Implications

The heightened interest in childhood both on a national and international level has come with developments that we can all celebrate, some of which I indicated earlier; however, from the perspective of Gunilla Dahlberg and Peter Moss (2005) the increased interest in preschool services by nations and international bodies is mostly of a very particular kind. According to them it is stirred by the prospect of preschools being sites for producing predefined outcomes, mainly through the application of technical practices to the efficient governing of children (p. 4). This perspective seems to speak to the linear way that we base the children's education on e.g. milestones, reading ages, cognitive strategies, stages or skills etc. What do we suppress when the focus is only on what the child needs to accomplish? The video below I found to echo Dahlberg and Moss’s perspective on the economical, technological and moralization aspect of early childhood education and care:



“Investment in learning in the 21st century is the equivalent of investment in the machinery and technical innovation that was essential to the first industrial revolution. Then it was physical, now it is human capital. ...Our children are our future as a civilised society and prosperous nation. ... We must start now by getting integrated early years education and childcare and primary education, right” (as cited by Anne Edwards, 2004; p. 262). This quote I also found to speak to the aspect of the video that is emphasising on 'a child who is flexible, who is developmentally ready for the uncertainties and opportunities of the twenty-first century. Dahlberg and Moss term this way of being as 'a new normality of the child'(2005;p.7).

The discourse of ‘readiness’ comes with great anxiety for the children, the families and the educators. However, the parents as the primary care givers of the children are more impacted by the challenges that come with it. Some of the parents, especially those who enrol their children at infancy are very anxious when the children have to let go of things that comfort them. For example, winning a child off their milk bottle although they are still attached to it. Parents may not agree with this; however, they have to abide by the readiness philosophy, in some cases to maintain their childcare space; but most importantly they also understand that their child’s ability to ‘fit’ into the other levels of educational environments (this being a given) require them to have acquired certain skills. The fact that there is no room for consensus between the perspectives of parents, and educators' perspectives, makes me question the validity of our ethics, if they can only apply to our 'truths' and not those of the parents.

Hughes and MacNaughton question the commonly proffered solution - improving communications between parents and staff. Instead, according to them, they argue that 'communication cannot improve relationships between staff and parents unless it addresses the politics of knowledge underpinning them' (as cited by Dahlberg & Moss 2005; p. 164).
The following quote by Burman (2008) I found to speak to the discourse of parent involvement in the education or well-being of their children: “It can be argued that children as the starting point or supposedly raw material for social development - are the victims of the asocial model of the bourgeois individual of modernity. Thus the ‘special’- ness of children seem to be at the expense of being apart from the very social structures concerned with protecting or promoting them” (P. 96).

References
Burman, Erica (2008). Developments: Child, Image, Nation. U.K. Routledge
Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Edwards, Anne (2004). Understanding context, understanding practice in early education.
YouTube video: Smart beginnings – The benefits of early childhood

The writers/thinkers that inspired me

All the writers and thinkers whose ideas I have engaged with in regards to the institutionalization of childhood discourse inspired me, according to their unique approach to the subject. However, Dahlberg and Moss’s (2005) ideas in their text, Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education profoundly inspired me. The part of their text that interested me most is how they position themselves in their ideas.
According to Dahlberg and Moss (2005) their approach is to recognise multiple perspectives and identities,the importance of individual choice and responsibility, and to welcome the ensuing diversity and plurality. However, for them this does not mean that they adopt a position in which every perspective is of equal value and merit, a relativism in which everything goes. "We make choices, which we recognize as ethical and political, and we take responsibility for those choices; they cannot be determined for us by some objective assessment of evidence or by the weight of expert opinion" (p. 28).
One of the choices and position taken by Dahlberg and Moss(2005) is the choosing of another concept of institutions for children. Their concerpt is 'children's spaces'which according to them has a different rationality to that of 'children's services' - aethertic and ethical rather than instrumental. "The metaphor is the forum or meeting-place, for the concept understands institutions for children as environments where the coming together of children and adults, the being and thinking beside each other, offers many possibilities - cultural and social, but also economic, political, ethical, aethetic, physical.  Another important position chosen by Dahlberg and Moss is their veiw of preschools; which according to them is radically at odds with a market rationality, and thus determining their views about policy.  They believe that like schools, preschools should be publicly funded and children should be entitled to go to them either from birth or, as in Sweden, from 12 months of age (after a period of well-paid parental leave shared between mothers and fathers): going to a preschool should not be conditional on, e.g. the employment of a parent or on a child being categorised as 'in need' (p. 29).   
Institutionalization of childhood in Dahlberg and Moss's perspective is not necessarily a bad thing. But they point out that “it does demand of us - as adults – to take responsibility for what we have set in motion, in particular to look critically at the conditions for childhood that we are creating (p. 3). Dahlberg and Moss's positioning of themselves is the one that I also would like to strive for in my role as a teacher, a co-worker and a world citizen.

References

Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Institutionalization

Historically where institutionalization has taken place especially in regards to children’s education the implications later became the very opposite of what was originally intended.   For example, according to the government policy during the times of residential schools for Aboriginal children, “The government felt children were easier to mould than adults and the concept of a boarding school was the best way to prepare them for life in mainstream  society”   (www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/residentialschools).    What has changed now from the times of residential schools in educational policies? The following is the World Bank’s view on early childhood education “Early childhood is a particularly fruitful area for investment, because the greatest changes to children’s attitudes and outlook can be wrought while children are very young” (Helen Penn, 2008; 383).  Looking at the two perspectives the resonance between them is worrisome.   I realize that the comparison might be extreme, because the residential school children, and their families had no choice in the matter – while families today can choose to enrol their children in early childhood programs or not.  The point that I am trying to make is that those initiating the residential school system strongly believed that it was in the best interest for the Aboriginal children; just as much as we have the same belief in regards to early childhood education.

            According to Foucault “Power is a relationship of struggle (Belsey, 2002) to dominate the meanings we give to our lives.  More specifically, power is a relationship of struggle over how we use truths and build discourses about normality to produce and regulate ourselves, our relationships, and our institutions, especially our production of normality (Alvesson, 2002).  This struggle plays out persistently in organised bodies of knowledge as attempts to define, categorise, classify and organise people” (Sarup, 1988).  Foucault’s theory on power I find to echo our way of life today.  Much as I recognize the necessity for structure within societies, which translates into the need for authority that requires some element of power to govern; Foucault’s theory on power should reinforce the need for caution by those of us that find ourselves in positions of authority.   Because like in the words of a late British historian and moralist, Baron Acton “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

References

Foucault, M. (1980).  Journeys to activism: Becoming postsructurally reflective about truth. 
 Penn, Helen (2008).  Working on the impossible: Early childhood policies in Namibia.  SAGE Publications. Los, London, New Delhi & Singapore. 

How did we get here?

Gunilla Dahlberg and Peter Moss (2005) attribute the institutionalization of childhood to the sudden interest in early childhood education and care, by industrialized countries and international organizations that took root in the 90s.   According to Gunilla Dahlberg and Peter Moss (2005) the subject of early childhood education and care is on the agenda today not only of those who work in the field but also of others who, until recently, have shown little interest, such as politicians, economists and businessmen and businesswomen.  This heightened interest has converted into increasing levels of provision in many countries, part of a process of the institutionalisation of childhood (Preface).  What sparked this interest?

            Michelle J. Newman (OECD 2001) indicates that early childhood education and care (ECEC) soared on to the policy agendas of OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries in the 1990s.   Policy interest in the early years has been spurred by brain research, showing that the first few years of life are critical for a child’s early development and learning (Shore, 1997; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).  At the same time, the growing proportion of working mothers has created a pressing need for child care (OECD, 1999a).  Policy-makers, business leaders and parents increasingly recognize the dual role of quality early childhood services in promoting children’s cognitive skills, school readiness and social behaviour (Karoly et al., 1998; OECD, 1999b),  and in supporting their working parents (OECD, 2001; Committee for Economic Development, 2002).

            The interest in early childhood education and care has not been confined within the OECD countries but has also been spread to other parts of the world through international organisations like UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank.  For example,  the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has an active program of publication on early childhood policy (see www.unesco.org), while the World Bank is one of the main donors that support a range of ECEC programmes in the Majority World, maintains a website on Early Childhood Development (see www.worldbank.org/children), commissions publications and organises regional and global conferences (Penn, 2002).  According to Helen Penn (2008) donor initiatives to recipient countries focuses on the idea of human capital theory; with the belief that investment in education is likely to result in a variety of enhanced opportunities for individuals, which in turn leads to a more productive economy (P. 382).  Similarly UNICEF is a key player in all matters affecting children and their communities.  The following is a text on what it stands for, “UNICEF is the driving force that helps build a world where the rights of every child are realized.   We have the global authority to influence decision-makers, and the variety of partners at grassroots level to turn the most innovative ideas into reality” (www.unicef.org).

References

Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2005).  Ethics and politics in early childhood education.  London: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Newman, Michelle J. (OECD 2001).  Governance of early childhood education and care: recent developments in OECD countries.  Columbia University, New York, USA.

Penn, Helen (2008).  Working on the impossible: Early childhood policies in Namibia.  SAGE Publications. Los, London, New Delhi & Singapore. 

Institutionalization of childhood as force for good?

  In Gunilla Dahlberg and Peter Moss’s (2005) view the expansion of early childhood education and care opens up new possibilities - for the children, for families, and the communities (Preface).  Dahlberg and Moss’s view is supported by the OECD (2001) report which indicates that providing services for young children and their families has moved up the policy agenda in many countries.  For example, according to the report, countries that spent less for public expenditures like the USA and the UK are now spending more.  While countries like Denmark and Sweden, that previously spent more for their public expenditures, expanded further -  by introducing entitlements to provision for children from 12 months of age and upwards.  Overall according to the OECD (2001) report the increased policy interest has ‘fostered several major developments in the field, including rapid expansion of early childhood provision, increased focus on quality improvement, attention to coherence and integration, and higher levels of public investment in the system as a whole (ibid: 45).

            The reality is that not all OECD member countries live up to the report indicated above, due to some governments failing to meet their end of the bargain monetarily; however, I agree that great strides have been made in the field due to the expansion, which has been of benefit to the children, their families and the educators.  For example, the ‘increased focus on quality improvement’ as indicated in the OECD report ensures that children are educated and cared for in a professional environment; hence allowing the parents to focus on their occupations with less worry.   For the educators the expansion brought to light the necessity of professionally learn programs thus giving credibility to child care workers as educators, rather than child minders.  The expansion also gave us leverage of negotiating for better terms and conditions, thus contributing to the slightly improved wages and benefits that some of us enjoy – especially for those that work in unionized centres.  Another important aspect of the institutionalization of childhood is that children, from poor countries have also gained through early childhood and care initiatives - by international organizations.  Therefore, I believe that certain aspects of institutionalization of childhood are a force for good.  

References

Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2005).  Ethics and politics in early childhood education.  London: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.