“Whatever happens in education is influenced by pedagogy…. and what happens in pedagogy, teaching styles, curriculum and so on, is the outcome of certain policies adopted by schools or educational institutions or governmental bureaucracies… Education can never be neutral” (Marshall, Coxon, Jenkins & Jones, 2000, p. 9).
My first blog provided a brief history of the social and historical climate in which our ECE system developed. The political rationale for government’s investment in ECE over a century ago began with the concern for the welfare of young children, with an intention to support the mothering role. In time, concerns for equity involving women’s rights, indigenous rights and children’s rights continued to drive policies supportive of investment in ECE. From the 1990s and onwards, the political focus on ECE has been guided by a discourse on ‘quality’ participation (May 2002).
According to Ceglowski and Bacigaupa (2002) national childcare policies are shaped by research on the quality of child care. Government recognises that quality ECE contributes to society as it lays the foundation for children’s learning. One of the reasons for measuring the ‘quality’ of an ECE service is to determine the cost of delivery of quality factors, believed to positively influence children’s learning. These quality indicators are measured by adult to child ratios, group size, staff experience and qualifications, wage and working conditions, stability of staff, adult to child and child to child interactions, environment and age appropriate learning experiences (Mitchell, 2002).
The 2002 Strategic Plan demonstrated the Labour government’s belief in the importance of quality ECE in its three core goals which include; “increasing participation in quality ECE services, improving quality…. [and] promoting collaborative relationships.” The notion of providing quality ECE carried with it the declaration that Government would be financially supportive particularly in its goal for a fully qualified teaching staff (for teacher led services) by 2012 (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 8). However with the recent change in government and its $400 million funding cuts to ECE implemented in February 2011, these goals for quality may prove a challenge to maintain.
According to McConnell the concept of ‘quality’ in ECE has its roots in the world of business which carries implications, such as the need for measurement, assessment, accountability and outcomes (personal communication, April 5, 2011). Critical theorists Dahlberg, Moss and Pence (1999) suggest that the dominant discourse of quality needs to be questioned as it involves measurement, and seeks answers for how best to achieve desired outcomes and cost effectiveness. Whose perspective of quality ECE is this? Is policy informed from the perspective of researchers, parents, teachers or children? Our understanding of ‘quality’ is shaped by values and beliefs, cultural influences and perspectives of childhood and therefore measurement of ‘quality’ is subjective.
May and Mitchell’s (2009, p. 4) report in favour of “strengthening community-based early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand” highlights its 2020 vision that “every child has a right as a citizen to participate in free ECE and every family that wishes to can access high quality, community-Based ECE.” However we have recently witnessed a shift away from the state’s support for the provision of free community based ECE, as further revealed by withdrawal of the word ‘free’ in Labour’s 2007’ 20 hours free’ policy. The policy decisions enacted by Government in last year’s ECE budget has caused considerable concern for early childhood educators, managers of ECE services and parents who in many settings have begun to feel the financial effects through increasing childcare fees. Therefore it is important that in a time of tight budgets, when difficult choices are made that we make sure our very limited resources are spent on priorities whilst remaining firmly committed to delivering a professional quality ECE for young children in Aotearoa New Zealand.
References:
Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four perspectives on child care
Quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (2), 87-92.
Quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (2), 87-92.
Dahlber, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives [ebrary reader version]. Retrieved from ebrary database, http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED433943.pd
Marshall, J., Coxon, E., Jenkins, K., & Jones, A. (2000). Politics, Policy Pedagogy: Education in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
May, H. (2002). Early childhood care and education in Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. McGill Journal of Education, 37(1), 19-36. Retrieved April, 2011 from Proquest. (Document ID: 202687706).
May, H., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Strengthening community-based early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Report of the quality public early childhood education project. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/ECE/Report_QPECE_project_web.pdf
Ministry of Education, (2002). Pathways to the future: Ngā huarahi arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Mitchell, L. (2002). Differences between community owned and privately owned early childhood education and care centres: A review of evidence. NZCER Occasional paper 2002/2. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/11743.pdf
Peaceful rally Hastings- 16th April 2011
 |
| Peaceful rally to highlight concerns over government fundings cuts to ECE |
Peaceful rally Hastings- 16th April 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment