three-hour sessions to pursue the learning topics that it generated. At times we feel that we are skimming over topics rather than delving into them in depth. We have considered fortnightly meetings, but feel that weekly meetings allow the children to see their ideas in action soon after they suggest them. Sometimes we carry a mini-theme from a Learning Committee over a few weeks; at other times we deal with children’s suggestions as they arise. This is still a quandary for us.

The dynamics of the Learning Committee In the two years since we started this journey, the staff team has changed a number of times and there has been continual change in the group of children, with some moving to school and others replacing them. Consequently, the Learning Committee is always changing, too. Often the children who go to school have the clearest voices, because they have attended the Learning Committee the longest. It has been exciting to see the children develop the confidence to present their ideas in the Learning Committee and to expect that we will take them seriously and help them to pursue their plans. Even more exciting is when they approach us in informal session time and offer their plans. Recently,

Chapter Eleven

168

one four year old suggested that, ‘if we’re looking for an activity to do … We could make some coloured sand, get some paper and glue, put the glue on the paper and sprinkle the sand on the paper and then we’d have a picture.’ A few days later, he suggested that we use hairbrushes, glitter and glue! We’ll have to have a further conversation about that one! Late last year, another child suggested an activity, then kept a tally of how many children did the activity. A budding statistician! Learning Committees have helped our children recognize that they can use their voices powerfully, positively and assertively and expect to be listened to and to make a difference. Learning Committees and our quest for effective children’s voice will continue to change and develop at this centre, as everything does when you’re working with young children. So, ‘Whose kindergarten is this?’ ‘OURS!!’ ‘Who should plan and organize the learning?’ ‘ALL OF US!!’

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What was Glenda’s key reason for establishing Learning Committees? How and with what effect do children’s voices drive planning in Glenda’s kindergarten? To what extent do you believe that Learning Committees shift power relations between staff and children around curriculum planning? How could you develop the idea of Learning Committees to honour children’s rights in early childhood services? What do you see as the challenges in forming and enacting Learning Committees with young children?

Further reading Clark, A., KjØrholt, A. & Moss, P. 2005, Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services, Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Mac Naughton, G. & Williams, G. 2008, Teaching Young Children, Pearson, Melbourne. (Chapter 10: Listening) Rinaldi, C. 2006, In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: listening, researching and learning, Routledge Falmer, Oxon, UK. (pp. 65 - 68)

The Learning Committee: Children’s Voices in Planning Early Childhood Curriculum

169

Glossary x

Learning Committee. A Learning Committee generally includes four or five children meeting with one of the centre’s adults, with children giving ideas about what and how they would like to learn.

CHAPTER TWELVE CHILDREN CHALLENGING ADULTS: THE YARRA VALLEY PROJECT1 GLENDA MAC NAUGHTON, PATRICK HUGHES AND KYLIE SMITH

This chapter will explore the journey of kindergarten teachers and children’s services resource development officers (CSRDOs) in Victoria Australia, who were funded by the Department of Human Services (Victoria) and the Shire of Yarra Ranges to explore ways to work with children with challenging behaviours. This chapter explores what the teachers have learnt as members of an action learning project that provided time, space and theory to reflect critically on a question about children who challenge, plan a change in their pedagogical approach and act on that plan in practice. Through this journey the image of the child and teacher shifted from the child who challenges to unpacking the complex social and political world that places stress and expectations on the ‘expert teacher’, the ‘caring, nurturing parent’ and the ‘achieving child who is competent’. The outcomes were that participants changed their model of the child who challenges, their classroom practices and their view of themselves as teachers; strengthened their desire and ability to respond to children who challenge; and increased their ability to reduce the stress in their work. The project was small-scale, but it was significant. It sought to build the ability and confidence of staff to reflect critically on the origins and implications of their current practices around children who challenge; to change an aspect of their current practice to improve relationships with 1

This chapter was originally published as ‘Rethinking approaches to working with children who challenge: action learning for emancipatory practice’ (Glenda MacNaughton, Patrick Hughes and Kylie Smith), 2007, International Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 39 - 58.

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

171

these children; and to evaluate such changes. In contrast, mainstream approaches to children who challenge seek to use pharmaceutical or behavioural means to change the child’s behaviour, effectively marginalising early childhood staff from both the ‘diagnosis’ and the ‘treatment’.

The child who challenges Children can sometimes behave in ways that challenge the adults who care for them; and some children challenge adults more frequently and intensely than others. Such challenging behaviour includes physical violence, such as hitting, spitting, biting and kicking; verbal abuse, such as swearing, yelling, name calling or screaming; and excluding children from play based on their gender, culture, ‘race’, sexuality and class. (See for example, Berkowitz 1993; Gallas 1998; Lindsay 1998; MacNaughton 2005, 2001d; Szarkoicz 2004; Tremblay 2002.) Contemporary Australia is an increasingly diverse society, where early childhood teachers see young children behaving in increasingly diverse ways. The need to respond positively to this diversity of behaviour is itself a significant challenge, but few early childhood teachers in Australia have had significant training in how to work with children from diverse backgrounds, children with disabilities and children with challenging behaviours. Support services in the field can provide support, guidance and some resources, but not day-to-day and not in the classroom. Similarly, inservice professional development in this area is rarely linked directly to teachers’ day-to-day work in the classroom (Kilgallon & Maloney 2003). One consequence is that staff can find the classroom a stressful environment in which to work (Kilgallon & Maloney 2003; Snyder 1999).

Defining terms, examining models The notion of challenging behaviour - seemingly self-evident - is a social and cultural construction (Cannella 1997). Consequently, it means different things at different times in different cultures and societies; and it evokes different responses by teachers, depending on their view of the child and of childhood. Three broad types of behaviour are described currently as ‘challenging’. The first type is aggression. Researchers in this area explain aggression in children as the result of one or more genetic, biological, environmental or social factors (e.g. Berkowitz 1993; Fantuzzo, Bulotsky-Shearer, Fusco, & McWayne 2005; Lindsay 1998;

172

Chapter Twelve

Szarkoicz 2004; Tremblay 2002; Ostrov, Gentile, & Crick 2006); and some of these researchers argue that aggressive behaviours develop before the age of five (Szarkoicz 2004; Nagin & Tremblay 1999). The second type of behaviour is explained as the result of biological disorders, such as developmental delays (Brown & Crossley 2000) and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); and is regarded as ‘treatable’ by pharmaceutical or behavioural means (Parr, Ward and Inman 2003; Aden & Leffler, 2001). Finally, children with disabilities are sometimes labeled as challenging because their behaviour is regarded as ‘abnormal’ or ‘problematic’. This type of behaviour has become increasingly significant over the last decade, as children with disabilities are included in more early childhood programs (Kilgallon & Maloney 2003). Teachers’ attitudes and responses to challenging behaviours reflect their particular model of the child and of childhood; and four models dominate much current western thinking about the child (Porter 2003; Campbell 2001; Moss 2001; Aries 1962). In the first model, the child is a possession of adults (e.g. parents, teachers, policy-makers). Adherents to this model regard the child as dependent (biologically) on adults and too immature to take decisions about her/his life (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr 2000); and so adults must decide what’s best for the child. From this perspective, a child with challenging behaviour is simply unable to behave in socially acceptable ways and needs adult protection against the effects of her/his unacceptable behaviour. Adults respond by prescribing either medication (e.g. Ritalin) or a program of behaviour modeling by adults and peers (Szarkoicz 2004). This not only ‘solves the problem’ of the child’s inappropriate behaviours, it also reduces the child’s desire to challenge adults’ decisions about what is in her/his best interests. In the second model, the child is subject to adults. Adherents to this model regard the child as innocent and needing adult protection; and so adults must develop policies and practices that will enable children to develop (in universally applicable stages) into mature adults (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr 2000). From this perspective, a child with challenging behaviour is often seen as developmentally abnormal or delayed, unable to act in socially acceptable ways and needing adult protection against the effects of her/his unacceptable behaviour. Adults respond by teaching ‘orderly (passive) behaviour’ (Porter 2003, p. 3); and by guiding the child’s behaviour within a structure of developmental ‘norms’. If a teacher can’t change the child’s behaviour, s/he will invite an ‘expert’ or ‘specialist’ to assess the child and to provide appropriate strategies and resources.

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

173

In the third model, the child is a participant in decisions about their lives, but only when adults regard them as competent (Lloyd-Smith & Tarr 2000). Adherents to this model involve a child with challenging behaviour in decisions about what are acceptable behaviours and the consequences of deviating from them, but reserve decision-making power to themselves. For example, a teacher might state that fighting, hitting, pushing or kicking is unacceptable, then ask the children how to stop or prevent such behaviour (E.g. ‘If someone hits you, tell the teacher’; ‘If you get cross, use your words, not your fists.’). Guided by the teacher, the children would devise and record a list of strategies and then implement them in the classroom. This model embodies several assumptions: that children move through universal developmental stages and only in later developmental stages can children understand inappropriate behaviour and its consequences; that adults can/should counter children’s challenging behaviour; and that children can change their behaviour or challenge others’ only with adults’ support and guidance. In the final model, the child is a social actor who shapes her/his identities, creates and communicates valid views about the social world and has a right to participate in it. Adherents to this model regard children’s ideas about curriculum, policies and practices as both valid and important, so s/he would implement them in practice. For example, a teacher would respond to challenging behaviour not by trying to ‘fix’ it, but by reflecting critically on how the teachers’, parents’ and children’s attitudes and beliefs affect how the child is regarded, addressed, included and excluded from play (MacNaughton, Hughes & Smith 2007; MacNaughton 2004, 1999a, 1999b; Smith 2003). Children can explain actions that adults may have misinterpreted as violent or aggressive; and such explanations can change how adults assess and intervene in their behaviour (Campbell 2001; Giugni 2003; Smith 2003). Indeed, in recent years, practitioners in a wide range of professions have decided that it can be valuable to involve young children in decisions that affect them. Young children have their own ideas, values and understandings of themselves and the world (LloydSmith & Tarr 2000); and can tell adults much about their daily lives and about what makes them feel that their needs and opinions are valued. They have definite views on why some environments are more attractive or ‘child-friendly’ than others; can talk cogently about subjects as diverse as playground design, curriculum and making the world a better, peaceful place (e.g. MacNaughton 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Campbell et al, 2000; O’Kane 2000; Clark 2008; Clarke, Kjorholt & Moss 2005). This conceptualization of the child sits within a rights based approach to

174

Chapter Twelve

working with children. Article 12 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child refers to children's rights to express their own opinions and to have them taken into account in any matter affecting them (United Nations, 1989).

The Children Who Challenge project In 2003 a local government Shire in Victoria, Australia and the Department of Human Services (State Government of Victoria, Australia) asked the authors to design, conduct and report on a project to support preschool teachers and early childhood intervention support workers within the Shire who work with children who challenge. The project Children Who Challenge - aimed to encourage and enable participating staff to improve their capacity to work with children who challenge and their families; and to initiate an archive of information about a practical, strengths-based approach to such work. The Shire’s Early Childhood Intervention Co-ordinator invited all preschool teachers within the Shire to participate in Children Who Challenge. Ten preschool teachers and four early intervention support workers accepted the invitation; one participant withdrew later due to other commitments, leaving a total of thirteen participants.

An Action Learning Circle Children Who Challenge centred on an Action Learning Circle (MacNaughton, 2005) which ran between July and November 2003; together with follow-up communication in May 2004. The Action Learning Circle consisted of eight two-hour training sessions, interspersed with email briefings and supported by supplementary learning materials. It aimed to enable participants to transform their work by reflecting critically on their current practices, using ideas from diverse sources, including research-based models of children as complex, socially constructed beings; research into culturally and developmentally appropriate ways to work with children who challenge; and studies by practitioner-researchers who have worked with such children. Each training session focused on specific issues; and sessions 1 - 6 also explored five thematic questions (adapted from MacNaughton, 2000) to encourage participants to reflect critically on their work with children who challenge. The thematic questions were: x In how many ways can I understand the child with challenging behaviors?

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

x x x x

175

Why do I understand children with challenging behaviours as I do? Who benefits from my understanding of the child and the way I work with her? How else might I understand the child and how I work with her? What prevents me from rethinking my understandings?

Table 1 ‘The Action Learning Circle’ summarises the specific content of the eight training sessions and the actions that participants took between sessions. Table 1: The Action Learning Circle

Session 1. Recruitment

2. Action learning

3. Stress

4. Transforming theory and practice

5. Ethical engagement

2

Topic Action The project’s aims. How to develop a research question from a concern about working with children who challenge. How to plan a research project. The action learning Develop a research process. The role of the question; identify one ‘project buddy’2. current practice to change. Environmental factors Participants described that affect children’s the current practice they behaviours. were seeking to change and planned their next change. Theories of change Participants described (conforming, reforming how they were and transforming) and changing their practice their effects on children, and planned their next parents and staff. change. Engaging with children Participants described ethically. Whose voices how they were does a program include changing their practice and exclude? What are and planned their next the effects on children, change. parents and staff?

A ‘project buddy’ is someone in the project group with whom you discuss your research project regularly between the Action Learning training sessions and who discusses their research with you.

Chapter Twelve

176

6. Transforming environments

7. & 8. Coding and analysing data; project evaluation

Using repetition, rhythm Participants described and reverence to create how they were natural and relaxing changing their practice environments for and planned their next children, parents and change. staff. The authors helped participants to organize the data from their projects into themes and categories and then to identify significant issues. Participants then reflected critically on the issues that had emerged from the project, what they had learnt and its significance to them and for the children with whom they work.

Participants’ initial concerns and their research questions In the first session of the Action Learning Circle, participants stated their ‘niggles’ or concerns around children who challenge. Each participant’s ‘niggles’ or concerns generated a research question about the children’s behaviour; and each participant’s research question was the focus of their participation in the Action Learning Circle. The research questions were quite diverse, but each question could be placed in one of three broad groups, each based on a particular model of the child and a generalised research question as follows (each participant chose their own pseudonym): GROUP 1. How can we change the environment to change the child? 1. How can we inspire teachers to reframe the image of the child who challenges? (Gwenivere, Dolories) 2. How can we encourage reflection about the child who challenges and the effects of the challenge? (Lisa) 3. How do I re-examine my program and time management to allow me to spend more time with more children instead of being so busy with the very demanding/challenging children? (Miss Kim) 4. How can I spend more time with all the children in the group and not be so distracted by the challenging children who demand my time and attention? (Grace) 5. How do I re-model my teaching practice to spend more time with non-challenging children? (Sarah) 6. How do I re-think the image of the child? (Anon)

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

7.

177

How do I re-examine my role with the children? (Gemma)

GROUP 2. How can we change the (aggressive) child? 8. How can we reconstruct the boys' play to be more positive? (Nikki) 9. How can I reinvent the relationship between dependant children where the behaviour is disruptive? (Robyn) 10. How can I remodel children's interactions and language so they play together in positive ways? (Jessica) GROUP 3. How can we change others to change the child? 11. How can we rethink/re-examine our approach to children's behaviour? (Rose) 12. How do we rethink access and equity within our community? (Four Star) 13. How do I recreate the environment to be more respectful? (Ella) Table 2 ‘Preparing for change’ summarises participants’ initial ‘niggles’ or concerns around children who challenge, their initial model of the children, their research question, their subsequent model of the children and the changes in their practices. Table 2: Preparing for change Participants’ Participants’ initial concerns initial models around of children children who challenge Children who Distracting and challenge take high teachers away maintenance. from other children, (Compare with requiring ‘children as teachers to possessions’.) manage their time better.

Generalised research questions

Participants’ subsequent models of children

Participants’ changed practices

1. How can we change the environment to change children’s behaviour? (Seven participants)

Decisionmaker

Institute smaller group times; give children a choice to participate in group times. Remove tables and set up activities on the floor.

Chapter Twelve

178 Adults should correct children’s violent and disruptive behaviours, including boys’ aggressive play.

Defiant, resistant.

Parents have negative attitudes to children who challenge.

Challenging parents as distracting and high maintenance.

Early childhood staff have negative attitudes to early intervention workers.

(Compare with ‘children as subjects’.)

(Compare with ‘children as subjects’ and ‘children as participants’.) Challenging teachers as distracting and high maintenance. (Compare with ‘children as subjects’ and ‘children as participants’.)

2. How can we change (aggressive) children’s behaviour? (Three participants)

Decisionmaker

3. How can we change children’s behaviour? (Three participants)

Parent has valid and important knowledge

4. How can we change children’s behaviour? (Three participants)

Teachers as reflective practitioners

Develop the curriculum by consulting children. Reflect on the stresses in adults’ and children’s lives and the effects on behaviours. Shift the focus from including children with additional needs to sharing her special gifts with all children who participate. Support teachers to reflect on how their images of children who challenge affect their practice.

Children Who Challenge: Generating data to explore outcomes Each participant was asked to write a Learning Story about the most significant changes (in attitudes and in practices) associated with their participation in the project. Each Learning Story consisted of their initial attitudes to the project; their attitudes during their participation; and their evaluations of the lessons they learnt during the project. The Project Team collected and collated this data at the final session of the Action Learning Circle.

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

179

Children Who Challenge was only a small-scale project, so its outcomes can be regarded as indicative only. However, the data showed that participants’ involvement had three clear outcomes. First, it led them to change their model of the child who challenges, their classroom practices and their view of themselves as teachers. In particular, as teachers began to see children who challenge as citizens, they became more confident in working with such children and changed their classroom practices. Second, participants’ involvement strengthened their desire and ability to respond to children who challenge because it extended their knowledge about the possible origins and significances of such behaviours, and gave them new ways to respond. The third outcome was linked with the first two: participants’ involvement increased their ability to reduce the stress in their work.

Outcome 1: A changed model of the child During the project, most participants changed their model of the child who challenges. From seeing the child as a possession or as subject to adults (models 1 and 2 above) whose behaviour could be assessed and changed without consulting them, most participants came to see the child as a participant and as a social actor (models 3 and 4 above), whose opinions and views of themselves and the world are valid and important and should be acknowledged in the classroom. As participants explored the project’s five thematic questions, they realised how their particular model of the child who challenges influences their classroom practices. Comments by Sarah and Rose illustrate this process; Grace’s and Robyn’s Learning Stories show it in more detail. I try to look more closely at exactly what children are doing and consider the reasons for their behaviour. Work at listening to the children’s voices – listening more to individuals’ stories about why they are acting as they are and also inviting the group to comment on and discuss events at kinder and to propose actions for them and staff to undertake. Consider environmental factors e.g. carpets, lighting, cosy spaces, time for play, etc. which influence individual and group play. (Sarah’s journal) My participation in the program has made me more aware of what the children are saying and acting on what is said. … It has also made me think about why the challenging behaviour occurs. Is it for attention, acknowledgement or something entirely different? … When I started the training - Children who were violent and create problems for others, uncooperative. Children I felt I couldn’t do my best for them, I couldn’t seem to help. Now I can see that they are children expressing themselves and I

180

Chapter Twelve am acknowledging them more. Listening to them and so I am giving them the attention that perhaps they are looking for. Positive rather than negative attention. (Rose’s journal)

Grace’s Learning Story. ‘From lack of time to restructuring time’ Grace’s initial concerns were that children who challenge become disruptive and aggressive without considerable adult attention. While they can be more co-operative and sociable, this requires Grace to spend up to 80% of her time with them at the expense of other children who were undemanding because they were quiet, withdrawn and shy. Thus, her research question was: ‘How can I spend more time with all the children in the group and not be so distracted by the challenging children who demand my time and attention?’ As she reflected on her current classroom practice, Grace realised that ‘transition times’ and ‘group times’ were designed to suit teachers, not children. Her response was to change ‘group time’ in her classroom. She split her group in two, which gave children and teachers increased space and time. As a result, the children who challenged became less aggressive ways and more settled. Grace described the process in her journal as follows: Our group time is usually with the whole group and is partly a transition time while my assistant finishes preparation/cleaning for snack. I find this a frustrating time when children can be interested, engaged, talkative, distracted, unsettled, tired, excited, etc., etc. … The children find it difficult when there isn’t enough time for everyone to have a turn (this can make group time even longer and boring at times). … I decided to try having a briefer whole group transition time and have an additional small group session. (Grace’s journal 21/08/03) I discussed the idea of a small group time before snack and invited a few children (including some of our ‘challenges’). I wanted to have a mixture of personalities together. Some children were reluctant but I had chosen a story related to one of these children’s interests and included some related puppets. One very capable but quiet child spoke up very quickly and asked if we could play Duck Duck Goose. (We don’t have space to play this outside or inside with everyone). She took charge and explained the game to everyone. The children all had a turn and loved this. We borrowed some home corner props to act out some rhymes as we sang. I was amazed that all the children wanted a turn to act out such oldies as ‘Polly put the kettle on’. No arguments about ‘Who was who?’ or ‘Was Sukie a boy?’ All children took part in ‘Highway Number One’ – where there would have always been non-participation in whole group time. … When we joined the

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

181

others outside they had also enjoyed increased access to the playground, toys and adults. They were settled and happy to share. (Grace’s journal. 27/08/03. Original emphases.)

From believing that her lack of time to be with all children in the group led some of them to exhibit challenging behaviours, Grace came to believe that her classroom routines contributed to such behaviours. Specifically, she realised that ‘transition times’ and ‘group times’ were designed to suit teachers, not children. Her specific Learning Story illustrates the first generalised research question: How can we change the environment to change the child? At the end of the project, Grace was more reflective about the effects of routines such as group time on children’s behaviours. She wrote: My use of small group experiences - although limited - has demonstrated their value to me. They have provided a way to spend more time with individual children and most significantly with those children I feel I have missed (the quiet, shy, reserved and those lacking confidence). It appears to have been an equalising experience, where there is less need to show off (as you will be noticed) less need to shout (as you will be heard) less need to take over (as you will get a turn). The quiet anxious children (often girls) feel safer. The children most self conscious with movement and dance who often sit and watch (often boys) feel less inhibited. The children not involved in the ‘small group’ are also benefiting by being in a ‘smaller than usual group’ who also have more access to equipment, staff and space. This all leads to a more relaxed and harmonious environment. (Grace’s journal)

Robyn’s Learning Story. ‘From “disruptive child” to “decision-making child”’. Robyn’s Learning Story illustrates the second generalised research question: How can we change the (aggressive) child? Her initial concerns were that children who challenge in her classroom were disruptive, upset other children’s play and couldn’t settle at an activity without adult attention. Thus, her research question was: ‘How can I reinvent the relationship between dependant children where the behaviour is disruptive?’ As she reflected on her current classroom and her current practice, Robyn shifted her focus: from concentrating on children’s challenging behaviours, she moved to helping children to become more independent by making their own decisions. As a result, the children developed new relationships with other children in the group and new storylines for playing with them; and they ran through the classroom less

182

Chapter Twelve

often. Effectively, children began to discuss the classroom and the curriculum. Robyn described these changes in her journal as follows: In the second fortnight, I continued with the strategy of building confidence in the child’s ability to choose and make his own decision. Both children involved have actually found and accepted other children to play with. In the past week it has been quite notable that both children have increased their social networks – seeking and looking for these other children on arrival at preschool. This has changed the dynamics of the group, as the running and chasing has pretty much ceased. (Robyn’s journal. 14/10/2003) Planning is more rewarding. I feel that instead of ‘What are we going to do?’, there are now so much more ‘possibilities’! Realisation that it really isn’t a problem if it doesn’t work – just delve a little deeper. Beginning to grasp a truer understanding of behaviour. I see myself as a teacher who doesn’t have all the answers (and this is a comfort and okay feeling), but I am open to the finding and thinking of possible solutions. (Robyn’s journal. 23/10/2003)

From seeing children with challenging behaviours as subject to adults, Robyn came to see them as social actors with the ability and right to participate in classroom decisions. At the end of the project, Robyn reflected on the impact of her changed view of children who challenge: The more I look the more I see. With only two hours and 22 other children to share my time per week, this is a challenge in itself. (Robyn’s journal. 19/11/2003)

Outcome 2. A strengthened desire and ability to respond As participants changed their model of the child who challenges, they also changed their relationships with these children. Instead of trying to ‘fix’ the child, they sought to change their classrooms so that children’s voices are heard and respected. Examples included group time (e.g. group size, structure of activities, freedom to participate or not), room structure (e.g. basing activities on the floor, not on a table) and decision-making (e.g. incorporating children’s interests - such as superheroes - in the curriculum). Comments by Ella, Jessica and Gwenivere illustrate this process; Nikki’s and Miss Kim’s Learning Stories show it more detail. Before this course it was the children that made my life not run smoothly. I felt negative to that because I felt like the kids who were quiet were missing out. … Now I call them ‘children with challenging behaviours’,

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

183

not ‘challenging children’. … I understand that behaviour is more complex. It doesn’t feel so emotive. I am helping different situations differently. (Ella’s journal) I have learnt more about the importance of spending more one-on-one time with children who challenge. I have learnt more about the importance of sharing stories, ideas and feelings with other teachers, to be able to reflect on and improve my own practices. I have thought about adapting the environment and my teaching practices and the strategies I use to decrease the stress levels of the children and to better meet the children’s needs. Throughout the program, I have continued to challenge and ask myself questions and this has been very important for me. (Jessica’s journal) I now get staff to reflect more on what they are seeing (in particular, when and where the child isn’t challenging and what is working for them at these times). … (Now, I try) … not to solve the situation, but get staff to reflect on how or what they can do. (Gwenivere’s journal)

Nikki’s Learning Story. ‘From changing boys’ play to changing teachers’ understandings of gender.’ Nikki’s Learning Story illustrates the second generalised research question: How can we change the (aggressive) child? Her initial concerns were the effects on other children of the aggressiveness of children - in this case, boys - who challenged. Thus, her research question was: ‘How can we reconstruct the boys’ play to be more positive?’ After reflecting on how she did - and didn’t - respond to the boys’ aggressive behaviour, Nikki changed the curriculum to include activities through which the boys could explore their ideas, questions and storylines using equipment - toy soldiers and weapons - that was decidedly outside traditional early childhood education practice! The aggressive boys began to contain their rough or violent play within the boundaries that Nikki set, so they didn’t disrupt other children’s play. Nikki described the changes extensively in her journal: Outlined rules with children during play – the army games are to be played on the mat, the toys do not leave the space, we do not transfer the play to other spaces, no violence off the mat. Children were in agreement and some reminded others when they forgot. (Nikki’s journal. Start of project.) The change has been in effect for a week with good results. The children followed rules and play in other areas were more positive. The first few days (the area) was out, the children flocked to it … spending nearly the whole session there. As the week progressed, the boys spent shorter

184

Chapter Twelve amounts of time on the mat with army toys and fewer of them at a time. The only concern by parents was one mother who approached me and said that her son had told her he’d been playing ‘Bali Bombings’ at kinder today. I said I would watch the play more closely and make sure that any instances were discussed. I think it’s good for children to play out these experiences. (Nikki’s journal. After 1st Learning Circle session.) Decided not to change anything except location – move to table with four chairs to limit numbers. Also do reading (about violence and trauma) to see what else I can do. Actually moved to another floor space with a limit of four children at a time, marked by floor mats. The children have seemed less interested in this play and we are having no problems elsewhere with violence. (Nikki’s journal. After 2nd Learning Circle session.) Children seemed to have moved away from violent play in most areas, using equipment for its rightful purpose. This may be due to … the fact that I have come to understand the play more, therefore allowing the children to do this but within boundaries … (that) … do not upset other children’s play. (Nikki’s journal. After 4th Learning Circle session.)

From seeing the aggressive boys as needing to be changed (problems to be fixed), Nikki came to see them as participants, acting-out concerns and storylines that were important to them. At the end of the project, Nikki reflected on how her attitudes had changed: The most significant change that has occurred is to my understandings and ability to accept children’s violent play. By restricting the children’s play to certain areas it allowed me a little control over my stress levels. (Nikki’s journal.)

Miss Kim’s Learning Story. ‘From “always on the move” to restructuring spaces.’ Miss Kim’s Learning Story illustrates the first generalised research question: How can we change the environment to change the child? Her initial concerns were that children who challenge in her classroom hit others, refused to participate - especially in group time - and seemed impervious to her invitations to participate and explore. Thus, her research question was: ‘How do I re-examine my program and time management to allow me to spend more time with more children instead of being so busy with the very demanding/challenging children?’ As she reflected on her current classroom and her current practice, Miss Kim realised that while they reflected the traditional image of an early childhood education, they didn’t necessarily accord with the children’s ideas and interests. Her

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

185

response was to remove most of the tables and use the floor space for activities; and to cease moving around the room to supervise, instead sitting down with the children or sitting back and watching. Subsequently, children with challenging behaviours settled to activities and created space and time to work with Miss Kim. Miss Kim described these changes in her journal as follows: Once more, the room was cleared apart from a few tables. Co-worker was able to settle at the reading table, while I was engrossed on the mat. Children entered happily and settled at activities I began on the mat. ... The group seemed really settled and actively involved in tasks undertaken. Feeling of calm in the room. J (child with challenging behaviours) built wonders with the duplo – even let others share his constructions! And used his words to suggest or request. When J, TH & K disappeared into the ‘dark room’ – began being boisterous, so I ventured in and helped redirect to role-playing. Calming! (Miss Kim’s journal. 03/08/2003.) WOW! We all had the most amazingly relaxed and enjoyable afternoon. Time flew. Feel like if we settle and role-play with the children, using different mediums – both inside and out – the group seemed so much more relaxed and at ease. A real DELIGHT. YEAH good things can repeat. (Miss Kim’s journal. 03/08/2003.)

From seeing children with challenging behaviours as needing to be changed (problems to be fixed), Miss Kim came to see them as competent people with rights to express and participate in decisions that affected them in the classroom. At the end of the project, Miss Kim was more reflective about links between her theoretical understandings of the child and how she organised her classroom and responded to children’s interests: My program is changing more. More in touch with my children. … really enjoying the children. Giving back to them – natural products, tactile experiences. A move to see that staff influences at (college) saw me become ‘work sheet’ activities. … after 8 years of ‘conditioning’ – I began to doubt my ability to provide a good program. Yet I felt happy and excited about the move. The move to live the experiences through children’s eyes. Yet feeling challenged and unsupported by staff. Also fear of failure. Volcanic amounts of emotions. (Miss Kim’s journal. After Learning Circle session 5.)

Outcome 3. Reduced stress Rather than a separate outcome, reduced stress was associated with each of

186

Chapter Twelve

the other two. Recall that Grace wrote that her changes to group time led, ‘to a more relaxed and harmonious environment’; and Jessica mentioned, ‘the strategies I use to decrease the stress levels of the children’; Nikki wrote that, ‘By restricting the children’s play to certain areas it allowed me a little control over my stress levels’; and Miss Kim exclaimed, ‘WOW! We all had the most amazingly relaxed and enjoyable afternoon … (and) … the group seemed so much more relaxed and at ease.’ As Jessica wrote in her final reflections: I have worked at ways to improve my own practice by being more relaxed with the children and we have been very adaptable with this group and adapted the program frequently to better suit their needs. … It has made it much better working with the children and everyone has been more relaxed. (Jessica’s journal. November 2003.)

One participant - Four Star - addressed a specific aspect of stress in her working life - parents’ reactions to the inclusion of children who challenge (‘children with additional needs’) in programs.

Four Star’s Learning Story. ‘From changing parents to changing oneself as a teacher.’ Four Star’s Learning Story illustrates the third generalised research question: How can we change others (in this case, parents) to change the child? Her initial concerns were that the behaviours of children who challenge reflected parents’ attitudes to them. She wrote: ‘Prejudice, comments and complaints by parents with regard to children with additional needs being included in the programme and the outcome for their children without additional needs. Value of inclusive practices.’ Thus, her research question was oriented to changing the attitudes of parents and the community in general towards such inclusive practices: ‘How do we rethink access and equity within our community?’ As she reflected on her current classroom and her current practice, Four Star realised that some children’s and parents’ voices were present in the early childhood curriculum and others were absent; and her focus shifted from others to herself and her practice as a teacher. Her response was to have ‘Friday dance day’ on Friday afternoons, where she allowed children who didn’t wish to participate to play outdoors with the assistant. Four Star described these changes in her journal as follows (NB: the author’s original bullet points have been made into paragraphs for consistency of presentation):

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

187

Realisation. Stopped and truly heard the words of the complaining parents. Yes, all children had the right to experience/access my special gifts (which currently are not on offer). My gift is expression through creative dance and emotional/creative support it provides. There were children in the group I believed shared the same love of dance and would truly engage in the experience. I had been thinking for a long time about RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF ALL CHILDREN being rejected in my programme. … I have seen and known that music and dance is a true emotional, physical and playful expressive art from which they value and DESERVE to be exposed to at preschool as I have the skill and this is my special gift to share. (Four Star’s journal.) (Dance session 1: Japanese dance.) Only girls participated; one boy observed. It accessed voice of quieter children: it was a 5 star experience for children trying to reach, [but only a] 3 star experience for additional needs children, all of whom chose not to participate and old behaviours returned. (Four Star’s journal.) (Dance session 2: Umbrella Dance/Rainy Day.) All children participated; 5 star rating for ALL children including those with additional needs. One boy smiled when classical music played and he watched. … One boy stated at the start of the session ‘We don’t want to do this. This is stupid.’ (grumpy face/negative). Given time and space and the experience he joined in and delighted in being free. Lunch after dance was quiet and peaceful. One of the children with additional needs experienced relaxation. (Four Star’s journal.)

From seeing parents’ comments and behaviours as challenging, Four Star came to include them in the early childhood curriculum. At the end of the project, Four Star was more reflective about links between her view of the child, her curriculum and parents’ voices. She wrote: Somehow in my passion for the inclusion of children with additional needs I was deaf to the rights of others. I am now valuing the RIGHTS of all children to access my greatest gifts and for me to share in theirs. (Four Star’s journal.)

Six months after the conclusion of the Action Learning Circle, participants were invited to list any impacts from the Action Learning Circle that they felt persisted in their current work. Their responses included these: Using the 'repetition' works rule; inviting staff to share the work, rather than think that they have to do everything themselves; listening to my kids and tailoring the program for the kids, not the parents. (Miss Kim) When I visit centres as well as observing children and providing written

188

Chapter Twelve strategies I try (to judge) whether the staff are conforming or transforming in their philosophy and practices. I think this helps to make strategies more relevant to staff and likely to be followed. (Lisa) I ask staff about planning their environments and play spaces and allowing plenty of time (uninterrupted) to play, to be outside or to just be, where children are generally more successful in their play and relationships. (Gwenivere) When I interact with others who did the course I still feel I can discuss problems with them and they will be willing and able to offer support and help to me. (Sarah) Part of the success of the project was the opportunity to meet together on a regular basis and take the time to challenge our thinking and test whether our reasons for working in a particular way are still valid. (Lisa) I certainly feel that the project assisted me in my own teaching practices. I just wonder if the people who completed the project now need to find a way to catch up more readily and consider what we learnt. (Jessica) The wonderful support network set up enforced to me the need to do it within the parent seminars I run, where we now offer a support group that runs fortnightly. I feel we (teachers) have to take all the burdens and feel we have to be in total control. To open up & trust others with your deepest fears is a very long process. (Miss Kim)

Conclusion Children Who Challenge represented a significant challenge to mainstream thinking about children with challenging behaviours. It rejected the mainstream’s focus on the individual child defined in biological terms as exhibiting a pathology or deficit; and it rejected the mainstream’s reliance on intervention by an outside ‘expert’ such as a pharmacist or a behaviourist, who displaces other adults - parents and teachers - associated with the child. The focus of Children Who Challenge was the child-in-context, defined in social terms through one or more competing models - the child as possession, subject, participant and social actor. In the child’s ‘context’, teachers and classrooms are significant features, so the founding assumption of Children Who Challenge is that teachers can reflect critically on their current practices around children who challenge as a prelude to changing them. In Children Who Challenge, the ‘experts’ (the Project Team) didn’t displace

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

189

teachers but developed their desire, confidence and ability to devise new practices and strategies in their work with children who challenge. In particular, participants gained new insights into children’s capacity to understand the world and express views about their place in it; encountered best-practice strategies and practices for working with children who challenge; increased their confidence to work with such children by meeting fellow professionals willing to reflect critically on their current approaches; and were given time to plan how to work with children who challenge - time that wouldn’t necessarily be available in their normal work day. The result was that each of the thirteen participants in Children Who Challenge reported that they had increased their confidence and ability to respond to children who challenge and that they had initiated strategies in their classroom that had reduced disruptive behaviour, increased children’s participation and reduced the levels of adults’ and children’s stress. Those tangible improvements in classrooms are justification enough for trialling the Children Who Challenge approach in other circumstances. However, the tangible benefits can’t be separated from other intangible benefits, i.e. the improvement in teachers’ confidence and skill that resulted from allowing and encouraging them to develop their practice by reflecting critically on it. The Children Who Challenge approach poses a strong challenge not just to the ‘medicalisation’ of behaviour defined as problematic or challenging, but also to the drift to a technocratic, top-down micro-management of education - and, by implication, of children. Children Who Challenge poses an alternative - the autonomous, reflective teacher-researcher who is a member of a reflexive community committed to improving the classroom and pedagogic effectiveness by emancipating it (Parker 1997, pp. 3 - 6).

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

How have I come to understand children with challenging behaviours as I do? Who benefits from how I understand children with challenging behaviours and from how I work with them? How else could I understand children with challenging behaviours and how else could I work with them? Is anything preventing me from changing how I understand children with challenging behaviours and/or from changing how I work with them?

190

Chapter Twelve

Further readings Much of the current literature about children with challenging behaviours was written from the sorts of traditional perspectives that the Yarra Valley project rejected. Consequently, this chapter’s ‘Further Reading’ shows what those traditional perspectives look like in detail. Challenging Behaviour. Available at: http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/text.pdf (Accessed 30th January 2008) DeBord, K. Childhood Aggression - Where Does It Come From and How Can It Be Managed? Available at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/Child.html (Accessed 30th January 2008) Szarkowicz, D. 2004, Aggression and Young Children. Canberra: Early Childhood Australia.

References Berkowitz, L. 1993, Aggression: its causes, consequences, and control, Academic Press, New York. Buford, R. & Stegelin, D. 2003, ‘An integrated approach to teaching social skills to preschoolers at risk’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 22 - 27. Brown, L. J. & Crossley, S. A. 2000, ‘Delayed children’s social interactions: focus for intervention’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 27 - 32. Campbell, S. 2001. A Social Justice Disposition in Young Children, Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Campbell, S., Coady, M., Lawrence, H., Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S., Smith, K., Totta, J. I. & Castelino, T. 2001, Our Part in Peace, Australian Early Childhood Association, Canberra. Cannella, G. 1997, Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: social justice & revolution, Peter Lang, New York. Clarke, A. 2008, Early Childhood Spaces: involving young children and practitioners in the design process, Bernard van Leer, The Hague. Clarke, A., Kjorholt, A. & Moss, P. 2005, Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services, The Policy Press, Bristol Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. 1999, Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: postmodern perspectives, Falmer Press, London.

Children Challenging Adults: The Yarra Valley Project

191

Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., Fusco, R. & McWayne, C. 2005, ‘An investigation of preschool classroom behavioural adjustment problems and social-emotional school readiness competencies’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 20, pp. 259 - 275. Gallas, K. 1998, Sometimes I Can Be Anything: power, gender and identity in a primary classroom, Teachers College Press, New York. Giugni, M. 2003, Secret Children’s Business: the black market for identity work. Unpublished Honours dissertation, The University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Kilgallon, P. & Maloney, C. 2003, ‘Early childhood teachers’ knowledge of teaching children with disabilities’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 9 - 13. Lindsay, G. 1998, ‘Brain research and implications for early childhood education’, Childhood Education, Winter, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 97 - 104. Lloyd-Smith, M. & Tarr, J. 2000, ‘Researching children’s perspectives: a sociological dimension’, in Researching Children’s Perspectives, eds. A. Lewis & G. Lindsay, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 59 70. Mac Naughton, G., Hughes, P. & Smith, K. 2007, ‘Young children’s rights and public policy: practices and possibilities for citizenship in the early years’, Children & Society, vol. 21, pp. 458 - 469. Mac Naughton, G. 2005, Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies, Routledge, London. —. 2004, Shaping Early Childhood: learners, curriculum and contexts, Open University Press: Buckingham. —. 2001a, ‘Dolls for equity: foregrounding children's voices in learning respect and unlearning unfairness’, New Zealand Council for Educational Research Early Childhood Folio, vol. 5, pp. 27 - 30. —. 2001b, ‘Silences and subtexts in immigrant and non-immigrant children's understandings of diversity’, Childhood Education, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 30 - 36. —. 2001c, ‘Blushes and birthday parties: telling silences in young children's constructions of “race”’, Journal for Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 41 - 51. —. 2001d, ‘The gender factor’, in The Anti-Bias Approach in Early Childhood, ed. E. Dau, Longman, Frenchs Forest, pp. 45 - 62. —. 2000, Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. —. 1999a, ‘What’s in a gaze? Observing and assessing children’s learning in anti-bias curricula’. Paper and poster presented at the Association for Childhood Education International Conference, Annual Global

192

Chapter Twelve

Sharing Fair, San Antonio, Texas. —. 1999b ‘Even pink tents have glass ceilings: crossing the gender boundaries in pretend play’ in Child’s Play: revisiting play in early childhood settings, ed. E. Dau, MacLennan & Petty, Sydney, pp. 81 96. Moss, P. 2001, ‘Making space for ethics.’ Keynote Paper presented at the Australian Early Childhood Association Conference, Sydney, New South Wales. O’Kane, C. 2000, ‘The development of participatory techniques: facilitating children’s views about decisions which affect them’, in Research With Children: perspectives and practices, eds. P. Christensen & A. James, Falmer Press, London, pp. 136 - 159. Ostrov, J., Gentile, D. & Crick, N. 2006, ‘Media exposure, aggression and prosocial behaviour during early childhood: a longitudinal study’. Social Development, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 612 - 627. Parker, S. 1997, Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World. Open University Press, Buckingham. Parr, J. R., Ward, A. & Inman, S. 2003, ‘Current practice in the management of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)’, Child Care, Health & Development, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 215 218. Porter, L. 2003, ‘Valuing children’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1 - 8. Smith, K. 2003, Reconceptualising Observation in the Early Childhood Curriculum. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Snyder, R. F. 1999, ‘Inclusion: a qualitative study of in-service general education teachers’ attitudes and concerns’, Education vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 173 – 180. Szarkowicz, D. 2004, Aggression and Young Children. Canberra: Early Childhood Australia. Tremblay, R. E. 2002, ‘The origins of physical aggression’, International Journal of Behavioural Development Newsletter, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 4 6. United Nations 1989, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: www.unicef.org/crc/crc (Accessed 1 December 2005)

CHAPTER THIRTEEN WHOSE LANGUAGE IS GROUP TIME ANYWAY? PENNY COOK AND TEACHERS FROM THE EARLY ASSISTANCE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

This chapter shares the experiences of staff in three kindergartens in the western suburbs of Adelaide, in the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) who explored ways to strengthen social inclusion in their pedagogies using practitioner action research. Kindergartens in South Australia offer non-compulsory sessional educational programs for preschool children. In 2003, each of the three kindergartens in this study participated in Phase 2 of the DECSfunded Early Assistance Action Research Project (EAARP) (2002 – 2003). Phase 2 of the project aimed to engage teachers in practitioner action research, guided by this question: How can the notion and practice of the Essential Learnings across the curriculum influence pedagogical change in the early years to strengthen social inclusion?

‘Essential Learnings’ are a foundational element of the South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability (SACSA) Framework. There are five Essential Learnings: x x x x x

Futures Identity Interdependence Thinking Communication.

194

Chapter Thirteen

The Department of Education and Children’s Services says this about the Essential Learnings: Essential Learnings are the understandings, dispositions and capabilities which develop over time and form an integral part of children's and students' learning from Birth to Year 12 and beyond. They constitute resources that are drawn upon throughout life and enable people to productively engage with changing times as thoughtful, active, responsive and committed local, national and global citizens. Engaging with these concepts is crucial to building a learning culture in and between education settings. http://www.earlyyears.sa.edu.au/pages/about/Essential_learnings/ (Accessed 6. 1. 2008.)

This chapter shares the teachers’ stories from their involvement in Phase 2 of the EEARP. It aims to highlight how each kindergarten staff group came to listen to and respond to children’s voices in new ways through the project. The staff focus specifically on how their involvement in Phase 2 of EEARP led them to rethink children’s voices in group time and around art in their curriculum. They share a commitment to rethinking pedagogies to ensure that socially inclusive curriculum honours children’s participation in learning, decision-making and in the daily life of the kindergarten. They have different starting points in this work, but each site team shares the strategies and practices they have embraced to honour child choice and child participation in their daily work. They highlight their need to rethink power relations between staff and children to give children more choice and voice (Site One); the influence of language on children’s participation in early childhood services (Sites Two and Three); and the use of visual languages to challenge the marginalisation of children whose first language is not English (Sites Two and Three).

Phase 2 of the EEARP In Phase 2 of the EEARP practitioner research initiative, 20 early childhood sites (services for children before the formal years of schooling) participated in a series of professional development opportunities. There, site leaders and early childhood educators could engage with critical pedagogy, social inclusion and the Essential Learnings in early years curriculum. Early in 2003, participants were asked to develop specific sitespecific questions that would address the project’s broader questions. The three kindergartens in this chapter developed these site-specific questions:

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

x x x

195

How can we reconceptualise the place of group learning in the centre? (Site One: Largs North Kindergarten) How do we rethink the place of music in socially inclusive practice? (Site Two: Woodville Gardens Preschool) What practices in our service include or exclude children? How can we rethink the practices that exclude children? (Site three: Pennington Kindergarten)

In what follows, staff at each of the three sites share how they developed and explored their site-specific question and how these explorations helped them to reposition children’s voices and participation in their pedagogical practices.

Repositioning children’s voices in pedagogical practices: journeys and learnings The power of choice and group time: children helping to reconceptualise group learning pedagogies. Largs North Kindergarten (Site One) Largs North Kindergarten is a stand-alone preschool in a beachside suburb of the same name to the north west of Adelaide. Of the five staff, four of us had been involved in an action research project the previous year and we recognized the value of action research in our work with young children. Early in 2003 we attended the EEARP professional learning sessions and found that we shared concerns about the effects on social inclusion of holding a large group gathering at the end of each day’s session with children. From this concern, we developed the following question: How can we reconceptualise the place of group learning in our Preschool?

Beginning the journey We began our journey by gathering some base data about what children, parents and teachers thought about group time. We interviewed all the children, asked for parent opinion and each staff member wrote her own thoughts about the group times. We displayed this data prominently for the community to read and comment on; and we discussed the data with the children.

196

Chapter Thirteen

Two children’s comments give a flavor of several children’s responses to our data-gathering questions: ‘I don’t want to come to mat time, because I want to play. You could do mat time and let me do the book. I can’t read, but I would just do different words.’ ‘I like to do the tambourines and the shakers. I feel cross when children keep talking to me.’

The teachers’ responses included the following questions and comments: ‘Are all children emotionally and socially involved?’ ‘I feel that I am putting on a show.’ ‘Parents and siblings arriving to pick up their children interrupt the flow of the group.’ ‘What do we want children to get out of group times?’

(We asked parents for their opinions, but none responded.)

Reflecting on and rethinking pedagogies Clearly, not all of the children or all of the teachers were happy with group time. The team then ‘brainstormed’ about how to make group time more socially inclusive. We considered such matters as timing, group size, duration, content and attendance, children’s interests and community needs. Our first response was to make the groups smaller. Everything else remained the same. The groups still happened at the end of each session and were compulsory; and teachers decided what each group should do and who should be in it. Staff devised an evaluation form to be filled in at the end of each group. This documented each group’s date, time, membership and content; plus the teacher’s comments about it, e.g. distractions, children’s feelings, what did and didn’t work and any social inclusion issues. We tried this approach for a few weeks, then agreed – after much debate - to allow the children to decide themselves if they wanted to attend a group at all. Our discussions about this approach were often lively, because to question the value of traditional large groups was to question a ‘sacred cow’ of early childhood education. Some staff were uncomfortable with the idea that children should choose whether to be part of the group. They believed that we were responsible for a large part of the children’s learning and so, to ensure that learning happened, the children should sit quietly in a group so that the teachers could ‘teach’ them.

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

197

Together, we devised a new format for group time that we called a Workshop and agreed to trial it. We created a set of Workshop rules to make it clear to staff and children that a Workshop was different to the traditional group times. The Workshop rules gently shifted the power between children and staff: x x x x x x

children could choose to come to a Workshop or not if children came to a Workshop, they had to stay until it ended children had to behave respectfully during a Workshop the teacher generally (but not always) chose the content of a Workshop Workshops happened during session time, rather than at the end of the session Workshops happened in a defined space, separate from the general play area.

At the end of the ten weeks, staff asked each child for their comments about the Workshop; they wrote their own reflections about them; and they asked parents for their comments. The children’s comments showed that they had understood what it means to have the right to choose whether or not to attend the Workshop; that they exercised that right and that they enjoyed doing so. For example: ‘I like both kinds of Workshops, ’cos one of them is stories and one has music. Sometimes I don’t go because I’m playing.’ ‘I didn’t go because my friends didn’t want to, but then they did and I didn’t.’ ‘I sometimes don’t go, because I’m playing with Bridie.’

Staff comments emphasized the positive impact on children’s engagement and learning more broadly: ‘It’s interesting to see how the power of choice has affected the confidence that the children now have in making choices.’ ‘Often groups and content continued after teacher left e.g. children continued with dancing.’ ‘The after feeling was often a “high” for some children - good fun and a good residue feeling.’ ‘Smaller groups give an opportunity for language extension.’ ‘A growing occurrence of children organizing their own learning - coming up with ideas for workshops.’

Chapter Thirteen

198

‘When a workshop is in progress, there is another group that doesn’t attend and this is often a great opportunity for staff to interact with this group — it’s almost a default grouping.’ ‘The workshops give children who are ready to have a change of activity or interest an interesting event to go to.’

Parents reported that their children said that they liked the smaller groups because they were able to have a turn. We then analyzed the evaluation sheets and the comments by staff, children and parents to decide where to go next.

What did we learn? Through engaging with children, parents and teachers as we did, we learnt that: x x x x x x x x

children love the power of choice a child’s self concept and feeling of importance is enhanced by the chance to choose whether to attend something and what to do there children can adapt to change, especially within a familiar, safe context smaller groups increase teachers’ enthusiasm and enjoyment of learning children’s diverse learning styles and dispositions require diverse methods of learning and teaching wise practice includes flexibility in the structure of the day play is valued staff valued and acted on each child’s choice.

What is our thinking now? On social inclusion x

Giving children choices allows them to practice social inclusion in positive, proactive and powerful ways.

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

199

On ‘Essential Learnings’ x x x x

x

Communication. Giving children choices in a supportive and caring environment encourages and enables them to communicate confidently. Interdependence. Giving children choices encourages them to express their emotions and to engage with others. Identity. Giving children choices allows them to become autonomous and to regulate their own behaviour and their ability to influence others. Thinking. Giving children choices assists them to understand that others may think differently, have different perspectives and values; and that they have a right to be that way and to contribute to decision making. Futures. Giving children choices allows them to be involved actively in shaping their own learning.

On pedagogy x x

Reflecting critically on our practice was stimulating and invigorating. We changed our practice to reflect the social and learning needs of the children in our care.

Have our child choice and participation practices changed permanently? No. Old habits die hard, staff and children change. However, this particular research gave those who participated in it permission to question what we do with young children and why we do it. It made us realize that if you give young children a sympathetic, caring and inclusive learning environment in which their voices are sought and valued, they can make good choices about their learning.

Language and children’s participation in group time: rethinking oral and visual language in pedagogies. Woodville Gardens Preschool (Site Two) Woodville Gardens Preschool is located within the Parks cluster of Adelaide, seven kilometres from the Adelaide General Post Office. This area is very socially, culturally and linguistically diverse and it is one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged areas in Australia.

Chapter Thirteen

200

Seventy percent of the children have English as an additional language and a significant number of the children for whom English is a first language attend speech and language programmes. At the time of the project, ten different cultural groups were represented in the centre.

Beginning the journey Some of the staff had been involved in the DECS Learning to Learn Early Years Action Research and brought many questions and ways of thinking to the EAARP project. We were a new teaching team with our own set of values, ideas and beliefs. Our practice and pedagogy had remained unchallenged despite these staff changes within the teaching team. The project gave us permission to do something different. We were allocated release time to observe, reflect and come to an agreement about what we thought was important to us, the children and the community. Staff agreed that there were a greater number of responses from the children during small group times than during large group times; and that the children’s responses were significantly more meaningful when we had the support of our bilingual assistant. We also agreed that small groups gave us more time to listen to the children, to respond to them and to explain things. Small groups included more retelling of stories using props, visual aids and singing. We started to question the value of our large group time. We observed children’s participation in groups, recorded these observations and used them as a basis for conversations about what was happening in our group times. Despite the presence of a bilingual staff member, our curriculum was based predominantly on written and oral English. We noticed that children with English as an additional language displayed certain patterns of behaviour during group time: x x x x

lack of participation reluctance to take risks poor story comprehension limited vocabulary and word knowledge.

We began to ask just who group times are for. The children were responding passively according to a learned group response - ‘Sit quietly and watch’. But what were they really taking in? How much could they take in? Were they reaching their full potential? We noticed that participation was higher when group times included music. Did this mean that our current reliance on English in group times prevented us from

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

201

learning about the children’s prior knowledge and acknowledging this in our programme? Were we building on children’s prior knowledge or was our oral English language too fast and complicated to do this? These diverse specific questions came together into this broad research question: How do we rethink the place of music in a socially inclusive practice?

Reflecting on and rethinking pedagogies We decided to learn more about the children’s interest in and involvement with music outside of the preschool, in the hope that we could increase their participation in our large group time. Further, we wanted to acknowledge the cultural backgrounds of all of our families and involve them in their children’s learning. Consequently, we sent each family a questionnaire (in their first language) and spoke to each one individually. Parents’ responses indicated that they valued their child’s education and wanted to be involved in it. On reflection, we felt that our initial research question was too broad. We decided to concentrate on a small aspect of music and participation, i.e. the explicit teaching of songs and how we could increase children’s participation in singing. We could see that children’s diverse learning styles required diverse teaching styles and we were wary of losing our own teaching styles. One size did not fit all – and still doesn’t. However, we believed we needed to explore different ways to engage children in the English language; and that this explicit teaching should have creativity, spontaneity and play as its core values. Consequently, we examined the place of English in the songs that we used and decided to move to the following practices during group time: x x x x x x x

Choose simple, repetitive songs. Make posters for the children to follow the words of the song. Add visuals so that we could point to the picture and the word when it was sung. Read the song and talk about what it meant. Translate the songs into the children’s first languages and teach both versions of the song to the children. Send home song sheets for the children to share with their families. Use the songs in all areas of the curriculum. E.g. we painted, moved to and played with the songs.

Chapter Thirteen

202

x x

Personalise the songs by changing the adjectives, nouns and verbs. For example, ‘Yellow butterfly, spread your wings’ became ‘Purple fish, flap your fins’. Make the songs into books.

What did we learn? We used these strategies to teach three focus songs for a term. At the end of that time, we noted that: x x x x x x x x x

Children felt empowered. They knew what to expect. The children expressed enjoyment and freedom, rather than expectation and apprehension. More children participated. Children were singing spontaneously. New children entering the group were following the precedent set and participating in ways they felt comfortable. For example, some mouthed words, others attempted actions. Families approached staff informally to share anything remotely connected to singing and music. Parents offered to teach songs to the children. All staff knew and felt confident singing the three focus songs. Staff believed that repetition and explicit teaching encouraged children’s participation significantly.

The success of our approach to children’s participation in group time encouraged us to apply it to other areas of the curriculum. We had set out to teach the language of the songs, but in practice we were teaching more about language in all areas of the curriculum. We had enabled the children to experience the power of language and, in doing so, had increased their ability to participate meaningfully in groups at the centre. After implementing the changes, we observed the children at the end of the term. Their participation rate was higher and they were more involved in different areas of the song curriculum/project. We grew together and continue to grow. The children share more stories and more families share stories with staff. We have introduced Literacy Packs for parents that include suggestions on how to play with their child/ren; and parents feel confident to cook with children following large printed recipes. We are adding visual song posters continuously to our repertoire and a selection is always available to the children; and we

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

203

distribute song sheets associated with the current programme regularly. We are making large books and continuous stories; and we are increasing children’s enjoyment of favourite repetitive books by reading them to small groups of children before they hear them in the large group. We add visual props to everything we say, e.g. to help children communicate successfully with a doctor, we used sheets with the phrases ‘What’s wrong?’ and ‘My ___ is hurting’, accompanied by lots of pictures of parts of the body.

What is our thinking now? In the years since these experiments, we have maintained our commitment to a play-based curriculum. The difference is that the children now have more language to use in this creative play. Not every group time is structured, but we continue to introduce and repeat new songs, stories, and activities to increase understanding and participation. Children now choose visual song posters that they know and recognise as favourites; they read the repeated stories to each other spontaneously and make books by choice; and new children follow the high expectations set by the older children.

Finding opportunities for children to be powerful, successful and included. Pennington Kindergarten (Site Three) Pennington Kindergarten is a diverse and multilingual community. More than ten different home languages are spoken, a third of the children have a home language other than English and a significant number of children have very limited knowledge, understanding and use of English. This diversity offers us rich language experiences, but poses challenges to our pedagogy. In particular, it makes our aspiration of social inclusion more complex.

Beginning the journey Traditionally, early childhood pedagogy and practice has emphasised verbal language heavily. Consequently, to achieve our goal of social inclusion we had to rethink traditional early childhood pedagogy. We began our journey by contracting the services of Elizabeth Dau as a Critical Friend to our Kindergarten. Elizabeth has extensive experience in the early childhood field and particular expertise in social justice, equity

204

Chapter Thirteen

and the anti-bias curriculum. The role of the Critical Friend (the ‘pedagogista’ in Reggio Emilia programmes) is to support teaching and learning by promoting: ‘… an attitude of “learning to learn”, an openness to change and a willingness to discuss opposing points of view.’ (Filippini 1998, p. 132.)

We started our action research project by trying to decide its focus. We had explored ‘Being Australian’ already with the children and we saw a logical progression to exploring the notion of ‘Belonging’. Who feels that they belong in this Kindergarten? What makes them feel that they belong? Who doesn’t feel that they belong? Why? After some initial conversations with children, we realised quickly that the notion of ‘belonging’ was far too broad for a small action research project and needed refinement if it was to be a manageable project focus. In the early stages of the project, we had recorded instances of social inclusion and exclusion. For example: 29/7/03 Stephen is outside on the car. Jason is playing with the blocks on the platform. Stephen said: ‘Jason hate me. He not my friend any more.’ Kristie to Anna: ‘I’m sorry Anna but I can’t invite you to my birthday, because I am inviting Elaine and she doesn’t like you.’

We reflected upon a number of such scenarios and formulated those two – more manageable – research questions: x What practices in our service include or exclude children? x How can we rethink the practices that exclude children?

Reflecting on and rethinking pedagogies ‘We’ve achieved amazing things with every child we could never have achieved if we’d focussed on literacy and numeracy.’ (Project journal extract - Sue)

To answer the first question, we asked ourselves what constitutes valid content in a curriculum. Currently, literacy and numeracy are the priorities in many educational districts in South Australia. Our action research project offered us the opportunity to be innovative and to ‘think outside

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

205

the square’. Dominant discourses determine what is viewed as valid, possible and available, so we had to resist fixing our gaze on literacy, numeracy or predetermined outcomes. Instead, our curriculum focus for the duration of the project was art and image making with children. Initially, we separated the content and focus of the curriculum from the research project, but as our research progressed we began to see that art offered opportunities for social inclusion. Our journal documented examples of children who spoke languages other than English being at the ‘fringes’ of the larger group of children and at times struggling to engage with the curriculum. They were often marginalised, certainly not deliberately, by the dominance of the English language. Observations and reflections in our journal also indicated that children in Occasional Care were also marginalised from the larger group. When we placed art and image-making at the heart of the curriculum, we found that all the children engaged with the curriculum successfully and expressed themselves in a common language. A child’s participation in the curriculum wasn’t limited by their language, age, ability or gender. For example: ‘Vy, Tran and Linda were leaders in the curriculum … they were this little group with all these skills that the other children could admire. … It’s been a very inclusive experience. You didn’t have to speak English to be able to do it and you could be at all different levels.’ (Journal Extract. Sue, 26.9.03)

The term – and the project - culminated in an Art Show, which was itself a celebration of social inclusion. Each child had created and chosen work to exhibit at the Art Show and the children’s families, as well as classes from the Pennington Junior Primary School, came to admire the celebratory exhibition.

Reflecting upon how we see children After examining how curriculum can include or exclude children we turned our attention to how we ‘see’ children. In postmodern thinking, we see children through a ‘gaze’ that frames and constitutes who children are or can be in educational settings. In early childhood services, this ‘gaze’ is generally exercised through checklists and observations.

206

Chapter Thirteen

Our observations of the children began troubling us some time ago, but we had never really had the opportunity to investigate our disquiet fully. The number of observations we collected varied widely from child to child. For some children, we had pages of observations, for others we had none. We discovered that quite often we overlooked the ‘competent child’, whereas we took pages of observations of a child with some difficulty managing in the group or learning. Our examinations of our observations showed that we saw children through a deficit ‘gaze’, i.e. we looked for what a particular child was unable to do. Just as we arrived at this point and were considering how to shift our gaze, we attended the Learning Stories training day. The Learning Stories offered us a way to see children differently and to rethink what we should document, and how we should report children’s learning. ‘(By) maintaining a positive determination, inclusion becomes the operative word and the deficit model is challenged … the learning stories and the focussed discussion allowed creativity of ideas to move forward beyond individual children and observations.’ (Journal extract. Nadia. 23.10.03)

What did we learn? We found that several practices that are commonly accepted in early childhood services contributed to social exclusion: x x x

our observations of children our use of language the practice of group time.

We had heard that Largs North Kindergarten had been rethinking grouptime. This resonated with our experiences of the problematic nature of large groups in which the dominance of English advantaged certain participants and disadvantaged others. Generally, we had stopped at 9.30 a.m. for group-time, unless the majority of children were engaged in other experiences. Although no conscious decision was made to ‘give away’ group time, it happened less and less often until it ceased altogether. As group-times decreased, children’s engagement and participation in other experiences increased. Children stopped asking, ‘Can we go outside yet?’ and engaged in learning experiences for increasing periods of time.

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

207

The project also became a socially inclusive experience for staff as well as for children. As we explored art and image-making with the children, the Early Childhood Workers at the kindergarten who became the curriculum and pedagogical experts undertook the leading role in this exploration. One staff member is an artist and others are especially creative. The curriculum opened up a space to give voice and expertise to the staff whose voices are commonly silenced because they lack formal qualifications.

What is our thinking now? x x x x x x x

Art is a medium through which every child in a multilingual setting can participate and share a common language. Placing art at the heart of our investigation enabled us to explore social inclusion. Engaging a Critical Friend is a good way to approach professional development in a kindergarten where critical reflection and innovation is valued. Learning Stories can transform the way we see children from ‘needy’ to ‘rich’. A curriculum that draws upon the whole team’s talents, expertise and wisdom can generate energy and excitement about curriculum and pedagogy. A pedagogy that draws on alternative bodies of knowledge (e.g. art) offers greater possibilities for children’s learning. Unexamined early childhood pedagogy silences certain children and privileges others.

Final reflections and chapter summary If young children are to participate meaningfully in the life and learning of early childhood services, early childhood staff need to take time to reflect on and at times rethink their ‘sacred pedagogical cows’. The stories shared in this chapter highlight the small and large ways in which teachers do this as they seek to ensure that all children have the possibility for ‘voice’ and choice as citizens with rights in their daily worlds. It emphasises the role of visual language in expanding the possibilities for child participation and voice in linguistically diverse contexts; and the value of seeking and acting on children’s perspectives on their daily experiences in early childhood services. It points to the ways in which staff can re-think taken-for-granted

Chapter Thirteen

208

practices such as group time to increase child choice and participation with positive effects for children and for staff.

Questions for reflection 1. 2.

How did the staff in this chapter view curriculum? What was different and what site? How does the language environment of service influence children’s possibilities citizens in early childhood services?

child choice in the was similar at each an early childhood for participation as

Further reading Johnson, B. & Reid, A. (Eds.) 1999, Contesting the Curriculum, Social Science Press, Katoomba, Australia. Millikan, J. 2003, Reflections: Reggio Emilia principles within Australian contexts, Pademelon Press, Castle Hill, NSW.

References Filippini, T. 1998, ‘The role of the Pedgogista: An interview with Lella Gandini by Tiziana Filippini in collaboration with Simon Bonilauiri’, in The Hundred Languages of Children: advanced reflections, eds. C. Edwards, L. Gandini & G. Forman, 2nd edn. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Glossary ‘Essential Learnings’ are a foundational element of the South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability (SACSA) Framework. The five Essential Learnings are: x Futures x Identity x Interdependence x Thinking x Communication The Department of Education and Children’s Services describes them as follows:

Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?

209

Essential Learnings are the understandings, dispositions and capabilities which develop over time and form an integral part of children's and students' learning from Birth to Year 12 and beyond. They constitute resources that are drawn upon throughout life and enable people to productively engage with changing times as thoughtful, active, responsive and committed local, national and global citizens. Engaging with these concepts is crucial to building a learning culture in and between education settings. http://www.earlyyears.sa.edu.au/pages/about/Essential_learnings/ (Accessed 6.1.2008)

Practitioner action research refers to teachers researching in their classroom to transform practice and encourage innovative approaches to teaching and learning. Practitioner action research supports practitioners to critically reflect and question existing knowledges and practices, plan actions for change, document changes and critically reflect again. Group time is a term used to refer to whole group learning sessions in childcare, kindergartens and preschools in Australia. They are often teacher-led sessions, which all children must attend and are generally timetabled for a specific time of the day.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN CHILDREN AS SCIENCE TEACHERS SHARON SAITTA

Introduction In 2001, a group of early childhood staff at the Swanston Street Children’s centre in Melbourne formed an action research group (‘Swanston Street Science’) to explore new ways to ‘do science differently’ across all ages within the early childhood curriculum. In particular, the group wanted to introduce science to young children and their families in culturally inclusive ways that focused on access and equity (Hannah & Saitta 2003). I was a founder-member of this group. Membership has enabled me to reflect critically on the content of science education and on how I create science based learning experiences in the classroom. It has also given me a space in which to explore how young children can be active citizens, capable of contributing ideas and knowledge to an early childhood curriculum and with a right to do so (Coady & Page 2005). This chapter draws on some of my work as a teacher-researcher within Swanston Street Science. I draw on a number of projects which enabled and encouraged young children to design and implement science based learning experiences within an early childhood curriculum. The chapter does not prescribe ‘the right way’ to introduce young children to science. Rather, it invites the reader to begin their own critically reflective journey through the many ways in which they can enable and encourage young children to be active citizens with a right to contribute to, and make decisions within, an early childhood learning environment.

Children as Science Teachers

211

A Developmentally Appropriate approach to science in early childhood Before my involvement in Swanston Street Science, my approach to science based learning experiences in an early childhood classroom was to set up one or two ‘interest tables’, each holding a range of resources. I would choose the resources because they reflected what I knew to be the children’s current interests; and that knowledge would be based on my ‘objective’ observations of the children’s explorations and engagements during the day, supplemented by information gathered from the children’s families about what the children did at home (Beaty 1990; Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer 2005). For example, if a child brought in some autumn leaves that they had collected at the park on the weekend, I would seek to capture and build their interest in this area and to offer further information about how the natural environment changes each season. I would design and set up an interest table consisting of developmentally appropriate resources about ‘autumn’; and I would include other materials and play based experiences - such as storybooks, painting and collage - with a focus on ‘autumn’. (See, for example, SirajBlatchford & Macleod-Brudenell 1999.) This approach would usually focus on the interests that emerged from my many incidental conversations and interactions with the children. For example, after viewing the moon during the day, we might explore the solar system; when children asked where chickens come from, we might arrange for some to hatch from eggs; when children asked how a light works, we might set up an electric circuit with batteries, wires and a small light bulb. I would use my ‘objective’ observations of children at these events to record and evaluate each child’s interests, skill level and learning. I would use my records and evaluations to plan further learning experiences for each child and I would show my records and evaluations to parents as evidence of their children’s development (Bredekamp & Rosegrant 1992). This approach provided numerous opportunities for children to construct ‘scientific’ knowledge as they explored and engaged with resources that matched their current interests, age and stage of development (Bredekamp & Rosegrant 1992). However, while adherents to this approach claim to base their curriculum on children’s interests and developmental requirements, children’s voices and ideas were rarely present in such curricula. In my own teaching, most of the decisions about the design,

Chapter Fourteen

212

implementation and evaluation of the curriculum were – quite correctly within this approach – based on my knowledge of child development and on my goals and objectives concerning each child and the group as a whole (Cross 1995; Fleer 1995). Similarly, while adherents to this approach claim to include families’ interests and views in their curricula, it is still the teacher who decides which of those ideas and views was ‘appropriate’ to children’s interests and developmental needs and, therefore, which should be included in the curriculum (Bredekamp & Rosegrant 1992).

Beginning my journey as a teacher-researcher In the early days of Swanston Street Science, we asked ourselves what we thought we could bring to the group. I thought about this question for a few days and finally wrote down the following points in my journal: x x x

x

My limited knowledge about science in an early childhood curriculum and little confidence to explore it. My particular questions about the world we live in and my particular interests in certain topics, knowledge and issues. My ability to facilitate children’s science questions and interests (e.g. by asking further questions, documenting the process, organizing and finding resources/people to help us explore the questions and ideas). My wish to become a co-learner with children and adults within the early childhood service.

Reflecting on these points now, I believe I was skeptical about what I could contribute. I feel that my limited knowledge about science and my lack of confidence in exploring it stemmed from my experiences of science at school. Then, science meant cutting up frogs, watching water evaporate, growing seeds and remembering lots of facts and figures – none of which I quite mastered or enjoyed. Despite that, I joined Swanston Street Science with definite questions about the world we live in and with definite interests in some ‘scientific’ topics, including astrometry and natural history. Further, my study of socio-cultural theories (Arthur et al 2005) supported my belief that I had the skills to create a collaborative learning environment where children, families, colleagues and the wider community could come together to explore their interests and to contribute to the design, implementation and evaluation of science learning experiences within the classroom (Harlan & Rivkin 2004). For example,

Children as Science Teachers

213

one afternoon I was reading a story called ‘What planet are you from Clarice Bean?’ to a group of three to five year olds. A character in the story asks, ‘Who can move faster: a snail or a worm?’ and at this point the children began to laugh, to ask questions and to discuss who might win a race between a snail and a worm. This was a learning opportunity! I asked the children if they wanted to learn about snails and worms and to have a race between snails and worms as part of a science project. The children responded enthusiastically, so over the next few days I gathered resources such as books and pictures of snails and worms, I worked with children to document their artwork and stories and we set up a container of snails and worms where children could actively test and explore their ideas and questions. Many families became involved in the project both at the service and at home. Some families had access to resources such as microscopes and books through their workplace; others spent time with their children in collecting worms and snails from their garden, borrowing books from the library and accessing information from the internet (Hannah & Saitta, 2003). During the life of the ‘Snails and Worms’ project, my pedagogical style was to create time and space to follow children’s interests and questions about snails and worms and to offer opportunities for children, families and teachers to work together (co-learn) using a range of literacies, media and science resources (Fleer & Cahill 2001; Arthur et al 2005). Children’s and families’ voices became stronger in the project as we followed their various ideas, but I still took the lead in designing, implementing and evaluating the majority of the project. For example, I decided on the format of documentation that we would use and when the project would come to an end, based on my observations of when children had lost interest in it.

A critically reflective approach to science in early childhood My involvement in Swanston Street Science has enabled me to search for ways to create a fairer and more equitable learning environment for children, families and teachers (Saitta 2003); and it has generated ideas and questions that have challenged and sometimes changed some of my ideas and practices. For example, towards the end of 2003, I was working in Bat Cave (Babies Room) at Swanston Street Centre and I wondered what it would look like if older children within the service shared their scientific knowledge and ideas with younger children as part of a new

Chapter Fourteen

214

Swanston Street Science project. Early in 2004, I had the following conversation with four children from Spider Room (3 - 5 year olds Room), to see whether they would like to participate in such a project: Sharon: Esther: Calliope: Cassandra: Max:

What do you think science is? Learning about the world and things. I don’t know … maybe doing things. I don’t know. I am too tired to think about it, Sharon. It’s like learning about the world like Scienceworks. Sharon, did you know I been to Scienceworks with Emmy? I seen rock climbing, playing basketball, a movie about a volcano. I learned about volcanoes with lava and a storm in it but nothing else, a wave maker and a moving home.

Sharon:

If we did a science project with Starlight Room children, what would you like to teach them about science? Esther: I could teach them how to do rainbows. Calliope: I don’t know. Cassandra: I could teached Abigail to do volcanoes and drawing. Max: To climb like Spider Room children we could do rock climbing like at Scienceworks, to play properly, to teach them to read and write. To show them how animals climb, what they eat and where they live and to do a volcano with them and not to suck the animals. (Source: My Journal)

Following this discussion, I began to think seriously about a Swanston Street Science project which one of the children ran and in which my role would be to support their teaching. Max seemed the most interested in being involved in this project, so I decided to discuss some of his ideas further with him and how we might incorporate them into the Starlight Room curriculum. Max and I had built up a solid and positive relationship since he started in Bat Cave with me in 1999 as a three-month-old baby. I had also taught his older sister Emily for many years. Throughout 2003, Max had built good relationships with all of the Bat Cave children who had moved to Starlight Room in 2004. Max offered many ideas about what we could explore within the science project and I suggested that we could write a short story book about three or four animals discussing what they eat, where they live, etc. I would write Max’s story, he would do the drawings. Max suggested that as well as the book, we should set up a play space with the animals where Max could work with the younger children. I asked Max to think about what

Children as Science Teachers

215

resources we would need and how he wanted to set up the project and arranged to meet with him in a couple of days. At that next meeting, Max decided that the project should be called The Jungle of the Animals Project; and we had the following conversation: Sharon: Max:

Sharon: Max: Sharon: Max:

How do we start the project Max? We need to go to the Poffy Shop (Max’s favourite shop – Poppy Shop in Lygon Street, Melbourne) so we can buy a monkey, tiger, lion and a giraffe; go back to the center and we might set up it, draw the pictures. I will draw the pictures and you can write the words - MY Words Sharon then we read the story to the children and set up the animals. What do you need to set up the play space, Max? Some logs, some grass - not real, the fake one - some trees, some plants, some rocks, no water and nothing else. Where do you want to set up the play space Max? You know the little sheddy thing next door to the block corner.

Max’s detailed answers to my questions showed just how much he had thought about the project since our initial meeting. His parents had told me that the project had been a topic of conversation at home and that Max had discussed some of his ideas with them as he played with the zoo that he had created in his bedroom with his large animal collection. When we went to the Poppy Shop to buy the animals, Max and I had the following conversation: Max: Sharon: Max: Sharon: Max:

Do you know Sharon, I been thinking - we need to get six animals, not four, ’cause then there will be more animals for the kids to use and then they won’t get upset and fight. I thought we negotiated only four animals Max. Yeah, but I think I changed my mind and now we need six, not four. Okay Max, but no more than six. Deal? Deal.

While choosing the animals in the Poppy Shop, Max discussed other animals that might be good to have in the project. Max chose a lioness, a tiger cub, a giraffe, a zebra and a chimpanzee with a baby on its back. Max then found three meerkats and a dinosaur that he said he really loved and wished he had because he didn’t have them at home. As he talked about the zoo he had built with all his animals in his bedroom, I realized just how much knowledge and interest Max had in animals - this had been an

Chapter Fourteen

216

ongoing interest over the last few years. Max set the meerkats and the dinosaur on the floor of the shop and suggested that we buy them and add them to the project: Sharon: Max: Sharon: Max: Sharon:

Max: Sharon: Max:

Max, if we buy all of these animals, then we will have nine animals instead of six like we agreed. No, Sharon, we won’t, ’cause we can count the meerkats as one animal, ’cause they are family like the chimp and baby. What about the dinosaur? I don’t have this dinosaur at home SOOO, I could keep it at home and the meerkats could stay in with the other animals in the project. So what you’re saying, Max, is that the lioness, tiger cub, giraffe, chimpanzee with the baby chimp, zebra and meerkats can be part of the science project and the dinosaur can be, like, maybe a present for you to keep at home? Yeah, that would be fair and good don’t you think Sharon? (Smiling) Yeah, Max I do think that would be fair and good. It’s a deal. (Smiling broadly) Deal!

Back at the Centre, Max and I met in the office where he decided he wanted to draw all of the pictures for the book before setting up the play space for the Starlight Room children. Max decided that he wanted me to document the questions I asked him as well as a short story that he told about each animal in the book. Over the next eight weeks (as time permitted), Max and I met during my planning time to work together on the book. During this period, I always told Max beforehand that I had some time on a specific day to work on the book. Occasionally Max responded that he didn’t feel like working on the project then, so we would arrange another time that suited both of us. At other times, unforeseen issues emerged which meant that I had to cancel sessions at short notice with him and make a new time convenient to both of us. Max took the lead in setting up a place in the outdoor space where he worked with a number of younger and older children, facilitating and encouraging continuing conversations about what each animal ate, where they lived and some of their behaviors, along with care and respect for the resources and play spaces. After a few weeks, Max noticed that children were no longer playing in the space and that we needed to move the project into Starlight Room. This we did, incorporating minor changes to

Children as Science Teachers

217

the natural setting negotiated between Max, myself and Sue - the other teacher in Starlight Room. During this time Max would often ask about how the project was going and if any changes needed to be made, especially if he wanted to add something else – as he did when he added some small cats and dogs to the project. The story book that Max had made was read on numerous occasions to children from all the rooms and remained one of the children’s favourite books in Starlight Room. Max was in the group that presented a paper about the The Jungle of the Animals project to an international early childhood conference in Melbourne in 2004 (Hughes et al, 2004).

Supporting citizenship through science The Jungle of the Animals project showed (again!) that science is everywhere and that we can use a variety of resources to explore scientific ideas. The project supported the children’s citizenship in two broad ways. First, it gave young children access to science and the confidence to explore it in ways that were fun, exciting and relevant. Everyone - Max, the Starlight Room children and the teachers - shared conversations, fun and laughter as Max imparted his knowledge and love of animals with us; and everyone’s knowledge about the animals in the project increased. (For example, I had never heard of a meerkat before Max told me all about them at the Poppy Shop.) As we selected and designed the resources and the play spaces, we shared our creativity and our aesthetic knowledge. Second, each participant had to respect other participants’ knowledge, time constraints and hopes for the project and negotiate accordingly. For example, sometimes I couldn’t meet with Max and sometimes he didn’t feel like doing the project at a particular time, so our time together was often the result of negotiating these differences. The Jungle of the Animals project inspired me to adopt a more critically reflective approach to science in the early childhood classroom. It made me question and challenge the science based learning experiences I had been using; and it helped me to create new opportunities for young children to be decision makers. I believe that it enabled and encouraged the children who participated in it to be active citizens who can and should contribute ideas and knowledge to early childhood curricula.

Chapter Fourteen

218

Questions for reflection 1.

2.

3.

Would The Jungle of the Animals Project have emerged as it did if I had adopted a Developmentally Appropriate or SocioConstructivist approach to science within an early childhood curriculum? How and to what extent did The Jungle of the Animals Project offer the children in it opportunities to be decision makers within the early childhood curriculum? Did it change the balance of power and relationships within the classroom? How and to what extent did The Jungle of the Animals Project create fairer and more equitable relationships between children, teachers, families and the wider community?

Additional reading Hannah, M. & Saitta, S. 2003, ‘Swanston Street Science’, Everychild, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 22 - 23. Saitta, S. 2003, ‘The jewelry meeting,’ in Shaping early childhood: learners, curriculum and contexts, G. Mac Naughton, Open University Press, Berkshire, pp. 98 – 102.

References Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S. & Farmer, S. 2005, Programming and Planning in Early Childhood Settings, 3rd edn., Thomson, South Melbourne. Beaty, J. J. 1990, Observing Development of the Young Child, 2nd edn., Merrill, Columbus. Bredekamp, S. & Rosegrant, T. 1992, ‘Reaching potential: appropriate curriculum & assessment for young children’, National Association for the Education of Young Children, USA, vol. 1, pp. 9 - 27. Coady, M. & Page, J. 2005, ‘Continuing commitments: the early childhood sector and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 45 - 53. Cross, T. 1995, ‘The Early Childhood Curriculum Debate’, in DAP centrism: challenging developmentally appropriate practice, ed. M. Fleer, Australian Early Childhood Association Inc., Watson. ACT, pp. 87 – 108.

Children as Science Teachers

219

Fleer, M. 1995, ‘Does cognition lead development, or does development lead cognition?’ in DAP centrism: challenging developmentally appropriate practice, ed. M. Fleer, Australian Early Childhood Association, Inc., Watson. ACT, pp. 11 – 22. Fleer, M. & Cahill, A. 2001, I Want to Know … Learning About Science. Research in Practice Series, vol. 8, no 1. Australian Early Childhood Association: Watson, ACT. Hannah, M. & Saitta, S. 2003, ‘Swanston Street Science’, Everychild, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 22 - 23. Harlan, J. D. & Rivkin, M. S. 2004, Science Experiences for the Early Childhood Years: an integrated affective approach, 8th edn., Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, Columbus, OH. Hughes, P., De Vincentis, S., Saitta, S. & Wilson, M. 2004, ‘Science and citizenship in an early childhood setting.’ Paper to the fourth annual conference of the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood. Melbourne. Saitta, S. 2003, ‘The jewelry meeting,’ in Shaping early childhood: learners, curriculum and contexts, G. Mac Naughton, Open University Press, Berkshire, pp. 98 – 102. Siraj-Blatchford, J. & MacLeod-Brudenell, I. 1999, Responding to the Differing Needs of Children, Open University Press, Buckingham.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN RETHINKING CITIZENSHIP FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FOUR AND FIVE YEAR OLD CHILDREN’S EXPERIENCES OF HAPPINESS JANE PAGE

Introduction In this chapter, I report some results from a PhD project that explored how young children’s emotions are shaped by their social experiences with friends in an early childhood setting. In particular, I examine children’s accounts of being happy to highlight children’s understandings of happiness and of how it is affected by their experiences of membership, identity and agency in their friendships. I discuss the implications of the children’s accounts for early childhood professionals and outline how emotions have been linked to citizenship.

Emotions and citizenship Young children are active members of society. They participate actively in their social worlds through their relationships with peers and adults and they can talk lucidly about how their social contexts influence their lives. I argue (after Conover 1995) that emotions are shaped by the quality of our relationships with others and are linked to citizenship and in my research I explored the implications of this argument for our understandings of links between children’s relationships with friends, their sense of membership and their agency and identity.

Rethinking Citizenship from the Perspective of Four and Five Year Old 221 Children’s Experiences of Happiness

While Conover (1995) defines citizenship as membership of particular groups, Lister (2003) expands the definition to include an individual’s social relationships: An understanding of citizenship in terms of membership and identity underlines that what is involved is not simply a set of legal rules governing the relationship between individuals and the state but also a set of social relationships between individuals and the state and between individual citizens. (Lister 2003, p. 15.)

Lister argues further that participation is a process or vehicle through which individuals experience and express agency in and through their relationships with others. Individuals experience a sense of agency when they exert direct influence on people and social structures; and their sense of agency shapes their identity as citizens and their status and role in social groups: Citizenship as participation represents an expression of human agency. … To act as a citizen requires first a sense of agency, the belief that one can act; acting as a citizen, especially collectively, in turn fosters that sense of agency. Thus, agency is not simply about the capacity to choose and act but it is also about a conscious capacity, which is important to the individual’s self-identity. (Lister 2003, pp. 37, 39.)

People’s emotions are connected to citizenship through their relationships with others (Conover 1995) and a range of researchers have found that young children’s relationships affect their identity as social agents and as members of a social group. Tajfel (1981) argues that individuals’ identities derive from their understanding of their ‘membership within a social group or groups together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership’ (p. 255). Lancaster and Broadbent (2003) found that in four- and five-year-old children, happiness was linked most often with being with friends and family and with the quality of those relationships. Pramling and Malm (1997) concluded that children’s emotions were connected to their ability to participate and to experience agency in their relationships with others. Mayall (2000) found that fiveyear-old children believe that while their relationships with family and friends shape their experiences, they are also social agents capable of structuring their lives through these relationships. Finally, Farrell, Taylor and Tennent (2004) found that children’s enjoyment of kindergarten and school was influenced by their friends’ emotions.

222

Chapter Fifteen

The research project and process My PhD research was undertaken with forty-two four- and five-year-old children over a two-year period in an early childhood setting. It asked two questions: How do four- and five-year-old children understand their emotions? and How do four- and five-year-old children understand their friends’ emotions? Alongside these two broad questions were some more specific ones: Do children experience a sense of agency? and How are their friends and adults involved in their understandings? Informed by the argument that young children are active members of society who can talk lucidly about how their social contexts influence their lives, the research asked; ‘How do researchers see the child in a research project?’, ‘How do children see themselves in a research project?’ and ‘How can adults enable children to shape a research project and interpret its results?’ (Barker & Weller 2003; Birbeck & Drummond 2005; Christensen & James 2000; Darbyshire, MacDougal & Schiller 2005; Grover 2004; Haudrup 2004; Hill 2005; Jenks 2005; O’Kane 2000; Samuelsson 2004; Warren 2000). I collected data using semi-structured interviews including story-stem narratives and discussions of transcripts and drawings. This flexible, open-ended approach allowed children to express their views as they chose. To enable children to shape the research project and interpret its results, I did the following: x invited them to be involved in the project and told them that they could withdraw from the project at any stage x told them the purpose and nature of my research before I started it x showed them my research tools x told them what the story stem narratives would involve x told them the questions I would ask in the interviews x asked their permission to tape-record their voices and to keep their drawings x engaged them as I interpreted their responses in the interview. To discover the children’s interest and wishes, I did the following: x asked them about their favourite activities and provided a variety of open-ended activities that they were interested in x provided the children with a variety of media (chosen by them) to play with outside the research-based activities

Rethinking Citizenship from the Perspective of Four and Five Year Old 223 Children’s Experiences of Happiness

x

offered the children the chance to use small doll figurines to actout narratives; to name the story stem characters, to choose a pseudonym for themselves and to decide how they wanted the research project to finish.

To ensure that children’s voices would be prioritised over my concerns as a researcher, I did the following: x read to them the transcripts of their story stem narrative and interview conversations and invited them to modify, change or comment on the content x asked them what they liked and disliked about the research throughout the project x asked them to choose the narrative openings for each emotional scenario x asked them how they wished to continue or conclude their relationship with me following the collection of data x encouraged them to decide how long they wished to be engaged in the research x gave them sufficient time to respond to questions or to build narratives x affirmed their ideas and perspectives (e.g. by encouraging and paraphrasing them) x listened respectfully to their responses x thanked them for being part of the project.

Children’s accounts of being happy I elicited children’s commentaries through: x a story-stem narrative about being happy x six interview questions x drawings x discussions on their original transcripts of the narrative and interview. In the story stem narrative, I presented a scenario and invited the children to, ‘show me what might happen next’. The children were also invited to choose the dolls with which to act out each scenario (there were two male and two female hand-sized wooden dolls). The scenario was as follows:

224

Chapter Fifteen It is Alice’s/Tobias’s birthday. Alice/Tobias really wants a doll/car. Her/his special friend Phoebe/Joshua knocks on Alice’s/Tobias’s door with a birthday present in her/his hand. Alice/Tobias opens the birthday present – it’s a doll/car.

The children then acted out the scene and told me how each character felt and how they felt about each character. The semi-structured interviews asked these questions: x What makes you feel happy at kindergarten? x When have you felt happy for a friend at kindergarten? x How do you know when your friends are happy at kindergarten? x What do you do when your friends are happy at kindergarten? x What do teachers do when your friends are happy at kindergarten? x What can we do to help our friends to understand each other’s feelings at kindergarten? The children’s commentaries on being happy centred on two themes: 1. Being happy is connected to feeling included and accepted as a member of a social group. 2. Being happy involved participating actively with friends and family in shared experiences, histories, memories, rituals and plans. Below, I examine each theme in detail. Being happy is connected to feeling included and accepted as a member of a social group. This theme underlay the children’s accounts of their individual personal experiences of feeling included/accepted, individual accounts of attempts to include friends in games, individual criteria for assessing friends’ states of happiness and individual expressions of happiness for friends when they were included and accepted by other friends. For example, Tom said that in the story-stem narrative, being invited to the party was central to his rationale of the character’s happiness: Because my … let him go to Toby’s party. (S2005224/2/2)

What was important to Tom wasn’t just being with friends but, rather, the fact that the character had been included as part of a special network of friends to attend the party. Toby had ‘let him’ come and, in doing so, had conferred on his friend the status of somebody he wanted to be with.

Rethinking Citizenship from the Perspective of Four and Five Year Old 225 Children’s Experiences of Happiness

Being invited to a party was also significant to Melissa, who spoke of how delighted the child character felt at being with his friend at her party. For Melissa, the character’s experience of delight was linked to feeling included in a shared experience and having the status of someone who had participated in a significant social event: Well he feels happy because it’s her birthday and he’s delighted to come to her place. (2005234/2/26)

Alexander said that he had felt happy for his friend Irena, who had expressed joy when he invited her to his party. He was happy because he had made her feel happy by including her in his birthday. Elizabeth said that she felt happy at kindergarten when she was asked to be friends with some girls who were pretty: It was when I first met my friends. They said, ‘Would you like to be my friends?’ and I said, ‘Yes’ and they were all pretty. (2004211/3/11-12)

The children also said that participating in happy events gave them a sense of agency, of being connected meaningfully with others. Specifically, they said that specific acts of participation in their friendships influenced their feelings of happiness. For example, Mark described feeling happy for a friend Harriet when she was included in a group game. Mark knew that being included in the game had made Harriet feel happy and his sense of involvement in making her happy had, in turn, made him happy. In addition, Mark had experienced a sense of agency in participating in making Celeste happy. This was directly linked to the meaning he applied to this gesture – including the friend had made her feel she was a valued peer with whom he wanted to share the experience of the game. We were playing ‘What’s the time Mr. Wolf?’ with Harriet and Celeste came and asked if she could play and she played with me. (200422/2/1)

The children’s statements show that being happy and feeling equal with friends is connected not just to feeling of being included and accepted, but also to the fact that friends wanted to share experiences with them. Being happy involves actively participating with friends and family in shared experiences, histories, memories, rituals and plans The children gave individual accounts of shared experiences, individual expressions of participation and agency and individual criteria for assessing friends’ states of happiness. In their accounts, they associated being happy with feeling connected to friends and family. Some children

226

Chapter Fifteen

linked being happy with, in part, meaningful long-term relationships. For example, James said that he had known Joshua - his friend at kindergarten - since he was a baby and that their longstanding friendship made him feel happy for himself and for Joshua. Similarly, Stephen said that he was happy for Otis - his friend at kindergarten - because he was, ‘My first friend I made here.’ (2004217/2/11). When Lime and Michael talked about the characters in the story stem narratives, both said that they felt connected emotionally with particular people. Lime said consistently that he felt happy for Alice – a character in the story stem narrative – because, ‘That is my favourite name.’ (S2005225/5/7). Later in the interview, he revealed that one of his special friends at the kindergarten was called Alice and that seeing the doll with the same name evoked happy memories of his friendship with her. Michael said that the doll in the second story stem narrative reminded him of his sister and this made him happy because of his connection with his sister: Good. … Because I like the look. … Good, because I like my sister. (S200419/3/29, 33, 44)

Other children linked being happy to participating with friends and family in shared memories and experiences. For example, Chicky Dick said that he was happy playing outside with friends on the play equipment, including, ‘the monkey bars … and the tyre swing and going fast on the tyre swing’ (2005223/1/9, 11). Claudia B enjoyed chasing games, especially when she doesn’t get caught, because she could outrun one of the boys: When I play chasey … Matthew chased us … and Matthew never ever catch me. (2005234/1/10, 13.)

Zephyr said that he enjoyed participating in social rituals and games with his family: Seeing mum and dad ... and my little sister Jane (makes me happy) (S2005239/1/24, 28) … ’Cause my mum and dad [and sister] play games with me. We even play hide and seek with each other ... And so does Julia, ’cause she likes to hide in silly places … She makes things like, she only makes things like quiet as a feather and we even don’t know where she’s hid. (2005239/1/37-38,43-2/1, 2.)

Irena also spoke of being happy visiting her mother at work and highlighted the importance of the rituals associated with this trip:

Rethinking Citizenship from the Perspective of Four and Five Year Old 227 Children’s Experiences of Happiness It is a tower tree house where really I did a big building with blocks on and that’s the first room where my mummy works and my mummy’s a scientist. … ’Cause I go into her work and every time I do … ’Cause when we go into the city we go ‘Boo!’ and we go behind something and jump up and say ‘Boo!’ and get a big fright. Then, when I was going to the apartment, we say ‘Who will run first?’ and then I run so fast. (S2005229/2/21,22,26,-2/34-36.)

Kathleen linked being happy to the ritual of playing computer games with her brother: Researcher

What is it about playing with your brother that makes you feel happy? Kathleen He plays with me and sometimes he plays games. Researcher He plays games. Kathleen Yeah on the bed. Researcher On the bed. Are there particular games that you really enjoy playing? Kathleen Yeah, my brother he likes Sonic ’cause Sonic can go really, really fast. (S2005222/1/31-42).

Kathleen also expressed the bond and feeling of connectedness she felt for her brother through their shared future plans: ‘We are going to be toymakers when we grow up … and live together.’ (S2005222/3/4.) The children also said that social outings and social events with their family were happy occasions. For example, Claudia B said that she was happy when she was shopping for a special family event: I like my sister and my mum and dad. … Ah, shopping, go out and one day something really special like grandma and grandpa’s 50th wedding anniversary. … And I weared a black velvet dress with some writing on it and a long top with pink flowers on it. (2005236/1/19, 27-28, 32, 33).

Laura also linked happiness with shared family experiences: ‘Going on exciting adventures. … And going on roller coasters.’ (S2005238/1/1, 15.) Ben enjoyed sharing holidays with his family: ‘’Cause we went to Fiji and it made me feel happy.’ (S2005241/4/1.)

Implications for early childhood professionals The children’s accounts of happiness demonstrated that it is worth listening to young children. Their detailed and nuanced accounts of

Chapter Fifteen

228

happiness show that a person’s identity is informed by their experiences of agency in their social relationships and that four and five year old children can talk lucidly about how their relationships with friends and family shape their lives as active agents. When early childhood professionals encourage children within a social group to share their experiences of happiness with each other, the children can acknowledge and explore whether and how they affect each other’s emotions and how to create respectful communities where their emotions, agency and identity are valued.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3.

How do you frame, respond to and explore children’s emotional states? What values do you attach to particular ways of feeling? How might your responses to children’s emotions shape their sense of membership, participation, agency and identity?

Further reading Sorin, R. 2003, ‘Validating young children's feelings and experiences of fear’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 4, pp. 80 - 89. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2005, Implementing Child Rights In Early Childhood, General Comment No. 7, OHCHR (CRC/C/GC/7). United Nations, Geneva. Woodhead, M. 2006, 'Changing perspectives on early childhood: theory, research and policy’, International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 5 - 48.

References Barker, J. & Weller, S. 2003, ‘”Never work with children?”: The geography of methodological issues in research with children’, Qualitative Research, vol. 3, pp. 207 - 227. Birbeck, D. & Drummond, M. 2005, ‘Interviewing and listening to the voices of very young children on body image and perceptions of self’, Early Child Development and Care, vol. 176, pp. 579 - 596. Christensen, P. & James, A. 2000, ‘ Researching children and childhood: cultures of communication’, in Research with children: perspectives and practices, eds. P. Christensen & A. James, Falmer Press, London,

Rethinking Citizenship from the Perspective of Four and Five Year Old 229 Children’s Experiences of Happiness

pp. 1 - 8. Conover, P. J. 1995, ‘Citizen identities and conception of the self’, Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 3, pp. 133 - 165. Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C. & Schiller, W. 2005, ‘Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: more insight or just more?’ Qualitative Research, vol. 5, pp. 417 - 436. Farrell, L., Tayler, C. & Tennent, L. 2004, ‘Listening to children: A study of child and family services’, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 30, pp. 623 - 630. Grover, S. 2004, ‘Why won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children participating in social research’, Childhood, vol. 11, pp. 81 - 93. Haudrup, C. P. 2004, ‘Children’s participation in ethnographic research: issues of power and representation’, Children and Society, vol. 18, pp. 165 - 176. Hill, M. 2005, ‘Ethical considerations in researching children’s experiences’, in Researching Children's Experiences: approaches and methods, eds. S. Greene & D. Hogan, Sage Publications, London, pp. 61 - 86. Jenks, C. 2005, Childhood, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London. Lancaster, Y. P. & Broadbent, V. 2003, Listening to Young Children, Open University Press, Maidenhead. Lister, R. 2003, Citizenship: feminist perspectives, New York University Press, New York. Mayall, B. 2000, ‘Conversations with children: working with generational issues’, in Research With Children: perspectives and practices, eds. P. Christensen & A. James, Falmer Press, London, pp. 120 - 135. O'Kane, C. (2000). ‘The development of participatory techniques: facilitating children’s views about decisions that affect them’, in Research With Children: perspectives and practices, eds. P. Christensen & A. James, Falmer Press, London, pp. 136 - 159. Samuelsson, P. 2004, ‘How do children tell us about their childhoods?’ Early Childhood Research and Practice, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1 - 12. Sheridan, S. & Pramling-Samuelsson, I. 2001, ‘Children’s conceptions of participation and influence in the pre-school: a perspective on pedagogical quality’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 2, pp. 169 - 194. Tajfel, H. 1981, Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge University Press, London. Warren, S. 2000, ‘Let’s do it properly: inviting children to be researchers,’ in Researching Children's Perspectives, eds. A. Lewis & G. Lindsay, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 122 - 133.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN ‘YOU’RE NOT LISTENING TO MY WORDS’: TREACHEROUS TERRAINS OF CITIZENSHIP SHERALYN CAMPBELL

Early childhood educators are increasingly including children’s voices as an integral aspect of how they construct curriculum (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence 1999). Theoretically, as co-constructors of curriculum, children participate as citizens of the early childhood classroom with the agency, rights and responsibilities of ‘voice’. Within this theoretical approach teachers are enticed to find democratic practices that will empower children, encourage the formation of networks and provide them with direct participation in decision making. In my own teaching, I am exploring how citizenship for children is at best strategic and shifting at the level of my classroom practices. In particular, I am finding that gendered norms and relations of power-knowledge are constituted in and by my teaching strategies. My strategies could be termed ‘technologies of agency’ (Triantafillou 2004) that aim to give children a voice in ways that asserts their ‘citizen power’ (Bailey & Gayle 2004, p. 136). However, these democratically styled processes produce unintended effects as they become entangled in politics of the classroom. I approach the issue for early childhood teachers of the child as ‘active citizen’ by examining my journey towards inclusion of children with different Abilities. I designate ‘Abilities’ with a capital to signify the potency and capacity of the term. This may seem a strange beginning but, rhizome-like, for me it problematises the strategies that I have been using to include children’s voices in the classroom. This beginning parallels directions taken by recent research and practice in Australia. Kilham’s (2001) summary of research on children with disabilities showed that in the Australian early childhood literature, the area of disability research and

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 231

practice has increasingly followed a broader emphasis in society on human rights and equity. In this chapter, I summarise briefly the key discourses found in literature that are influencing early childhood staff in Australia who are struggling to include children with different Abilities. I then introduce two children who have shown how gender is implicated in inclusion in my classroom. These children have helped me to raise questions about what ‘gender’ and other discourses of power mean for early childhood practice (Millei 2005). In particular, they have helped me to address how my democratically-styled teaching strategies contain treacherous silences and contradictions for the young child as active citizen. I recognise these silences when I address questions about the ‘hidden or covert curriculum’ (Bailey & Gayle 2004, p. 94), or the ‘subtext’ of the classroom (Gallas 1998, p. 22) in which the children and I are invested.

Including children with different abilities Inclusion of children with different Abilities has been an important focus of early childhood education for many years. In Australia, inclusion of differences has now been written into many documents that outline the regulations and standards for the early childhood field (e.g. National Childcare Accreditation Sourcebook 2005; New South Wales Children’s Services Regulations 2004). Federal and State government funding and resourcing of early childhood services via programs such as the Inclusion and Professional Support Program (IPSP) also supports inclusion of children with different abilities. A key mechanism for putting these regulations, standards and support programs into practice is the ‘inclusion support plan’ that is developed by teachers, families, specialists and support workers. The focus of ‘inclusion’ for young Australian children with different Abilities continues to be ‘developmental’. Developmental approaches focus on the child’s progression through a predictable and universal series of steps towards a predetermined, reasonable and rational adulthood. In developmental approaches, there is limited acknowledgement of the social and political complexities associated with being a child in the early childhood classroom offered by non-developmental approaches. Similarly, in New Zealand, inclusion of children with different abilities remains developmental and skills based in approach (Williamson, Cullen & Lepper 2006).

Chapter Sixteen

232

A community for inclusion I am currently both a manager and a teacher in a small, rural seaside child care centre. Our service and families face ongoing challenges, including: x x x x x

forced restructuring of key industries - including fishing and forestry - that remove jobs that have been part of families over generations and increase overall levels of unemployment shifts from full-time and part-time employment to casual and temporary seasonal work reduced disposable income as a result of employment changes, together with increases in prices of petrol, food and property and in interest rates continued drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence reprioritising and restructuring of health and family support services, driven by shifts in government policy that centralise services in larger towns and reduce access for smaller communities.

I work with a small group of women with disparate life histories, experiences and teaching investments. They constantly invite me to reconsider my knowledges and practices. Recently, Christine (her real name) challenged one of my taken-for-granted ‘truths’ of gender equity work. She said to me: I don’t see anything wrong with saying ‘good girl’ or ‘good boy’. Children need to know when they are doing well, and they already know that they are a girl or a boy.

For some reason, her comment made me stop and consider what she was saying. Instead of just citing well known and documented early childhood ‘facts’ that state terms like ‘good girl’ are a form of stereotyping, I paused and began to reflect on the situations in which I use terms like these. I wanted to use reflection in Foucault’s terms as a form of ethics where: The point is not to pursue the indescribable, not to reveal the hidden, not to say the non-said, but on the contrary to collect the already said, to reassemble that which one could hear or read, and this to an end which is nothing less that the constitution of oneself. (Foucault 1983, p. 247.)

When I ‘collected and reassembled’ the times that I used ‘good girl’ or ‘good boy’, it became apparent immediately that the question was not so much when I used the terms, but with whom. Two children came to mind

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 233

immediately – Tania and Manny. They were children who have different Abilities. My conversation with Christine caused me to question what I was doing as an inclusive teacher, and why these two children in particular evoked gendered messages in my work and in my unconscious constructions of and interactions with them.

Collecting the already said Our service works hard to include children with different Abilities. To do so, it draws on resources and practices that are supported through State and Federal government policy directives that emphasise human rights and equity increasingly (Kilham 2001). I started ‘collecting the already said’ by examining the literature that I used to frame my practices. I found four central discourses of ‘inclusion’ in the Australian literature: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Teaching and learning as assessment and planning for development and skills advancement. Within this discourse, ‘disability’ is defined in terms of deficiencies. The child with different Abilities is mapped and planned for on a developmental continuum that leads to more ‘normal’ skills and abilities. Teaching and learning as an individualised and apolitical exchange (e.g. Chapman 2006; Connor 2006; Kilham 2006; Kilgallon & Maloney 2003; NSW Children’s Services Regulations 2004). Within this discourse, ‘disabilty’ is invisible because children and teachers are understood to be both individually different and have the same ‘equal’ human rights. Teaching addresses the strengths, interests and ‘needs’ of each unique child and disability is taken into account but not highlighted (NSW Curriculum Framework 2003, p. 53). Teaching and learning as a process of infusing disability awareness from living resources (Wiley 1993). Within this discourse, disability becomes an environmental resource provided for all children. The inclusion of children with different abilities is used as a learning experience for other children. Teaching is focused on using the child with a ‘disability’ as an object of and mechanism for other children to learn about inclusion. Teaching and learning as a transmission of power from the abled advocate to the ‘disabled’ (Porter 2002; Williamson, Cullen & Lepper 2006; Shaddock 2006; Palmer 2001; Attwood 2004). Within this discourse, disability can be ‘overcome’ by collaborations between an activist team of people who know and

Chapter Sixteen

234

empower the child with different abilities by building on individual strength based assessments. These four discourses share assumptions about the child, the teacher and the process of teaching and learning that are located in a modern world. These are: x

x

x

The child is a being who can be known, is apolitical, is less powerful and is progressing ‘sponge-like’ along a skills and developmental continuum towards an ideal of ‘normal’ (Hughes & Mac Naughton 1998). The teacher is a person who, through careful observation and assessment and through consulting ‘knowing’ others can address developmental ‘deficiencies’ and thus empower the child (Smith 2003). Teaching and learning are transparent, free of bias and, when undertaken well, provide the impetus for the child to ‘progress’ in a desired direction (New South Wales Curriculum Framework 2003).

These assumptions do not address two key factors in learning and in relationships. Firstly, they do not recognise the material effects of powerful social forces such as ‘race’, ‘class’, gender, culture and sexuality. Secondly, they do not recognise the individual as agentic and able to resist the desired teaching processes and learning outcomes. My search of the Australian literature unearthed only one article which addressed these factors. In particular, it engaged with how gender, development and disability intersected to limit one child and his teachers in the production of teaching and learning (Reid 2003, pp. 1 – 5). Jake’s enactments of masculinity were characterised by aggression. His aggressive maleness was constituted as a developmental disability by his teacher and his mother, rather than engaged with as an effect of his gendered life. Teachers labelled him as the ‘worst kid in the class’ and after 12 months he did not progress to Year 1. There were similar silences in my inclusion support plans and transition to school plans that I had produced for children with disabilities. Yet research over 40 years has shown that social forces such as gender are significant influences on children’s meaning making - forces like gender matter (Mac Naughton 2001). My initial foray into a ‘collection and reassembly’ of my teaching gave substance to my concerns about my

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 235

work. In particular, I saw dangers and risks in not addressing how social forces like gender were implicated in relations of power around inclusion. I continued my reflection by reassembling what I had heard and how I had ‘read’ two children who have different Abilities – Tania and Manny. That is, I reassembled my ‘gaze’.

Reassembling my ‘gaze’ Tania Last year, Tania had limited verbal language and was diagnosed on the autistic spectrum. Last year, Tania often came to the centre in dressed as a ‘fairy princess’. Tania desired and took pleasure in pink fairy symbols of girlhood. She not only dressed as a princess but found pictures of them in catalogues and books, admired princess toys that other children had and used her clothes and toys as an entry point to the classroom. Like me, other teachers and children commented on them when she arrived. In December 2005, Tania supplemented her ‘fairy’ persona with investments in the pleasures of ‘horses’. When she was a horse she could play with a group of girls who were going to school with her this year. They, too, imagined being horses or, in more complex play, riding horses. They performed this in many ways – they rode logs in the playground; they galloped inside and outside with scarves from the dress-up area tucked into their knickers for tails; they built block paddocks and jumps for the horses to perform and seats for people to watch. These girls knew a lot about horses, and some of the ‘leaders’ had families wealthy enough to own a horse. Tania played with this group often, seemingly alongside the mainstream of their social interactions. As I reflected on my observations of Tania through a gaze problematised by Christine’s question and my reading of literature, I realised that she knew how to practice one form of girlhood in a way that assured her inclusion in play and relationships with the desirable girls. Tania had perfected being a horse by taking a sparkling collection of pink, purple and gold streamers and tucking them into her knickers as a ‘tail’. This was far and away the most beautiful and desirable of horse ‘tails’ and one that other girls copied. At times, this tail allowed Tania to lead the galloping girls’ play.

236

Chapter Sixteen

Tania’s forays into ‘story, drawing, cutting and pasting’ (which were the language and pre-literacy areas being targeted by her Inclusion Support Plan) were focused on ‘love hearts’ and ‘horses’ – mostly pink. It is evident to me now that Tania knew and used symbols of one desirable form of girlhood in our classroom to negotiate and transform the ‘skills and abilities’ that were targeted by her teachers and specialist support workers. She was able to signify and embody the ‘norms’ and ‘rules’ of practicing one form of femininity in our classroom. However, where in her Inclusion Support Plan were girlhoods, femininities or gender mentioned? At what level of her assessment by teachers like me or specialist professionals were the politics of her inclusion with other girls considered? Did we ever ask Tania how best we could support her inclusion? Reflecting on Tania has helped me to see the generalised silence of gender in my work with children who have different Abilities, and the assumptions that constitute children as non-citizens in decisions about their own inclusion. This brings me to Manuel.

Manny Manuel (‘Manny’) has been diagnosed with verbal dyspraxia. He is also being tested for Fragile X Syndrome. Manuel struggles to be included in social play. Both his restricted verbal language and repetitive compulsive behaviours limit his social skills. It is not uncommon for him to walk around the playground touching every vertical paling in the fence. If he misses one because he is interrupted by something or someone, he cannot continue with the next thing until he has touched the missed paling and completed the circuit. Manny loves to be chased by others. In his chasing games, he doesn’t need language at all and he is selective about who he entices to chase him. He chooses the younger and less co-ordinated children, or other children with language difficulties – mostly boys. These are also the children who are least likely to catch him because he is fast. Manny often uses his teeth, fists and feet to solve problems – he is quick to defend himself in physical ways and justifies it with claims of being a ‘victim’ e.g. ‘Ee ii me’ (‘He hit me’). We regarded these responses as expressing Manny’s frustrations when his skills and abilities limited his play and relationships. Following advice and training from a language and communication specialist, our Inclusion Support Plan identified phrases that we could use to respond to some of Manny’s more physical social interactions like: ‘The rule is … no

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 237

kicking, no punching, etc.’ We also used whole group discussions, stories and problem-solving about how children can resolve conflict. In our observations, in the specialist assessment reports and in our Inclusion Support Plan, we have targeted the skills and abilities that we believed would help Manny to become included with others in his play and relationships and build on his strengths. We have never asked ourselves: Does Manny’s behaviour express his view of himself as a boy? More puzzling, we have never asked Manny. Why is that?

Extending the gaze across the group Other boys in the group use similar physical strategies to perform boyhoods. In fact, there have been many journal conversations recorded about our struggles as teachers to contradict, contest, challenge and change forms of boyhood based on: x x x

physical prowess excluding girls viewing girls in stereotypical ways (e.g. as sex objects or as having limited capacities) x physically intimidating or subduing others. (Seckold & Campbell 2003.) From time to time, some children see significant adults in their home lives practising these masculinities. For example, one morning in the lower playground, Christine and I were talking when Oliver (4 years) came down. Usually he would run up to us and greet us – sometimes hugging us - but this morning was different. He walked around lifting up each piece of climbing equipment and dropping it back into place. He moved from ladders to boards to A-frames. He didn’t say a word, but he looked purposeful. After watching him for a while I asked him what he was doing. He replied: My dad told me that you need to build big muscles so that your girlfriend will like you.

I was taken aback, and really cranky. I had had several encounters with Oliver’s dad where he spoke about Oliver’s ‘questionable’ masculinity and sexuality - i.e. Oliver was sometimes gentle or affectionate with people, and he chose regularly to bring a teddy bear to child care. I was still smarting because Oliver’s father had ‘lost’ the offending teddy bear when

Chapter Sixteen

238

they moved house the day before. I was struggling with how to challenge Oliver’s dad while still maintaining a relationship that encouraged communication between us. On this morning when Oliver lifted his arm to show me the muscles that he was building for a girlfriend, I responded without thinking, and in the heat of my frustrations with his father. I said, ‘I think that’s rhubarb’ and I walked away. Christine was more reflective and helpful. She talked with Oliver about the sorts of men that she found attractive and valued. She described masculinities that included people who cared about her, men who were thoughtful and men who were gentle. On this occasion, Oliver had described a dominant boyhood where norms included: x x x

physical prowess that could be used to impress, intimidate or subdue others stereotypes of girls one form of practising heterosexuality.

How different is this to the boyhood that Manny is imagining, desiring, investing in and practising? Have I ever considered Manny’s ‘behaviour’ or ‘skills and abilities’ as practices of masculinity? Have I ever asked him? As I arrived at these questions, I reflected on a recent incident between Manny and his dad early one morning when Manny arrived at the centre. Another boy, Kyle, had come in holding an action figure of Wonder Woman. She was dressed in her tight red shorts and star studded top. Manny’s dad looked at the figure that Kyle was showing Manny and commented: ‘Whoa, Wonder Woman! She’s sexy!’ He kissed Manny and farewelled him. Manny waved goodbye happily and he and Kyle began to run around the yard with Wonder Woman. Manny was laughing loudly as he tried to grab Wonder Woman and Kyle yelled ‘Up, up and away!’. I have to ask myself: ‘What am I going to do about my work with Manny?’

Reconstituting myself as teacher As I attempt to address these issues, I find that post-structuralist theory helps me to find ways to reassemble myself as a teacher. Michel Foucault (1994) talked about the productive relationship between power and resistance. He saw power not as oppression but as a web that constantly brings together the discursive actions of people upon others and upon themselves. In the exercise of power for and between people, he saw also the exercise of their freedom to act - their ‘agency’. Foucault (1994) and others (eg Campbell 2001; Mac Naughton 2000; Smith 2003) have argued

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 239

that resistance may disrupt the effects of dominant discourses - such as those I have collected and reassembled in this chapter. However, unlike the linear ‘cause and effect’ guarantees of modern discourses, resistance is found within the ‘never guaranteed’ world of erupting and spreading rhizomes (Mac Naughton 2004; Smith 2003). The rhizome brings me back to my intentions and to my strategies in teaching children who - as active citizens - are capable of agency, disruption and resistance. My first disruption concerns a strategy that I have used in my work with Tania, Manny and others in my classroom. It’s called ‘let’s talk about it’. ‘Let’s talk about it’ is a democratic strategy that resembles focus groups, surveys, opinion polls or public hearings. It is based on the principle of ‘giving meaningful voice’ to children as equal and active participants in a democratic society. For a teacher who is committed to social justice, ‘Let’s talk about it’ seems to offer a way to use our differences to bring together and reconstruct politics, equity and resistance. ‘Let’s talk about it’ involves several key teaching practices that have institutional support (e.g. Quality Improvement and Accreditation System Source Book 2005; New South Wales Curriculum Framework 2003). These involve: x x x x

group meetings social stories persona doll stories individual interviews with children where I ask them questions about an issue and they choose to talk with me or draw stories about our conversation.

Each of these practices produces moments where I listen to and talk with children about how they understand the world, particularly the place and influence of gender, ‘race’, ‘class’ and culture in their lives. In these conversations, I contest unfairness or exclusion as I see it. I often use a situation that occurred in play between children to focus our conversation, or I revisit ideas that seemed unfair. I question: x x x x

were the actions described fair or respectful? how else could a person respond? what sorts of desires or pleasures were part of thinking and acting like this? what political effects does investing in these desires and pleasures have on different people?

Chapter Sixteen

240

In terms of social change I use ‘Let’s talk about it’ to offer children a voice and a possibility to experience a moment of resistance or agency. However, ultimately I am intent on reaching an agreement, consensus or some ‘ground rules’ for our ongoing relationships and learning. When I examine the foundation of this strategy, I recognise the apolitical ‘norms’ and assumptions of a modern world. These suggest that it is possible to think, speak and act without regard to ‘ability’, gender, ‘race’, ‘class’ and culture (NSW Children’s Services Regulations 2004). Among these assumptions are the following: x x x x x

all children have the same abilities, rights and opportunities to ‘speak’ and the context of speaking can be apolitical children will always openly say what they think and I will always understand and use what they say as they intend it to be understood and used all reasonable and rational children will share my equity agenda reasonable and rational people will always agree eventually there are no dangers of censorship or exclusion for children in speaking because (as an adult and teacher) I am objective, rational and reasonable and I can ‘protect’ children from those who are unreasonable or irrational.

I know that these assumptions cannot be relied upon. The moment with Oliver as he told me about his masculine prowess shows that I was neither objective, rational nor reasonable. His ideas threatened our relationship. But equally, there were dangers for Oliver’s relationship with his father if he invested in my competing version of masculinity. Now I see that ‘Let’s talk about it’ acts as a set of governing practices (Rose 1999) that limit what the children and I can think and say and do. These practices normalise one particular stable and idealised identity - ‘the democratic citizen’ - and fail to acknowledge the multiple subjectivities, resistances, desires and pleasures that destabilize the early childhood classroom. In addition, for children like Tania and Manny whose verbal abilities are limited, their control of their own inclusion is often contingent on practicing some forms of masculinity and femininity well. For them, ‘Let’s talk about it’ is not just inaccessible; it also threatens to disrupt the subjectivities that they have chosen and embodied and which enable them to be included. Unexpectedly, my practices of saying ‘good girl – good boy’ acknowledge a significant part of the children’s lives in ways that are important for their

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 241

inclusion. As I say ‘good boy’ or ‘good girl’, I am recognising that they are performing a powerful form of masculinity or femininity well. What's more, they are performing it in ways that are shared by important children in our classroom, by important people in their lives and by others in our community. When I acknowledge that they are ‘good girls’ or ‘good boys’, they are not different in their Abilities but skilful in their gendered practices. These are the contradictions that inhere in the democracies practiced in my classroom.

Effects for practice Unpacking my teaching with Tania and Manny has prompted me to question the discourses of inclusion that constitute my practices. In particular, it has raised questions about how I use democratically-styled strategies to address issues of inclusion with all children in my classroom, and the effects of these practices. I am left with questions about what I must do to reconstitute myself and my teaching if I am to think about and treat each child as an active citizen. It has brought into focus a contradiction in the effects of how some children embody and practice masculinities and femininities.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

How might you write gender, ‘class’ ‘race’, culture and sexuality into institutional practices like Inclusion Support Plans and daily teaching strategies with children who have different Abilities? What are the implications, risks and dangers you might face when engaging with sexist, racist, classist and heterosexist subjectivities in order to do ‘inclusive’ work? What opportunities do you currently create and support for children to speak and be heard in ways that acknowledge and address the politics of their voices as active citizens? What other possible strategies might you use in your classroom for children to speak and be heard in ways that acknowledge and address the politics of their voices as active citizens?

Further reading Mac Naughton, G. 2000. Rethinking gender in early childhood education, Allen & Unwin: Sydney; Sage Publications: London, New York.

242

Chapter Sixteen

Seckold, C. & Campbell, S. 2003, ‘Everybody helps on the farm: Gender issues in rural early childhood settings’, Everychild, vol. 9, no. 3, Winter, pp. 14 – 16.

References Attwood, T. 2004, ‘Strategies to reduce the bullying of young children with Asperger’s Syndrome’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 15 - 23. Bailey, G. & Gayle, N. 2004, Ideology: structuring identities in contemporary life, Broadview Press, Ontario. Campbell, S. 2001, The Definition and Description of a Social Justice Disposition in Young Children, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne. Chapman, M. 2006, ‘Inclusion and inclusive practice: meeting the diverse needs of our children’, Everychild, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 6 – 7. Connor, J. 2006, ‘Redefining inclusion’, Everychild, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 8. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. 1999, Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: postmodern perspectives, Falmer Press, London. Foucault, M. 1983, ‘Afterword: The subject and power’ Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, eds. H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (pp. 208 - 228.) —. 1994, ‘Truth and power’ in Power: essential works of Foucault 1954 – 1984, ed. J. D. Faubion, Penguin, London. (pp. 111 - 133.) Gallas, K. 1998, Sometimes I Can Be Anything: power, gender and identity in a primary classroom, Teachers College Press, New York. Hughes, P. & Mac Naughton, G. 2001, ‘Fractured or manufactured: gendered identities and culture in the early years’, in Embracing Identities in Early Childhood Education: expanding possibilities for thought and action, eds. S. Grieshaber & G. S. Cannella, Teachers College Press, New York. (pp. 114 - 130.) Kilgallon, P. & Maloney, C. 2003, ‘Early childhood teachers’ knowledge of teaching children with disabilities’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 9 - 13. Kilham, C. 2001, ‘Depictions of disability: a way with words’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 26 - 32. —. 2006, ‘Including children with autism in early childhood settings’, Everychild, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 14 - 15. Mac Naughton, G. 2004, ‘The politics of logic in early childhood research: a case of the brain, hard facts, trees and rhizomes’. Keynote address,

‘You’re not listening to my words’: Treacherous Terrains of Citizenship 243

Department of Education and Community Services and Focus Education, Adelaide, South Australia, 15th April 2004. —. 2001, ‘Silences, sex-roles and subjectiveness: 40 years of gender in the Australian Journal of Early Childhood’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 21 – 25. —. 2000, Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education, Allen & Unwin: Sydney; Sage Publications: London, New York. Millei, Z. 2005, ‘The discourse of control: disruption and Foucault in an early childhood classroom’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 128 - 139. National Child Care Accreditation Council. 2005, Quality Improvement and Accreditation System: Source Book. Available at: http://ncac.gov.au (Accessed May, 2006). New South Wales Department of Community Services. 2003, Curriculum framework for children’s services: The practice of relationships, Office of Child Care, Sydney. —. 2004, Children’s Services Regulations, 2004, Available at: http://legislation.nsw.gov.au (Accessed May, 2006). Palmer, A. 2001, ‘Responding to special needs’, in The Anti-Bias Approach in Early Childhood, ed. E. Dau, Longman, Frenchs Forrest, NSW. (pp. 83 – 94.) Porter, L. 2002, Educating Young Children with Additional Needs. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. Reid, J. 2003, ‘From bad to worse? A troubling development in preschool settings’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1 – 5. Rose, N. 1999, Governing the Soul: the shaping of the private self. Free Association Books, London. Seckold, C. & Campbell, S. 2003, ‘Everybody helps on the farm: gender issues in rural early childhood settings’, Everychild, vol. 9, no. 3, Winter, pp. 14 – 16. Smith, K. A. 2003, Reconceptualising Observation in Early Childhood Curriculum. Unpublished Ph D Thesis, University of Melbourne. Shaddock, T. 2006, ‘Disability or diversity? Encouraging true inclusion’, Everychild, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 12. Triantafillou, P. 2004, ‘Addressing network governance through the concepts of governmentality and normalization’, Administrative Theory & Praxis, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 489 – 508. Wiley, K. 1993, ‘Teachers’ and students’ attitudes to integration’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 39 - 44.

Chapter Sixteen

244

Williamson, D., Cullen, J. & Lepper, C. 2006, ‘Checklists to narratives in special education’, Australian Journal Early Childhood, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 20 - 29.

Glossary x

Discourse – The emotional, social and institutional frameworks that influence or affect how we speak and act as well as how we place meaning on our understanding of the world.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN STUDENTS’ VOICES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION: HOW CAN WE HEAR THEM? CAN WE HEAR THEM? CHRISTINA HART

For more than 30 years, research has shown consistently that students find science - especially physics and chemistry - difficult and boring; and that they believe that science is irrelevant to their present or future lives. In an important international review of this research, Osborne, Simon and Collins (2003) conclude that, ‘all is not well with school science and far too many pupils are alienated by a discipline that has increasing significance in contemporary life, both at a personal and societal level’ (p. 1073). A landmark Australian study (Rennie et al. 2001) showed that this conclusion certainly applies in Australia. Osborne et al state that the research evidence shows clearly that teachers – rather than curricula - are the most significant influence on students’ attitudes to science, yet there has been little attempt to discover what students regard as effective science teaching. They also noted that most research into student attitudes to school science has relied on surveys – only a few studies have used individual or group interviews. Surveys tell us about the extent of the problem, but they do not help us understand its origins or suggest how the situation might be remedied. This chapter reports some findings from a qualitative study that sought to understand students’ experiences of learning science and find out what they saw as effective and engaging teaching. The study focussed specifically on teachers who were well regarded by their peers for the positive response they elicited from students. This was partly because understanding what a teacher does that promotes positive affective

246

Chapter Seventeen

responses from students seemed a worthwhile aim in itself; and partly because recording students’ positive perceptions of their teacher was ethically less problematic than recording negative perceptions. The initial research plan employed video-prompted interviews with students, but dissatisfaction with this approach led to experimentation with an alternative protocol. I had come across only two other studies of students’ attitudes to science that had used interviews. Osborne and Collins (2001) conducted focus group interviews to gauge students’ views of school science, but this study concerned curriculum content, whereas I was interested in students’ learning experiences in the classroom. Piburn and Baker (1993) developed an interview protocol in which the final question asked the student what she or he would do in their science class if they were the teacher. This proved particularly revealing of students’ experiences, but the remainder of their protocol was too general for my purposes.

The study In 2004 and 2005 a research assistant, Jo, and I talked to students from a mixed ability Year 10 (15 - 16 years old) General Science class about their science learning experiences. Their co-educational school had been recently-established in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, as an independent (i.e. non-government) school, charging relatively low fees. The teacher, Ms P., had begun her teaching career at the school about eight years previously, teaching mathematics, general science and physics. In its publicity the school does not promote itself as academically ‘elite’: Ms P. said that parents appear to select the school more for its sense of community and safety than because they have high academic ambitions for their child. Nonetheless, it was obvious that the students we spoke to came from homes where education is valued. In 2004, we video-recorded four lessons, all on the topic of astronomy; and we used the recording as the stimulus in post-lesson interviews with students in (self-selected) pairs. Each interview was recorded on either video or audio tape and then transcribed fully. We started each interview by asking each of the two students how they felt about their science lessons that year. Then we played the recording of the lesson, handed the students the replay control and asked them to show us episodes in the recording that they felt were enjoyable or helped their learning.

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them?

247

In 2005, I visited Ms P.’s classroom several times over the course of the year to observe lessons with that year’s cohort. I interviewed eight students individually, using a protocol called ‘talking stones’. I came across this protocol by accident at the end of 2004: it had been developed as a strategy for talking with disaffected students about their experiences of schooling (Wearmounth 2004), but it seemed ideal for my purposes. I offered each student a collection of small objects (‘talking stones’), including polished stones, wooden and plastic cubes, beads and other items, and I asked the student to select one object to represent themselves and another to represent science. I placed the object that they had chosen to represent science at the centre of five concentric circles drawn on a large sheet of paper. Then I asked the student to place the object that they had chosen to represent themselves in one of the circles, to show how close or far away they saw themselves in relation to science. Later in the interview, I asked if there were any times in the past when they might have placed themselves closer to or further from science. These interviews were recorded on audio-tape and then transcribed fully. In each of the two classes, only one third of the students volunteered to be interviewed. All had been active participants in the observed lessons, and all felt that Ms P. was one of the best science teachers they had had, although not all were as uniformly positive about Ms P. as the four students selected for this chapter. I think it is safe to assume that our interviewees generally felt more positive than their peers about their science learning experiences, and in this sense their views are unlikely to be representive of their class, let alone of Year 10 students more broadly. In the following sections of this chapter I first present Jo’s interview with Michael and Ellen as a pair, following one of the video-recorded lessons; then I present my interview with Frank and Alicia individually, using the ‘talking stones’ protocol. I present each interview in its entirety: the transcript of each recording has been edited only for brevity and clarity, in order to retain the substance and flavour of each conversation. My intention is to convey the individuality of the students. Although I have deliberately selected one male student and one female student from each group of interviewees, I am not proposing that these students are in any way representative of the other interviewees, except in their thoughtful capacity to reflect on their science learning experiences.

Chapter Seventeen

248

Students’ voices: A video-led interview Jo: Michael:

Ellen: Michael: Ellen: Jo: Michael:

Ellen: Jo: Ellen: Michael: Ellen: Jo:

Before we look at the video, I wondered whether you have found science interesting in the past. I have to a certain extent, although this year I think I’m finding it more interesting. Maybe it’s the different topics that we learn about now, but I’m really enjoying this year. Chemistry was really good. The astronomy, I suppose it’s different, but I am enjoying science. I really enjoyed chemistry so much. It was easy for me. Astronomy is a big jump, but there might be something that I’ll find easy. Like, the big bang was difficult to understand. Oh that’s so difficult to understand. Well, Ms P. explained it? Yes, she is very good. Ms P.’s explanation of the letter, and the letter taking six months to go to Australia. Like, that has sort of helped me understand about the star and where the light travels in space. So when she explains theories in our lives now, it helps me understand more. Would there be other sorts of things that Ms P. does that helps you understand? Diagrams. Videos. When we did chemistry, we did Bingo. It helped us memorise the names. The way we are doing this research is, you tell me when something that you see on the video (that you think) “That was good!”, “ That helped me!”, “I want to talk a bit more about this part of the lesson.” So we’ll look specifically at that. …

They all watch the video, which plays with the sound volume turned down, while the conversation continues. At one point Ms P. is shown inflating a balloon, to illustrate the expansion of the universe. Michael comments on this, without stopping the video. Michael: Ellen:

That helped me. Yeah we did a lot of that last (term), like she did practical things in front of the class and that helped us understand.

The video continues. When Ms P. begins summarising the evidence in support of the Big Bang on the whiteboard, Michael comments, again without stopping the video.

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them? Michael: Jo: Both: Ellen:

Michael:

Ellen: Michael: Ellen: Jo: Michael:

Ellen: Jo: Michael: Ellen:

Even when she writes stuff like this on the board, it helps. So you don’t mind writing down blackboard notes? No. When we are going through the textbook, she puts it on the board, in her own words to make us understand. Ms P. doesn’t write that much, but just enough. Some teachers seem to write heaps of notes on the board and students don’t like that. It’s true, some teachers do write a lot and sometimes it’s too much of an overload. You are constantly writing and because you can’t explain things when you are writing, it becomes harder, because you have to listen and write at the same time. Ah! I really like this video. It explained what was happening. Yeah, it was helpful when she stopped the video every now and then. And then she’s writing it again. Even though it explained it in the video, it was good that she wrote it down, because sometimes when you look at a video you tend to look at the graphics, more than listen to what the actual guy on the video is saying. And then she put it on the board, with diagrams and in her own words again, and then today in class she gave us those little square boxes to kind of create an order, in steps. Yeah the steps [in the beginning of the universe]. That helped a lot. Yes. Last year we didn’t have any videos. And this year it helped a lot. Do you think it was the topics last year? That it was more practical work? Yes. Like, in forensic science, that was good, but I think there was a lot of pracs. We had to link murders with suspects that we had. I found that hard, because there was a lot of work involved in prac. writing. (Science lessons frequently involve experiments and other hands-on activities, which Australian students typically refer to as ‘prac work’ or ‘pracs’ – diminutive forms of ‘practicum’.) I enjoyed forensic science, but we got pushed through that though, in one term. It was a lot of work in just one term. So that was mostly problem solving and learning forensic techniques? And how they find, how they find how people killed other people and stuff like that, and like the steps that forensic science people take when they come to a crime scene. Yeah, I enjoyed that. I think it should have been more than a semester. A lot more.

249

Chapter Seventeen

250

They stop talking and watch the video for a while. Ellen:

Michael: Ellen:

Michael: Ellen: Michael: Ellen: Michael: Jo: Ellen: Jo: Ellen: Michael:

And, like, as the video went on, Ms P. added boxes on the board, to help explain it. Yeah, but you know how she said there was one there was one balloon full of hydrogen and that’s what did all that. Yes that’s pretty important. Remember last term how we had like a little bit of hydrogen in a balloon? … and oxygen. Yeah, oxygen, and it made a big bang. I don’t know if I should say this, but compared to the teacher that we had last year, Ms P. is a really, really good teacher, because my science marks have improved from last year to this year. And I had her in Maths in Year 8 and she is still teaching the same. I think it’s good the way she teaches. Yeah, the way she teaches is thorough but she doesn’t give you too much to take in all at once. But says it in a way that relates to us like teenagers understand, not adults. There are some teachers they mainly, like, get just worksheets and stuff that they might find in their teaching books or wherever and give it to us. Another thing I like is we have got a terrific lesson booklet at the start of term, all the worksheets all together. On everything, so when you get a chance, you just look through it. Mmm. I’ve noticed that she gives you several chances to learn to understand. We even had a question page in our book. It’s a great idea. No other class that I’ve ever had has done that. As time is going on there are more of you asking questions, I think, isn’t there? Yes. Well I think it’s interesting. The Big Bang. Yeah, it’s, um, like, it’s hard to get around, like, but once you are there you sort of, like, it’s interesting to learn about. Definitely. Like, probably the most interesting thing we’ll ever learn about in astronomy at the moment.

Jo stops the video. Jo: Ellen:

Do you think you might continue with science? Have you thought about the future? I’ve thought about doing science, I did really like forensic, and I like chemistry.

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them? Michael: Ellen: Michael:

Ellen:

Michael: Ellen: Jo: Ellen:

251

I’m into a lot of drama and acting stuff, singing. I’m interested in that, but I am interested in science and I probably would like to pursue it later on. But probably the reason why we like science is it is more practical, like, we actually get to do experiments and do interesting things. Yeah, but I remember in previous years it was just always pracs, pracs, pracs! Now when you have pracs, they can be prac reports that you have to write and that’s when people start going: “Oh no, we’ve got to do all this work”. I think that’s when you need sort of a break from that, to go onto something else. That’s like in Ms P.’s class, one week we’ll do a prac inside, next week we might do practical theory outside. And that’s good. I wonder though, like, whether it would have been different with the subjects that we did last year if Ms P. had taught us. Yeah, like, if we had understood it better. It does depend on the teacher, it definitely does. Well thank you very much for being the first ones to volunteer to help us with our research. It’s good to help. I think if I was in your position I would like children to help.

Students’ voices: Two interviews using ‘talking stones’ Frank The interview with Frank took place at the beginning of the third term, when the science topic was ‘Genetics’. The year ten students had begun to think about selecting which subjects they would study in their final years of secondary school, so I began the interview by asking Frank about his choices. Christina: Frank:

Have you thought about what you are going to select? I’m a maths-science person. I like chemistry. That’s one of my better ones. Physics I do like as well. Biology, not really. It’s lots of observations and I’m not very good at telling the difference between two insects.

When I offered Frank the collection of small objects he chose a cube with different coloured dots on it to represent himself, and a purple and white polished stone to represent science. Christina:

Can you tell me why?

Chapter Seventeen

252

Frank:

Christina: Frank:

It’s always fascinated me, science. And I like to learn about things around us, like what is this made of, what happens when you put two things together. It’s so big, the universe, it’s so interesting, there’s so much to learn, all these facts about it. I like facts and figures. I have always loved sodium chloride - I remember that from grade six and I still know it means salt. Would you like to just place yourself where you think you’d feel comfortable? Pretty close.

Frank placed the polished stone on the sheet of paper, in the innermost circle. Christina: Frank:

Christina: Frank:

Christina: Frank:

Can you tell me where your interest in science comes from? I don’t know really. It’s more Mum. I’m very much like Mum. Whereas she said she never REALLY liked science. I think she did biology up until Year Eleven, but she didn’t really like it, she just did it ‘cos she had to. So, I don’t know how I got so interested in science. It’s always just fascinated me. And I suppose it’s been a lot of good teachers in primary school and now and they’ve always made it interesting and fun. Can you tell me some of the things you’ve done that have made it interesting and fun? A lot of experiments. I enjoy experiments. I’ve always enjoyed the magnets. I like it when we put sodium in water, a lot of explosions, you know. Last year we’re fiddling around with the light box, you could put different coloured filters on it, that was a good one. This year … I’m trying to think … what have we done this year? I like the chemistry, and extracting DNA from an onion. This year we do small practical activities, not real big ones that I enjoy. So because you enjoy practical work so much, and you haven’t done so much practical work this year, would you be saying you haven’t enjoyed science so much? Quite the opposite actually (laughs). I’ve really enjoyed science this year. It’s been a lot more fun, even though we haven’t been doing as many experiments. You could say learning about what’s happening with light, in previous years, it’s sort of been a bit dry. Like, I sort of already know it, there’s not much depth into what we’re doing. But now, in the astronomy area, where we were just going so

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them?

Christina: Frank:

Christina: Frank:

Christina: Frank:

253

far out into the universe, and finding all these planets and what’s out there. It’s just so fascinating. So that depth of understanding is obviously important for you? Yeah. That was the same with chemistry, ‘cos we’re finding out a lot more than just your simple experiments. Like, we’re finding what makes up the atoms and all that stuff, so you could see how all the atoms were shaping up. And I actually liked the videos they showed, of the atoms building and building. And that depth has been missing in earlier years? It sort of has, but the topics haven’t been as interesting. Like, there’s only so much you can learn about what magnets do. In Years Seven and Eight, you don’t learn as much about it, and you go over the same thing. In Year Nine, I did love forensics. Like, you look on the wall, whatever, and find (that) the blood splatters this way, so they work out how he’d been shot. And all that just fascinated me. And light was good, ‘cos that was about what light’s made of. I thought that was interesting, ‘cos I never worked out how rainbows appear and about the frequency of the waves. I’ve always had good teachers, but I’ve always liked it no matter what. Except for one period that the teacher wasn’t quite as good, more distant. Do you think there is anything Ms P. does that helps people to learn about science? Ms P. doesn’t talk from a distance, she talks as a person. The way she explains things is good. She says things like ‘Atoms are happy if they have a full outer shell’. Or, to help you remember what ‘haploid’ means, she says ‘Sex makes you happy’. I know a Year 11 student who is doing a subject – it must be physics – who says he doesn’t like the subject, but it’s OK, because Ms P. is a good teacher, so he still enjoys the class. (Haploid - A term used to describe the difference between sex cells, which have unpaired chromosomes, and normal [diploid] body cells, in which the chromosomes are in pairs.)

Alicia The interview with Alicia took place late in second term. Alicia chose one of the polished stones to represent science. Christina:

Can you tell me why you chose that one?

Chapter Seventeen

254

Alicia:

Well it’s, it’s made up of different, sort of different aspects, you know. If you look at it from that aspect, it’s got, like, certain texture to it, and colour. Like, we’re learning about astronomy at the moment, and they say that when there’s an explosion of stars it can create life, atoms and all of this is being created by a star.

Alicia initially chose the empty milk container to represent herself. Alicia:

It’s empty - but you always fill it with new ideas, and work on the good points or the bad points.

Then she changed her mind and chose another coloured polished stone. Alicia:

Christina: Alicia:

Christina: Alicia:

It could be that I’m solid. It’s colourful, and it’s precious, goes through certain stages to get to that stage. I sort of know where I’m at in life. Like, school is my number one priority. So what direction I’m going to head into … there’s just so many options that I could go into. So it’s not that you know who you are, but you can see lots of possibilities? Yes. Especially this year. I’ve sort of just started to see who I really am as a person, y’know, with friends and family, school, with work, where I head in the future. I like my friends - they’re not number one priority, but for me they’re pretty high. My family is very high (priority) because they support me. And school is just so important to me at the moment. Excelling with the classes and my work and everything, because that could decide what direction I head into. Do you have any sense of what that direction is at the moment? Helping people. Even if it’s not helping, protecting, influencing, maybe - you know - just meet people.

Alicia places the stone representing herself between the first and second of the five circles on the paper. Alicia: Christina: Alicia:

I’m studying psychology at the moment. Science is a big part of psychology, and psychology, you know, some aspects of it, is helping people. If that is where you see science in relation to you now, do you think it’s been different in the past? Well, I think last year we studied light and that was further away. But this year, studying chemistry and astronomy,

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them?

Christina: Alicia:

Christina: Alicia:

Christina: Alicia: Christina: Alicia:

Christina: Alicia:

Christina: Alicia:

last year studying crime scene investigation, the year before studying the body, it would have been closer. What is it about these particular topics that makes them a bit closer to science or further away from it? Just that interest, the way things happen. Astronomy; like Ms P. was telling us about the Big Bang period - it’s just so hard to get your head around, but it makes you think. And some aspects you want to know more about it. I like the history, the history of stars, explosions, the sun, the history of our universe, or anything. What about the chemistry – can you tell me why that was closer? Yeah. It was sort of, like, you learnt how things were made, how reactions can make other things. So it was really, sort of, fascinating stuff. But the history didn’t really interest me, like, who came up with this, who came up with that. It was just the fascination that reactions could happen. But with light that was further away? The light was confusing. Why was light confusing but chemistry wasn’t? Light was more pracs, more just understanding how light travels and how with prisms you can make different angles and different light. Like, you got the light box, and we did a lot of experiments that you had to answer questions after, and if you didn’t understand it, you couldn’t answer the questions. And I had to get help from the teacher or ask friends, to get the answers to the questions. You had your own answer but you wanted another point of view. What was different about chemistry? Even though in chemistry we started off with some pracs, it was a bit tricky, some of it. I could say it was more maths and maths is not a very strong subject for me. But even the way Ms P. taught the chemistry to us. She made it like, ‘Is this electron going to be happy?’, while the other teachers, they didn’t say that. Though it’s taking us back to primary school, it made a whole lot of sense compared to, say, if you use big words, it makes it harder to understand if you don’t understand the words. If you had some advice for a teacher, what would be your advice if they wanted to make science more interesting for students? Say, maybe make it easier for the kids to understand. You can use the big words, but you can use small words but say ‘This is the proper word to say it’, and if she or he will continue to refer to the small word, so it makes sense.

255

Chapter Seventeen

256

Christina: Alicia:

Christina: Alicia: Christina: Alicia: Christina: Alicia:

When you were doing light, you didn’t feel that translation into simpler words that you could understand, was happening? No. Unless I spoke to the teacher on my own. Yeah, if I didn’t understand something while we were doing the experiment, I’d say, ‘Look, I don’t understand this - can you help me?’ And the teacher would explain it in another way. But it was, sort of, like, you had to go and ask her. Whereas what’s happening now is that there’s more opportunities for you to do that as part of the lesson – is that what’s happening? Yeah. Yeah. Ms P. is using smaller terms, even when she talks to the whole class. It’s not singled out to one person. It’s to the whole class. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. I’m ‘rapt’! Why do you say that? Well, it’s an opportunity that I may never get a chance to do when I’m older. To be a participant in an experiment, be involved in something.

What did the students say? As Michael and Ellen watched the video, they identified several specific strategies that Ms P. used to support their learning. In particular, they drew attention to her use of the balloon to provide a concrete analogy for the ‘big bang’ theory of the origin of the universe; to her summary (on the white board) of the ‘steps’ in the big bang, using familiar words that they could understand; to the fact that she does not overload them with notes to write; to the way she frequently stops the video and helps them digest the information it is presenting; and to her use of diagrams. They also mentioned other strategies that Ms P. uses that they find helpful but that are not on the video. For example, her explanations that relate theories to their own experiences (particularly Ms P.’s use of the analogy of a letter coming to Australia by ship to explain the difficult idea of a ‘light year’), the memory games, the booklet of notes and activities, and the question page in their books. Michael and Ellen compared Ms P. spontaneously to their teachers in previous years, again emphasising that she is thorough but she ‘doesn’t give you too much to take in all at once’, and she ‘says it in a way that relates to us like teenagers understand, not adults’. They are aware that they understand science better with Ms P. than with other teachers. They

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them?

257

appreciated the greater variety of activities that they have in Ms P.’s class, because while they like practical work, they don’t like writing reports. They clearly enjoyed the forensic science they studied in the previous year for its interesting content, but they found that it entailed a lot of work. They enjoyed chemistry with Ms P., even though (based on my observation) the content was quite dry and very traditional. This video-interview confirmed and qualified findings from earlier research that the teacher shapes students’ affective response to school science more than the content of the curriculum, even if she cannot make all students feel positive about science. All the students in the ‘talking stones’ interviews mentioned less than positive earlier experiences of learning science, but not all did in the video-led interviews. (Some were much less measured in their opinions than Frank and Alicia!) The students interviewed for this project added some nuances to the earlier research findings. They were discerning, but they didn’t ask for much. They valued explanations that were couched in terms that they understood; and they appreciated their teacher’s encouragement and persistence in answering students’ questions until they believed that they understood. They liked teachers who were enthusiastic about the subject, but they did not expect simply to be entertained. The intrinsic interest of the topic was significant, but the students were prepared to engage with fairly abstract topics (as in the chemistry topic), provided that they could trust their teacher to support them. Earlier research found that students enjoy practical work, but Michael and Ellen don’t want to be pushed through practical work too fast, or to have to write reports continually. The earlier research found that students don’t like copying notes, but Michael and Ellen knew that while copying notes can be boring, notes - used judiciously - can assist their learning. Above all, the students wanted their teachers to relate to them at a personal level, to reveal something about themselves and their enthusiasm for the subject and to care genuinely for their students. In their view, a good teacher brings the richness of their person into the classroom; and a good teacher treats them and their learning needs with respect. The good news for science educators is that this much ought to be within the reach of every science teacher. However, while nearly all the students said that they regarded science as important, only two or three from each cohort were selecting physics or chemistry among their Year 11 subjects or anticipated a career in science. This again confirms previous research findings: students consider that it is important that some people study science, but

258

Chapter Seventeen

they don’t see the subjects as appropriate or desirable for themselves (Jenkins 2005).

How can we hear students’ voices? Each of the two protocols used in these interviews afforded the students opportunities to talk about their experiences of learning science and their perceptions of what made Ms P. a good science teacher. I had wanted the students to talk in their own terms about how they felt about their science learning experiences, but the video-led interviews achieved this to only a limited extent. The interview with Michael and Ellen is typical of the video-prompted interviews in that they identified several quite specific aspects of Ms P.’s teaching that they appreciated, and they mostly spoke about her in very positive terms. But this interview – like the other videoled interviews - had a ‘stop/start’ feel to it. Jo and I were very aware of this at the time and one result was that Jo tried to re-start the interview by asking leading questions, such as: ‘Do you think it was the topics last year? Was it more practical work?’ and ‘I’ve noticed that she gives you several chances to learn, to understand.’ In contrast, I felt that conversation flowed more naturally in the ‘talking stones’ interviews. The students spoke longer utterances, punctuated only by ‘Mmm’s from me. Their instances of Ms P. supporting their learning were, arguably, less specific than in the video-led interviews, but asking them whether they had felt closer to or further from science in the past elicited particularly revealing comments about their likes and dislikes. For example, Frank talked about learning things in depth, and Alicia emphasized the importance of using small words. These responses were more expansive than any we were able to coax from students in the videoled interviews. They also raised issues that were not apparent in earlier studies. In inviting students to project themselves onto one of the objects they selected, the ‘talking stones’ protocol helped elicit reflections on personal identity, whereas the video protocol focussed more on the teacher’s performance. One particularly striking feature of the ‘talking stones’ interviews was that several students spoke thoughtfully of the kind of person they could see themselves becoming. Like Alicia, they were intent on discovering what kind of person they were, or could be. Despite their positive regard for Ms P., they did not believe that science subjects especially physics and chemistry - would contribute anything to their

Students’ Voices in Science Education: How can we hear them? Can we hear them?

259

personal quest to know themselves. The few students who, like Frank, saw enjoyment of science as part of who they were could all identify a home influence that fostered a personal connection with science. The students in this study were probably more inclined toward science than many of their peers, and they had a teacher whom most of them recognise as particularly good. However, they believe that science cannot help them become the person they would like to be. This study’s outcomes suggest that the causes of declining participation in science are deeper than previous studies have indicated. Attempts to reform science education have generally focussed on relating science to students’ experiences, or emphasising the careers that science studies might offer. Aikenhead (2006) suggested that such changes will not be sufficient to encourage thoughtful students to take science seriously and the outcomes of the ‘talking stones’ interviews support that view. If we wish to arrest the decline in science enrolments, then perhaps we have to shift our focus from what we think students need to know and, instead, ask what kind of person science produces. That question is likely to be addressed most effectively by including students’ voices. In a small illustration of the positive potential of including students’ voices, we thanked each of our interviewees at the conclusion of their interview. Ellen and Alicia responded that they were glad to help and interested in contributing to a research project. Their comments were unexpected, but thy made me wonder how many other young people would like to be asked what kind of science education they would like to experience. Perhaps they could help forge a science education that, in enabling their project of becoming the kind of person they would like to be, would create the kind of science a humane world needs.

Questions for reflection 1. 2. 3. 4.

What are the strengths and limitations of projective interview techniques for understanding the beliefs, issues and concerns of children? Can you think of other projective approaches, or ways of using these approaches, that might be useful in your work with children? Do you think that video prompted interviews might be used with children younger than the participants described in this chapter? What would be the strengths and limitations of this interview approach in your work with children?

260

Chapter Seventeen

References Aikenhead, G. 2006, Science Education for Everyday Life: evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press, New York. Jenkins, E. 2005, '"Important, but not for me": students' attitudes towards Secondary School Science in England', Research in Science and Technological Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 41 - 57. Osborne, J. & Collins, S. 2001, 'Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus group study', International Journal of Science Education, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 441 - 467. Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. 2003, 'Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications', International Journal of Science Education, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1049 - 1079. Piburn, M. D. & Baker, D. R. 1993, '"If I were the teacher": qualitative study of attitudes towards science', Science Education, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 393 - 406. Rennie, L., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. W. 2001, 'Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: results of a national study', Research in Science Education, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 455 - 498. Wearmounth, J. 2004, '"Talking stones": an interview technique for disaffected students', Pastoral Care, (June).

Dedication This chapter is dedicated to the memory of my colleague and friend, Jo Sadler, who died in October 2006 before this project was completed. I am grateful for the wisdom she brought to the project and to our shared work in science teacher education over many years.

CONTRIBUTORS

Ms. Berit Bae Associate Professor at Oslo University College, Norway. Berit has worked in the field of early childhood for over 30 years, teaching students at all levels of professional education, doing advisory work for the Norwegian government concerning theoretical issues, practical policies and professionalism, and being involved in several research projects. Berit currently teaches, supervises and mentors Masters and Doctoral students in Norway, along with doing research in the field. Over the years she has worked closely with kindergartens and practitioners doing research and practice-based developmental work. On the basis of this, she has presented papers to national and international conferences, published articles and books dealing with various aspects of interpersonal relationships and dialogues in early childhood settings. Currently she is project leader of a nationwide network project financed by the Norwegian Council for Research under the programme of Practice-based Research and Development in Pre-school through Secondary Schools and Teacher Education (2006-2010). The network project consists of 6 sub-projects, each focussing on an aspect of children’s participation in kindergartens. Ms. Sally Barnes After nearly 20 years in the field, Sally remains curious, sceptical and passionate about early childhood education. Uninspired by what can be learnt from recent findings in brain research, Sally is excited by the ways in which feminist post-structural theories are reconceptualising her work. She is an advocate for policies and programs that emphasise children’s rights as full and active citizens of Australian society and laments the growing emphasis on the young child as ‘future citizen’. Sally works as a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of South Australia and is a PhD student at the University of Melbourne, Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood. Dr. John Bennett Project Advisor, Education and Training Division, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. Dr. John Bennett was project manager for the recent Starting Strong reviews

262

Contributors

of early childhood education and care. With Professor Colette Tayler, Queensland University of Technology (Australia), he is author of Starting Strong II, the official report on the OECD reviews, which was published by the OECD in September 2006. Currently, he is a senior consultant to the OECD Country Network for Early Childhood Policy. Dr. Sheralyn Campbell Co-ordinator of the long day care centre in Eden, New South Wales; formerly a Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. Sheralyn has worked with children and families as a practitioner and a manager in a range of child-care services in Australia over 24 years. She continues to work with early childhood teachers in academic and practical settings and has been an active member of an equity-focused action research team based at the Swanston Street Children's Centre. Sheralyn is currently researching how gender, culture, race, class and sexuality intersect in children's learning in early childhood settings; what makes it possible for teachers to critically engage with these issues; and how teachers are able to sustain innovation in their teaching practices. She is especially interested in what postmodern theory offers to effecting practical changes in how equity and social justice are constructed in early childhood pedagogy and what this means for children’s voices in the curriculum. Ms. Margaret Coady Program Manager of the Professional Ethics section of the University of Melbourne’s A.R.C. Special Research Centre for Philosophy and Public Ethics; Senior Lecturer at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood. Margaret has acted as a consultant on codes of ethics to several professional bodies, including the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry, the Australian Association of Social Workers, and the Victorian College of Optometry. She has been a member of the Psycho-surgery Review Board, and is a foundation member of the Victorian Government Child Death Review Committee. Her current research projects include a study of the rights and interests of would-be parents and potential children in new reproductive technology; and a study of Chinese and Western perspectives on regulating families. Margaret has published widely on professional ethics and on children's and families' rights; and she has held Research Fellowships at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, the Rockefeller Center at Bellagio, Italy, and the Kennedy Institute for Ethics at Georgetown University.

Young Children as Active Citizens

263

Ms. Penelope Cook Curriculum Policy Officer with the Department of Education and Children’s Services in South Australia. Penny has been an early childhood teacher since 1981, teaching in a range of places including a remote Aboriginal community, preschools and schools in South Australia and preschool in New South Wales. In 2003, she was a Project Officer (Early Years Review and Development) in the Curriculum Department of the Department of Early Childhood Services; and she has worked with early childhood practitioners from Family Day Care, child care, preschool and the early years of school in an action research project about pedagogy and social inclusion. Penny believes that critically reflective practice and action research are effective ways to create pedagogical change through professional development. Ms. Shirley Dally Shirley Dally lives in Semaphore, where the sea forever spills across the end of her street. For over thirty years she worked in the South Australian public education system, always with passion in the interests of children, education, equity and justice, critically informed by feminist poststructuralism in the last fifteen years. ‘Retiring’ from the position of Policy & Program Officer, Gender in 2005, the passion burns still through the education journeys of four beautiful citizen grandchildren, two girls, two boys. In 2006, Shirley co-authored a book with Dr Susan Sheridan on the history of Women’s Studies at Flinders University and currently tutors School of Education undergraduates at the University of South Australia. Coming maybe, into a PhD or writing that book on just female subjectivity. Dr. Christina Hart Dr Christina Hart is an experienced science educator, and was formerly a Senior Lecturer in Science Education and a member of the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood at the University of Melbourne. She has researched the experiences of learners in science classrooms, seeking to understand not only how they learn, but also how they feel about science and how those feelings arise. She is concerned to advocate reform of curriculum and pedagogy so that science as a school subject can become more inclusive of the diversity of student needs and experiences.

264

Contributors

Ms. Glenda Henderson Mother of three girls aged between 7 and 15 years and Director of Bridgewater Kindergarten in South Australia. Glenda also works one day per week at the local school, to which approximately 80% of the children at Bridgewater Kindergarten move on. Twenty five years ago, Glenda trained to teach Kindergarten, but worked in Junior Primary until two years ago. Her passion is children and, as she says: ‘If I can leave at the end of the day knowing that I have helped a child or their family to be happy, to discover something new, to have fun, to understand more about themselves or to feel more positive about themselves, then I've had a successful day.’ Glenda believes that learning programs should incorporate students’ voices and strives to make that belief work in a preschool setting. Dr. Patrick Hughes Research Fellow, the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood at the University of Melbourne; formerly Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications, Deakin University. Patrick has taught Media Studies and Cultural Studies at London University and at the Open University and he has been a communications consultant to companies and governments in the UK and Australia. His work has been published as books, book chapters and articles in Australia, the UK and the USA and he regularly presents papers to international academic conferences. Gulliver McGrath Gulliver McGrath is going in to grade 4 at Bruswick South Primary School, Melbourne. Gully attended the Swanston Street Children's Centre for five years before entering school. His interests are finding more about the things he is interested in. Zen McGrath Zen McGrath was part of the Swanston Street Children's Centre community for five years. He is beginning his first year of school at Bruswick South Primary School, Melbourne. He likes playing the piano, slingshots and playing on the computer. Professor Glenda Mac Naughton Professor of Education at the University of Melbourne, Director of the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood at the University of Melbourne. Glenda has worked in the early childhood field for nearly 34 years as a practitioner and a manager and as a senior policy advisor to

Young Children as Active Citizens

265

governments in the UK and Australia. She recently completed a major review of early childhood curriculum in Tasmania and has facilitated a critical teaching project for the Department of Education in South Australia. Her publications related to early childhood include 5 books, 12 book chapters, 12 monographs, 21 refereed journal articles, over 100 conference papers including 12 international invited conference presentations and over 70 professional development sessions. Ms. Jane Page Lecturer at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood. Jane has worked as a practitioner and academic in the early childhood field for over fifteen years. She is currently completing her doctorate and her current research has two foci: futures studies and early childhood education; and children's rights and child abuse. Jane’s book, Reframing the early childhood curriculum: educational imperatives for the future, (Routledge Falmer 2000) examined how early childhood professionals can use their curricula to lay foundations for children’s life-long learning; and in 1996 and 2001, the L'Eta Verde Associazione Culturale awarded her the Aurelio Peccei Prize by for her work in this area. Ms. Sam Parsons Teacher at Swanston Street Children’s Centre, Melbourne. Sam has worked in a variety of children’s services centres in Melbourne and Paris for the past twenty-four years. She has been actively involved in several research projects that sought to include children’s voices in curriculum decision-making. In her work at Swanston Street Children’s Centre, Sam has explored ways to include young children’s voices in curriculum and routines in day-to-day practice. Professor Jeanette Redding Jones Professor of Early Childhood Education at Oslo and Bergen University Colleges, Norway. Jeanette currently supervises, mentors and examines Doctoral and Masters students in Norway and internationally. Her workplace languages are English and Norwegian. After teaching and caring for three to five year olds in preschools, and five to eight year olds in schools, Jeanette did distance education study for a BA, a BEd, an MEd and a PhD. At the same time, she was a Lecturer and then a Senior Lecturer in Victoria, Australia; and a mother of four. She now leads a Masters degree, spends one day a week with Muslims in Norwegian preschools and is working on two new books. She is the author of What is

266

Contributors

Research? Methodological practices and new approaches, published 2005 by Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Dr. Sharne Rolfe Psychologist and a Senior Lecturer in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne. Sharne has researched child development for 25 years, focusing primarily on observational studies of early interactions and relationships. A major outcome has been her book, Rethinking Attachment for Early Childhood Practice: nurturing security, autonomy and resilience in young children (Allen & Unwin, 2004). Sharne provides clinical assessments of attachment, child development and family relationships to child protection agencies and to the Children’s Court of Victoria; and she is a consultant to the Victorian Government on case planning for high-risk infants and their families. Ms. Melanie Saballa Manager, Social Policy and Implementation Branch of the Chief Minister’s Department, the Australian Capital Territory. Melanie has a special interest in how children’s voices can inform policy development. Since joining the ACT Government in 1999 she has worked in a variety of roles including Children’s Services Adviser, Senior Policy Officer, and Manager of a range of early intervention programs, including the licensing of ACT Children’s Services. Melanie played a key role in the innovative project Hearing Young Children’s Voices through her involvement in the development of the ACT Children’s Plan 2004 - 2014. Previously, Melanie worked for over 10 years with young children and families in early childhood education and care settings, then with diploma and undergraduate students specialising in child development and young children’s literacy development. Ms. Sharon Saitta Co-director, Swanston Street Children’s Centre, Melbourne. Sharon completed a degree in early childhood teaching at the University of Melbourne in 2007. She has been actively involved in several research projects that sought to include children’s voices in curriculum decisionmaking, has presented papers from those projects to international early childhood conferences and has co-authored articles about this work that have appeared in peer-reviewed early childhood education journals.

Young Children as Active Citizens

267

Dr. Kylie Smith Co-director, Swanston Street Children’s Centre, Melbourne; Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood. Kylie’s research examines how theory and practice can challenge the operation of equity in the early childhood classroom and she has worked with children, parents and teachers to build safe and respectful communities. In her work with the CEIEC, Kylie has been actively involved in leading consultations with young children in curriculum and policy making in the early years. She has presented papers from that work to international early childhood conferences and has coauthored articles about the work that have appeared in peer-reviewed early childhood education journals. Ms. Greta Swan Teacher at Swanston Street Children’s Centre, Melbourne. Greta has been actively involved in several research projects that sought to include children’s voices in curriculum decision-making. She has been actively involved in including young children’s voices in curriculum and routines in day-to-day practice at Swanston Street Children’s Centre. Ms. Nina Winger Associate Professor at Oslo University College, Norway. Nina has 20 years experience teaching, supervising and examining Masters coursework in Early Childhood Education in Norway, and has also taught at Bachelor level. During that time she has also worked on several research projects. She is currently engaged in two large-scale research projects financed by the Norwegian Council for Research. These projects focus on the quality of everyday life for children under the age of three in Norwegian kindergartens (barnehager). Nina has presented papers at national and international conferences, and published articles and books dealing with various aspects of childhood, including the new sociology of childhood. She is particularly concerned with links between methodological and ethical questions related to children’s perspectives, and their participation within research and practice. Professor Martin Woodhead Professor of Childhood Studies at the Open University, UK. Martin has published extensively on early childhood, including In Search of the Rainbow, (Bernard van Leer Foundation, 1996) and Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood (Routledge, 1998). He has carried out policy analysis and research review for Council of Europe, the OECD, UNICEF and Save the

268

Contributors

Children, and has also worked on child labour and children’s rights, including several international studies. His recent publications include three co-edited textbooks Understanding Childhood, Childhoods in Context and Changing Childhoods, (all published by Wiley, 2003). Martin is co-editor of the journal Children & Society, a member of the editorial board for Childhood and of the International Advisory Committee of Journal of Early Childhood Research. During 2005 he was appointed Special Advisor to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Geneva, in preparation of General Comment 7: Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood.

SUBJECT INDEX

accountability 15, 72, 92, 97, 108, 127, 133, 161, 193, 208 action learning 62, 64, 65, 76, 107, 108-110, 170, 174-177 action research 62, 76, 193, 195, 200, 204, 209, 210, 262, 263 actor/s viii, ix, 2, 21, 22, 84, 97, 101, 108, 109, 153, 173, 179, 182, 188 advertising 38, 96, 100, 101 advocacy, advocates ix, 9, 15, 74, 86, 233 agency 20, 21, 25, 51, 59, 102, 120, 128, 131, 141, 220-222, 225, 228, 230, 238-240 agent/s 45, 48, 57, 84, 112, 113, 128, 131, 221, 228 agentic 22, 54, 64, 234 apolitical 233-234, 40 assessment/s 19, 37, 51, 78, 91, 126127, 134, 139, 149, 233, 234, 236, 237, 266 authority 11, 43-44, 81, 113-114 autonomy 6, 8-12, 129, 131, 132, 143 binary 46, 81, 82, 88, 112, 114 border 151-154 capacity viii, 9, 17, 24, 63-65, 70, 71, 97, 122, 174, 189, 221, 230, 247 capacities 8, 18, 20, 23-25, 95, 108, 122 237 catalytic 148, 150, 155 civic viii, 92, 101, 137 class/es (social) 4, 48-49, 53, 55, 75, 108, 144, 151, 154, 171, 234, 239, 240, 241

co-construct 152, 153, 230 cognitive 9, 11, 21, 34, 63, 91, 123, 127, 133 cohesion 123, 124, 136 collaboration/ive 31, 56, 91, 156, 212, 233 collective 49, 122, 137, 221 colonising 48, 49 commodities 99, 100 communication/s 46, 51-52, 57, 82, 84-85, 87, 95-99, 101-103, 122, 129, 138, 140, 174, 193, 199, 208, 236, 238 communities 18, 20, 24, 26, 41, 63, 71, 86, 121, 228, 232 community 2, 3, 10, 12, 24-25, 36, 39, 41, 47, 63-65, 71-74, 76, 78, 102, 122, 126, 130, 131, 144, 150-151, 166, 177, 186, 189, 195196, 200, 203, 212, 218, 232, 241, 246 competence/s 7, 19, 21-22, 53, 133135, 137, 139 competent ix, 7, 11, 20, 24-24, 45, 66, 77, 83, 87, 109, 128, 130, 138, 156, 170, 173, 185, 206 complex/ity ix, 11, 25, 40, 45-46, 52, 54, 75, 77, 79-82, 84-87, 90, 108, 115, 129, 170, 174, 183, 203, 231, 235 concept/s 2, 16, 22, 23, 25, 44, 49, 59, 79, 80, 81, 86, 123, 128, 143, 152, 194, 198, 209 conceptualisation/s 45, 47, 51, 173 consensus 15, 25, 92, 240 consent 9, 10, 16, 33-35, 38, 39 consult/ed/ing ix, 7, 8, 13, 20, 3142, 62, 63, 65, 67, 71, 72, 77, 94, 107-110, 115, 116, 178, 179, 234

270

Subject Index

consultation/s ix, 22, 32-41, 62-69, 72, 73, 101, 107-112, 114, 116, 129, 137 conversations 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 53, 66, 81, 111, 153, 154, 162, 168, 201, 204, 211, 214-217, 223, 237, 239, 247, 248, 258 creative/ly 40, 85, 138, 143, 187, 203, 207 critical/ly 18, 33, 40, 44-54, 65, 66, 76, 93, 124, 128, 149-155, 170, 173, 174, 176, 188, 189, 194, 199, 203, 204, 207, 209, 210, 213, 217 culture/s 10-12, 22, 46, 49, 53, 75, 98, 102, 110, 114, 132, 136, 139, 143, 144, 152, 154, 165, 171, 194, 209, 229, 234, 239, 241, 242 cultural/ly ix, 7, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, 36, 45, 46, 59, 66, 67, 79, 90, 95, 97-103, 121, 122, 124, 126, 136, 140, 151, 152, 171, 174, 199, 200, 201, 210, 212 curriculum/a 47, 51, 53, 70, 108, 110, 115, 123, 128-130, 132, 135141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 151-153, 157, 160, 161, 166, 168, 173, 178, 182, 183, 186, 187, 193, 194, 200-214, 218, 230, 231, 246, 257 decentering 47, 48 Declaration of the Rights of the Child (League of Nations) 5, Declaration of the Rights of the Child (United Nations) 5, 6 Deficit 45, 93, 100, 172, 188, 206 Democracy 48, 53, 82, 88, 91, 120, 135, 136, 139-141, 143, 152 Democratic ix, 4, 40, 54, 86, 91, 92, 102, 103, 120, 122, 125, 131, 141-145, 148, 151, 152, 155, 157, 230, 231, 239, 240, 241 determine/s/d 11, 84, 87, 128, 205, 231 developmental/ly 21-25, 28, 47, 66, 87, 91, 121, 126, 128-130, 132,

134, 138, 149, 172-174, 211, 212, 218, 231, 233, 234 dialogue 16, 37, 45, 82, 152 dignity 18, 20, 109, 122 directed 5, 123, 128, 130, 132, 141 direction 8, 23, 24, 53, 66, 84, 86, 91, 95, 102, 123, 230, 234, 254 disability/ies 65, 73, 139, 230, 233, 234 disabilities 48, 51, 124, 140, 171, 172, 230, 234 disadvantage/d 67, 84, 124, 199, 206 discourse 10, 16, 18, 19, 44, 45, 48, 57, 59, 81, 88, 150, 152, 205, 231, 233, 234, 239, 241, 244 discrimination 16, 25, 144 diverse ix, 22, 31, 36, 37, 40, 52, 66, 77, 111, 122, 124, 166, 171, 173, 174, 176, 198, 199, 201, 203, 207 diversity viii, 25, 33, 36, 37, 47, 49, 59, 64, 82, 96-99, 122, 124, 139, 140, 171, 203 document/s 5, 6, 34, 36, 39, 45, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 67, 68, 73-76, 137, 160, 164, 167, 206, 209, 213, 216, 231 documentation 33, 39, 53, 130, 134, 138, 140, 141, 213 documented 68, 70, 111, 196, 205, 232 documenting 53, 65, 166, 212 drawings 23, 53, 69, 85, 86, 111, 166, 214, 222, 223 dynamic/s 112, 113, 126, 167, 182 empower/ed/ing 48, 82, 86, 122, 202, 230, 234 empowerment 23, 165 entitled 18, 20, 161, 162 entitlements 18, 25, epistemology/ies 151, 152, 156 equal/s 2-4, 72, 82, 99, 107, 109, 133, 141, 225, 233, 239 equality 3, 4, 141

Young Children as Active Citizens equity 43, 107-110, 123, 124, 144, 150, 151, 177, 186, 203, 210, 231-233, 239, 240 esteem 22, 80, 122 ethical/ly ix, 10, 17, 31, 35-37, 39, 40, 41, 45-47, 49, 50, 52-54, 72, 86, 100, 109, 139, 141, 149, 151, 153, 154, 157, 175, 246 ethics 32, 43, 45, 47, 139, 148, 150, 151, 154, 232 ethnicity/ies 46, 139, 140 exclusion 2, 3, 26, 124, 204, 206, 239, 240 exemplar/y 78, 83, 86 expert/ise viii, 22, 51, 73, 79, 152, 156, 170, 172, 188, 203, 207 fair, fairer, fairness 32, 36, 43, 67, 110, 112-115, 124, 213, 216, 218, 239 femininity/ies 236, 240, 241 flexibility, flexible 124, 198, 222 free 2-6, 12, 79, 85, 97, 122, 124, 144, 187, 234 freedom 3, 6, 8, 12, 18, 23, 40, 51, 94, 95, 129, 131, 141, 142, 150, 151, 182, 202, 238 gaze 149, 153, 156, 205, 206, 235, 237 gender 23, 49, 75, 107-116, 139142, 154, 171, 183, 205, 231-236, 239, 240, 241 gendered 112, 114, 157, 232, 236, 243 General Comment 7, 17, 18, 20, 21, 34, 101, 102, 143 Governing 2, 155, 221, 240 hierarchy/ical 123, 128 holistic/ally 18, 128-130, 135 identity/ies 12, 26, 36, 46, 49, 79, 80, 90, 96, 98, 99, 101, 112, 114, 142, 151-154, 173, 193, 199, 208, 220, 221, 228, 240, 258

271

immature, immaturity viii, 2, 20, 92, 102, 172 inclusion 3, 81, 124, 126, 136, 186, 187, 193-196, 198, 203-207, 230237, 240, 241 inclusive 3, 63, 186, 194-196, 199, 201, 205, 207, 210, 233, 241 individual/s ix, 10, 16, 24, 38, 44, 45, 49, 81, 82, 86, 87, 97, 111, 122, 123, 126, 129, 131-133, 137, 139, 141, 143, 162, 163, 179, 181, 188, 201, 206, 221, 224, 225, 234, 239, 245 inequality/ies 25, 26, 87, 136, institution/s/al 31, 32, 45, 46, 50, 53, 54, 59, 120, 123, 124, 132, 135, 144, 239, 241, 244 instrumental/ism/ist 18, 44, 45, 47, 59, 132 integrity 46, 80, 141 intersubjective/ity 46, 83, 91 interview/s 35, 37, 53, 58, 81, 82, 111, 130, 222-224, 226, 239, 245248, 251, 253, 257-259 journal (individuals’) 179-187, 204206, 212, 214, 237 justice 26, 41, 50, 52, 107, 203, 239 knowledge power 32, 43 language/s 15, 19, 36, 37, 46, 50-52, 59, 68, 72, 97-99, 124, 126-129, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142-144, 149, 167, 177, 194, 197, 199, 200-203, 205, 206-208, 235, 236 learner/s 24, 26, 46, 47, 107-109, 114, 138, 144, 163-165, 212 learning 12, 19, 25, 26, 48, 62, 6466, 76, 107-110, 112-114, 121124, 126-144, 152, 160-170, 174187, 194-201, 204, 206-214, 217, 233, 234, 240, 245-247, 249, 252, 254, 256-258 linguistic 34, 36, 37, 49, 51, 99, 126, 199, 207

272

Subject Index

managerialism 45, 59 marginal/ized/ization/izing 4, 47, 59, 67, 87, 171, 194, 205 market/ing, market place 96-100, 123 masculinity/ies 234, 237, 238, 240, 241 meaning/s ix, 21, 46, 84, 93, 100102, 115, 126, 129, 135, 151, 156, 225, 234, 244 meaningful/ly viii, 22, 62, 63, 66, 74, 85, 115, 127, 130, 144, 200, 202, 207, 225, 226, 234, 239 media 22, 69, 82, 92-103, 213, 222 member/ship 2-4, 18, 20, 36, 40, 46, 53, 54, 63, 69, 85, 87, 91, 122, 131, 153, 164-165, 167, 170, 189, 195, 196, 200, 207, 210, 220-222, 224, 228 method/s 31, 86, 111, 125, 136, 162, 198 methodology/ies/ical 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 72, 161 model/s 3, 10, 11, 21, 47, 85, 91, 93, 94, 100-102, 123, 125, 128, 170174, 176, 177, 179, 182, 188, 206 modern 3, 81, 123, 234, 239, 240 moral 11, 12, 15, 21, 32, 93, 94, 98, 99, 140 motivate, motivation 5, 59, 122, 123, 130 mutual 10, 21, 46, 91, 124 narrative/s 93, 97, 149, 151, 222, 223, 224, 226 negotiate/d 34, 149, 161, 215, 217, 236 negotiating, negotiation 40, 101, 129, 134, 155, 165, 217 network/s, networking 65, 73, 96, 97, 120, 124, 182, 188, 224, 230 Nordic 49, 50, 52, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131 norm/s 172, 230, 236, 238, 240

normalise/d, normalizing 46, 47, 48, 240 objectifying 46, 83 ‘objective’ 153, 211, 240 objective/s 63, 130, 134, 136, 139, 212 observation/s 35, 46, 63, 68, 69, 130, 149-153, 157, 200, 205, 206, 211, 213, 234, 235, 237, 251, 257 openness 141, 151, 204 organisation ix, 76, 82, 120, 138, 144 orient/ation/ed 84, 91, 102, 115, 129, 133, 136, 186 outcome/s 16, 73, 84, 87, 101, 107, 109, 110, 132-134, 165, 170, 178, 179, 182, 185, 186, 205, 234, 259 ownership 53, 96, 97, 102, 103, 161, 164 painting/s 37, 69, 153, 211 participation viii, 3, 22-25, 31, 33, 34, 48, 51, 52, 64, 72, 82-84, 86, 100-102, 111, 120, 122, 124, 125, 135, 139, 151, 157, 166, 176, 178-180, 189, 194, 195, 199-203, 205-208, 221, 225, 228, 230, 259 pedagogical 45, 50, 54, 128-130, 132-134, 139, 142, 152, 170, 193, 195, 207, 213 pedagogy 48, 50, 54, 120, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 134-136, 148, 151, 152, 156, 194, 199, 200, 203, 207 photograph/s 23, 35, 37-39, 53, 69, 111 play 2, 19, 22, 65, 69-72, 85, 98, 99, 111, 113, 114, 122, 129, 130, 132, 140, 142, 143, 149, 150, 154, 162, 165-167, 171, 173, 177-184, 186, 188, 196-198, 201-204, 211, 214216, 217, 222, 225, 226, 235-237, 239 policy/ies viii, ix, 13, 15-20, 22, 25, 26, 31, 33, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 62, 63, 72, 74, 75, 78, 82,

Young Children as Active Citizens 87, 92-94, 101, 107-110, 112-116, 127, 136, 172, 173, 232, 233 position/s 6, 16, 19, 44-48, 52, 53, 67, 83, 84, 101, 161, 251 positioning/s 44, 45, 48, 54 postmodern/ism, postmodernity 45, 49, 50, 54, 158, 205 poststructural/ist 47, 58, 159 power/s 6, 11, 22, 23, 32, 33, 43-45, 47-49, 52-54, 59, 81-83, 85, 103, 108, 148, 151, 160, 161, 165, 168, 173, 194, 195, 197, 198, 202, 218, 230, 231, 233, 235, 238 powerful 18, 20, 52, 53, 63, 78, 83, 84, 86-88, 91, 116, 198, 203, 234, 241 practitioner/s 45, 48,50-52, 54, 59, 63, 66, 67, 69, 77, 80, 115, 137, 139, 140, 152, 153, 173, 174, 178, 193, 194, 209 privilege/d 3, 43, 48, 74, 81, 86, 126, 131, 151 proactive 115, 198 proceduralism 82, 88 product/s ix, 5, 22, 34, 96-101, 124, 185 professional/s 25, 45, 48, 49, 51, 54, 59, 62, 65, 76, 77, 80-82, 84, 8688, 91, 94, 115, 127, 171, 189, 194, 195, 207, 220, 227, 228, 231, 236 program/s, programm/s, programming ix, 19, 47, 63-66, 70, 72, 74, 80, 96, 101, 104, 110, 115, 121, 124, 127, 130, 132, 134-136, 150, 160-167, 172, 175, 176, 179, 183-187, 193, 200, 201, 203, 204, 231 project/s 19, 22, 31, 33, 46, 62-65, 67, 69, 72-74, 109, 112, 113, 116, 124, 129, 132, 170, 174-176, 178, 179, 181-185, 187, 188, 190, 193195, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 210, 213-218, 220, 222, 223, 257-260 protect 5, 79, 81, 90, 93-95, 100103, 240

273

protection/protective 4-8, 16-18, 20, 23, 25, 38, 62, 65, 73, 74, 77-82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 93, 94, 95, 99, 133, 172 pseudonym 39, 176, 223 public viii, 2, 16, 32, 39, 40, 43, 72, 74, 92-94, 97, 101, 102, 107, 120, 127, 131, 144, 239 quality 18, 39, 101, 121, 127, 130133, 134, 137, 139, 166, 220, 221, 239 ‘race/s’ 46, 75, 108, 171, 234, 239241 rational/ity 2, 7, 9-11, 19, 81, 93, 231, 240 readiness 126, 131, 132 reconceptualise/d 148, 151, 195, 196 reconceptualising 46, 138, recording/s 23, 35, 37, 69, 246, 247 reductionist 46, 52 reflect/s viii, 33, 44, 45, 53, 83, 86, 93, 111, 122, 142, 149, 153, 170, 172, 174, 178, 183, 188, 189, 199, 200, 207, 209, 210, 232, 247 reflection 44, 46, 47, 52, 53, 65, 66, 76, 148-151, 153-156, 176, 186, 197, 201, 205, 207, 232, 235, 258 reflective/reflexive 41, 46, 52, 54, 178, 181, 185, 187, 189, 210, 213, 217, 238 reframe/ing 18, 19, 115, 176 regime/s 32, 150, 151 regulation/s 92, 93, 97, 102, 103, 137, 155, 231 relations, relationships 10, 21-24, 26, 32, 33, 43, 46, 47, 51-54, 71, 72, 78-80, 83-87, 90, 91, 100-103, 108, 110, 113, 120, 121, 123, 124, 132, 136, 140, 141, 144, 148, 149, 160, 168, 170, 177, 181, 182, 188, 194, 214, 218, 220, 221, 223, 226, 228, 230, 234-238, 240 resistance 238-240

274

Subject Index

respect/ful ix, 4, 15-17, 19-23, 25, 26, 32-34, 36, 38-41, 50, 51, 54, 73, 84, 85, 95, 99, 102, 121-124, 129, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 144, 149, 156, 157, 165, 197, 216, 217, 223, 228, 239, 257 responsibility/ies 2, 11, 18, 20, 23, 24, 46-48, 62, 82, 88, 99, 120, 132, 134, 143, 144, 155, 230 rethink/ing 52, 87, 148, 156, 170, 175, 177, 186, 194-196, 199, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207 rights viii, 2-13, 15-26, 32-34, 36, 41, 44-48, 51, 52, 54, 62-64, 72, 74, 78, 79, 83, 87, 88, 94, 95, 100-103, 112, 113, 120-124, 131, 136, 139, 140, 143-145, 155, 168, 173, 174, 185, 187, 207, 230, 231, 233, 240 risk/s 19, 23, 46, 48, 78, 79, 82, 93, 99, 156, 200, 235, 241 roles 26, 32, 64, 98, 137, 142, 165 rule/s 8, 12, 53, 94, 113, 114, 123, 136, 137, 154, 165, 183, 197, 221, 236, 240 safe 36, 38, 67-69, 71, 76, 80, 85, 110, 113, 114, 198, 247 safety 33, 38, 74, 77, 112-114, 165, 246 science 80, 210-214, 216-218, 245, 247-259 silence/d 43, 48, 67, 88, 156, 162, 207, 236 silences 207, 231, 234 social viii, ix, 4-6, 10, 12, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 49, 50, 54, 62, 63, 68, 77, 83, 87, 97-103, 108, 109, 120, 121, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 133, 135, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 149, 151, 153, 170, 171, 173, 179, 182, 188, 193-196, 198, 199, 203207, 220-222, 224-229, 231, 234236, 239, 240, 244 socialisation 21, 22, 115

socially 40, 41, 54, 67, 172, 174, 194-196, 199, 201, 207 socio-cultural 24, 212 socio-economic 53, 124 solidarity 141, 144 space/s 19, 22, 36-40, 49, 50, 52-54, 69-71, 74, 76, 85, 96, 101, 102, 113, 122, 131, 133, 137, 141, 149, 151, 154, 166, 170, 179-181, 183185, 187, 188, 197, 210, 214-217, 248 stage/s 3-5, 19, 20, 23, 24, 36, 37, 80, 95, 108, 123, 137, 138, 172, 173, 204, 211, 222, 254 stakeholder/s 63, 129, standards 49, 53, 93, 108, 123, 126, 127, 130, 133, 136, 137, 161, 193, 208, 231 States Parties 8, 15, 16, 20, 21, 94, 95, 98, 99, 143 subject/s 8, 9, 11, 19, 22, 45, 51, 52, 131, 152, 172, 173, 178, 179, 182, 188, 251, 253, 255, 257, 258 subjectivity/ies 44, 52, 54, 81, 91, 151, 152, 240, 241 suffrage 2, 4, 7, 13 survey/s 64, 73, 101, 130, 239, 245 teacher/s ix, 35, 45, 48, 52, 67, 68, 70, 109, 111-115, 125-130, 132, 134-141, 143, 144, 148, 149, 151156, 160, 161, 163, 165, 170-174, 176, 177-183, 186, 188, 189, 193198, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 217, 218, 224, 230, 231-240, 245-247, 249-253, 255-260 team/s 62, 96, 124, 129, 132, 134, 141, 143, 144, 167, 178, 188, 194, 196, 200, 207, 233 technology/ies 97, 123, 140, 230 text ix, 47, 49, 67, 69, 100, 120, 166 tokenistic 23, 35, 40 tradition/s 21, 50, 100, 120, 121, 125, 128, 129, 131, 135 traditional/ly viii, 19-21, 24, 27, 52, 101, 115, 122, 123, 128, 135, 141,

Young Children as Active Citizens 142, 167, 183, 184, 190, 196, 197, 203, 257 truth/s 47, 81, 91, 93, 150, 151, 239,

275

unfair 35, 43, 112, 113, 239 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 26, 44, 47, 51, 62, 94, 120, 121, 144, 145, 174 universal 4, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 47, 98, 102, 144, 172, 173, 231

voice/s 20, 22, 24, 35, 41, 44-55, 63, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 8188, 94, 103, 107-109, 116, 148, 149, 151-154, 156, 157, 160, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 175, 179, 182, 186, 187, 194, 195, 199, 207, 211, 213, 222, 223, 230, 239, 240, 241, 248, 251, 258, 259 vulnerable, vulnerability/ies 22, 23, 73, 80, 82, 86, 93, 95, 101, 103, 140, 141

value/s 12, 16, 50, 70, 96, 98, 102, 109, 124, 131, 136, 139, 141, 143-145, 173, 199-201, 228

wellbeing/well-being 5, 16, 18, 25, 63, 67, 69, 70, 74, 79, 95, 98, 99, 101, 131

AUTHOR INDEX

Aikenhead, G. 259, 260 Alderson, P. 21, 22, 27 Alexander, K. 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43 Alverstad, M. 153, 157 Anderson, P. 31, 42 Archard, D. 13 Arendt, H. 3, 13 Arneil, B. 9, 10, 11, 13 Arnold, C. 16, 27 Arthur, L. 211, 212, 213, 218 Attwood, T. 233, 242 Atwool, N. 81, 88 Aubrey, C. 86, 88 Bader, V. 3, 13 Bae, B. 44, 46, 51, 52, 55 Bailey, G. 230, 231, 242 Baker, D. R. 246, 260 Barker, J. 222, 228 Barnes, S. 107, 110, 111, 117 Beaty, J. J. 211, 218 Beecher, B. 211, 218 Bennett, J. 120, 134, 145 Berke, L. 51, 55 Berkowitz, L. 171, 190 Birbeck, D. 222, 228 Bøe, M. 46, 56 Bowlby, J. 84, 88 Bowles, S. 123, 145, 145 Bowman, B. T. 128, 145 Boyden, J. 16, 27 Brandtzaeg, K-M. 46, 56 Bredekamp, S. 211, 212, 218 Brennan, M. 93, 106 Brennhovd, M. 53, 55 Bridgstock, R. 147 Broadbent, V. 22, 28, 221, 229 Brooker, L. 26, 27

Brooks-Gunn, J. 124, 145 Brougère, G. 125, 146 Brown, L. J. 172, 190 Bruner, J. S. 21, 22, 27 Buckingham, D. 22, 27, 100, 104 Buizen, M. 100, 105 Bullen, E. 99, 105 Bulotsky-Shearer, R. 171, 191 Burman, E. 16, 27 Burns, M. S. 145 Cahill, A. 213, 219 Callan, E. 140, 146 Campbell, S. 115, 116, 148, 157, 172, 173, 190, 230, 237, 238, 242, 243 Cannella, G. 58, 104, 152, 157, 171, 190, 242 Carolin, B. 84, 88, 89, 90 Castelino, T. 190 Chapman, M. 233, 242 Chavez, C. 151, 158 Cheung, Y. B. 28 Choudhury, S. A. 23, 25, 29 Christensen, P. 30, 94, 104, 192, 222, 228, 229 Cicchetti, D. 80, 89 City of Port Phillip 34, 42 Clark, A. 23, 27, 56, 57, 168, 173, 190 Clarke, P. B. 3, 13 Coady, M. 2, 32, 190, 210, 218 Cohen, E. 92, 104 Collins, S. 245, 246, 260 Commonwealth Schools Commission 108, 116 Connor, J. 233, 242 Conover, P. J. 220, 221, 228

Young Children as Active Citizens Conseil de l’emploi, des revenus et de la cohesion sociale (CERC) 136, 146 Corsaro, W. 22, 27 Couling, M. 86, 89 Crawford, M. 3, 13 Crick, N. 172, 192 Cross, T. 212, 218 Crossley, S. A. 172, 190 Cueto, S. 28 Cullen, J. 117, 231, 233, 244 Cummings, E. M. 80, 89 Dahl, S. 86, 88 Dahlberg, G. 18, 27, 44, 56, 152, 157, 190, 230, 242 Dally, S. 107, 110, 111, 117 Danby, S. 147 Darbyshire, P. 222, 229 Davies, J. 104 Davis, K. 31, 34, 42 Death, E. 211, 218 Deleau, M. 146 Deleuze, G. 154, 158 Delors, J. 131, 144, 146 Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) (South Australia) 152, 158, 194, 243 Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 137, 146 De Vincentis, S. 219 Dewey, J. 150, 158 Dillon, J. 29 Dockett, S. 211, 218 Doek, J. E. 17, 27 Donovan, M. S. 145 Drummond, M. 222, 228 Duffie, J. 152, 159 Dunn, J. 22, 27 Early Childhood Australia 101, 104 Edwards, C. 29, 152, 158, 208 Eide, B. 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56 Elkind, D. 24, 27 EPPE 128, 146

277

Fahlberg, V. I. 80, 89 Fantuzzo, J. 171, 191 Farmer, S. 211, 218 Farrell, A. 31, 42 Farrell, L. 221, 229 Farson, R. 6, 7, 13 Fattore, T. 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90 Faulkner, D. 19, 22, 30 Filippini, T. 204, 208 Fleer, M. 117, 212, 213, 218, 219 Fleet, A. 152, 158 Foucault, M. 32, 43, 50, 56, 150, 151, 158, 232, 238, 242, 243 Forman, G. 29, 152, 158, 208 Fortin, J. 94, 104 Franklin, A. 94, 104 Freire, P. 40, 42, 148,158 Furnham, A. 99, 104 Fusco, R. 171, 191 Gallas, K. 171, 191, 231, 242 Gandini, L. 29, 152, 158, 208 Gayle, N. 230, 231, 242 Gender Equity Taskforce of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment Training and Youth Affairs Gentile, D. 172, 192 Gibbs, S. 25, 28 Giles, H. 85, 89 Gillund, M. 46, 56 Gintis, H. 123, 144, 145 Giroux, H. 151, 152, 158 Giugni, M. 115, 117, 173, 191 Glewwe, P. 28 Goddard, C. 81, 88, 90 Goodrum, D. 260 Gordon, G. 28 Grantham-McGregor, S. 18, 28 Grieshaber, S. 104, 147, 242 Grover, S. 222, 229 Guattari, F. 154, 158 Gunter, B. 99, 104 Habermas, J. 82, 88, 89

10

278

Author Index

Hackling, M. W. 260 Hafen, B. C. 8, 9, 13 Hafen, J. O. 8, 13 Hannah, M. 210, 213, 218, 219 Hardman, C. 22, 28 Harlan, J. D. 212, 219 Haste, H. 21, 22, 27 Haudrup, C. P. 222, 229 Hawthorne, J. 27 Hayes, A. 147 Heckman, J. 18, 28 Hill, M. 94, 104, 105, 222, 229 Hodgkin, R. 21, 28 Hognestad, K. 46, 53, 56, 229 Holt, J. 6, 13 House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Inquiry into the Education of Boys 108, 117 Howe, D. 80, 89 Hughes, J. 7, 9, 13 Hughes, P. 28, 75, 92, 100, 104, 105, 115, 116, 117, 170, 173, 191, 217, 219, 234, 242 Hutchby, I. 21, 28 Inman, S. 172, 192 INRP 135, 146 International Child Development Steering Group 18, 28 Ivan-Smith, E. 28 James, A. 22, 27, 28, 30, 44, 57, 94, 104, 192, 222, 228, 229 Jans, M. 48, 55, 56, 152, 158 Jenkins, E. 258, 260 Jenks, C. 222, 229 Johannesen, N. 45, 47, 50, 52, 56, 57 John, M. 23, 28, 89 Johnson, R. T. 106 Johnson, V. 22, 28 Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 9, 14 Kauerz, K. 127, 128, 146 Kehily, M. J. 22, 28

Kenkel, D. 86, 89 Kenway, J. 99, 105 Kiely, P. 86, 89 Kilgallon, P. 171, 172, 191, 233, 242 Kilham, C. 230, 233, 242 Killen, M. 27 King, M. 81, 89 Kirby, P. 25, 28 Kjørholt, A. T. 44, 45, 48, 50, 55, 56, 57, 168 Knuttson, K. 19, 28 Kohlberg, L. 140, 146 Koocher, G. B. 7, 14 Kristofferson, A. E. 53, 57 Kymlicka, W. 4, 11, 12, 14 Laevers, F. 146 Lancaster, P. 22, 28, 221, 229 Lansdown, G. 22, 25, 28 Lasch, C. 114 Lawrence, H. 190 Laybourn, A. 94, 105 Lehmann, C. 98, 105 Lepper, C. 231, 233, 244 Levinas, E. 45, 46, 57 Lindsay, G. 117, 171, 191, 229 Lister, R. 221, 229 Livingstone, S. 100, 101, 103, 105 Liwski, N. 19, 28 Lloyd-Smith, M. 109, 117, 172, 173, 191 Lountain, K. 107, 109, 117 MacDougall, C. 222, 229 Macleod, C. M. 13 MacLeod-Brudenell, I. 211, 219 MacNaughton, G. 25, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 57, 62, 66, 75, 100, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 160, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 190, 191, 218, 219, 234, 238, 239, 241, 242 Malaguzzi, L. 20, 29, 129 Maloney, C. 171, 172, 191, 233, 242

Young Children as Active Citizens Marshall, K. 88 Marshall, T. H. 3-6, 14 Martin-Korpi, B. 130, 146 Mason, J. 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90 Mayall, B. 21, 22, 29, 221, 229 McCadden, B. 11, 14 McChesney, R. W. 96, 105 McMaken, J. 127, 128, 146 McWayne, C. 171, 191 Melhuish, E. 146 Mendelson, M. 85, 89 Merleau-Ponty, M. 85, 89 Millei, Z. 231, 243 Milner, P. 84, 88, 89, 90 Monro, P. 86, 90 Montie, N. 147 Moran-Ellis, J. 21, 28 Morrow, V. 22, 27, 31, 42 Moss, P. 18, 19, 23, 27, 29, 44, 48, 50, 55, 56, 57, 102, 105, 145, 152, 157, 168, 172, 173, 190, 192, 230, 242 Mudaly, N. 81, 88, 90 National Child Care Accreditation Council 231, 243 National Youth Council of Ireland 94, 104 Newell, P. 21, 28 Nichols, J. 96, 105 Nixon, S. 96, 105 Norman, W. 4, 14 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57 O’Kane, C. 222, 229 O’Neill, O. 10, 11, 14 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 42, 101, 105, Ojla, M. 147 Olmsted, J. 147 Osborne, J. 245, 246, 260 Ostrov, J. 172, 192 Øzalp, F. 46, 59

279

Page, J. 210, 218, 220 Palludan, C. 48, 57 Palmer, A. 233, 243 Parker, S. 14, 189, 192 Parr, J. R. 172, 192 Patterson, C. 152, 158 Pedersen, K. E. 46, 58 Pence, A. 27, 152, 157, 190, 230, 242 Petrie, P. 102, 105 Petriwskyj, A. 147 Piburn, M. D. 246, 260 Porter, L. 172, 192, 233, 243 Pramling-Samuelsson, I. 29 Press, F. 101, 106 Price, M. E. 93, 105 Pridmore, P. 28 Prout, A. 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 94, 104 Queensland School Curriculum Council 152, 158 Qvortrup, J. 19, 26, 29, 30 Rabinow, P. 32, 43, 56, 242 Rayna, S. 125, 146 Reid, A. 208 Reid, J. 234, 243 Renck Jalongo, M. 66, 75 Rennie, L. 245, 260 Rhedding-Jones, J. 44, 46, 47, 58 Richter, L. 28 Rinaldi, C. 129, 146, 152, 157, 158, 168 Rivkin, M. S. 212, 219 Rodham, H. 7, 14 Rogers, C. R. 84, 90 Rogoff, B. 24, 29 Rolfe, S. A. 77, 85, 90, 190 Romo, J. 151, 158 Rose, N. 240, 243 Rosegrant, T. 211, 218 Ross, N. 79, 90 Saitta, S. 148, 210, 213, 218, 219 Sammons, P. 146

280

Author Index

Samuelsson, I. P. 152, 157, 221, 229 Sandvik, N. 46, 51, 53, 58 Santos-Pais, M. 16, 18, 29 Schaffer, H. R. 21, 29 Schiller, W. 222, 229 Scott, P. 28 Seckold, C. 237, 242, 243 Seefeldt, C. 66, 75 Seland, M. 45, 58 Shaddock, T. 233, 243 Sheridan, S. 229 Sidoti, C. 83, 90 Simon, S. 245, 260 Siraj-Blatchford, I. 128, 146 Siraj-Blatchford, J. 211, 219 Skoien, P. 147 Skolverket 130, 145, 147, 152, 158 Sloper, P. 94, 104 Smedley, B. 82, 90 Smetana, J. 12, 14 Smith, A. 25, 29 Smith, A. B. 88 Smith, K. 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 62, 75, 115, 116, 117, 118, 148, 152, 159, 170, 173, 190, 191, 192, 194, 238, 239, 243 Snyder, R. F. 171, 192 Soto, L. D. 48, 58, 104 South Australian Education Department 107, 118 Stafford, A. 94, 105 Statham, J. 29 Stegelin, D. 190 Stevens, C. 156, 158 Stevens, O. 7, 9, 14 Stonehouse, A. 152, 159 Strupp, B. 28 Svenning, B. A. 46, 53, 58 Swadener, B. B. 48, 58 Swann, J. 22, 28 Swedish Ministry of Education 145, 147 Sylva, K. 146 Szarkowicz, D. 171, 172, 190, 192 Taggart, B. 146

Tajfel, H. 221, 228 Tarr, J. 109, 117, 172, 173, 191 Tasmanian Department of Education 152, 159 Tayler, C. 147, 228 Tennent, L. 221, 229 Thorpe, K. 128, 147 Tisdall, K. 94, 104 Totta, J. 190 Tremblay, R. E. 171, 172, 192 Triantafillou, P. 230, 243 Turiel, E. 12, 14 Turnbull, N. 82, 83, 84, 89 UNICEF 17, 26, 27, 125, 147 United Nations 7, 14, 59, 94, 105, 147, 174, 192 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child 121, 146, 228 Uprichard, E. 19, 29 Valkenburg, P. M. 100, 105 Van Bueren, G. 5, 6, 8, 14 Vandenbroeck, M. 25, 29 van Kuyk, J. 130, 147 Verhellen, E. 19, 29 Verhulst, S. G. 93, 105 Victorian Women’s Suffrage Society 2, 14 Viruru, R. 48, 58, 59 Walker, M. 94, 105 Warren, S. 222, 229 Wearmounth, J. 247, 260 Weedon, C. 153, 159 Weikart, D. P. 132, 147 Weller, S. 222, 228 White, S. C. 23, 25, 29 Wiley, K. 233, 243 Wilkinson, M. 81, 83, 84, 90 Williams, G. 66, 75, 168 Williamson, D. 231, 233, 244 Wilson, J. M. 98, 105 Wilson, M. 219 Winger, N. 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56

Young Children as Active Citizens Woodhead, M. 15, 16, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 47, 59, 228

Woodrow, C. 93, 101, 106

281