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
Friday, April 8, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)