Advertisement

Discourses/6. England: The Position of Children’s Rights in the Discourse on Citizenship. The Case of the Early Years Foundation Stage for England

  • Federico FariniEmail author
Chapter
  • 244 Downloads
Part of the International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development book series (CHILD, volume 25)

Abstract

In 2015, the Early Years Inspection Handbook instructed inspectors to make a judgement on the effectiveness of leadership and management to actively promote British Values in the settings. In the new inspection framework, cooperation, freedom, responsibility, that is, the Fundamental British Values, are understood as social skills to be learnt.

It is argued in this chapter, that the interpretation of Fundamental British Values as a form of learning outcome is a significant example of the cultural presuppositions underpinning legislation and policies of Early Years Education and Care in England over the last 10 years. Whilst early education is approached as a crucial phase for a healthy development of the child as a citizen in the future, the concept of citizenship remains ambiguous. Citizenship is pursued as the future outcome of a learning process designed and led by the adult, rather than experienced by children in the ‘here and now’ of their educational journey.

This chapter suggests that a consequence of the paradoxical status of citizenship in early education is that discourse on education to citizenship, as well as children’s citizenship in education, are absorbed by technical concerns about the implementation of pedagogical means. This entails neglecting that citizenship is experienced and articulated as a practice embedded within the day-to-day reality of children as of adults.

References

  1. Advisory Group on Citizenship. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools (The Crick Report). London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  2. Angers, J., & Machtmes, K. L. (2005). An ethnographic-case study of beliefs, context factors, and practices of teachers integrating technology. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 771–794. Available at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol10/iss4/8. Accessed 12.2.2018.
  3. Atkinson, P. A., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 56–75). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Autorità Garante per l’Infanzia e l’Adolescenza. (2015). La convenzione sui diritti. Available at: http://www.garanteinfanzia.org/diritti. Accessed 12.2.2017.
  5. Baraldi, C. (2014). Children’s participation in communication systems: A theoretical perspective to shape research. Soul of Society: A Focus on the Lives of Children and Youth, 18(18), 63–92s.Google Scholar
  6. Baraldi, C. (2015). Promotion of migrant children’s epistemic status and authority in early school life. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baraldi, C., & Corsi, G. (2016). Niklas Luhmann. Education as a social system. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Biesta, G., & Lawy, R. (2006). From teaching citizenship to learning democracy: Overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bingham, S., & Whitebread, D. (2012). School readiness. A critical review of perspectives and evidence. London: TACTYC.Google Scholar
  10. Board of Education. (1923). Report on the teaching of history. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton, D., & May, S. (2015). Citizenship education in secondary schools in England. Educational Futures, 7(1), 76–91.Google Scholar
  13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Department for Education. (2014a). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework%2D%2D2. Accessed: 12 Feb 2018.
  15. Department for Education. (2014b). Promoting FBV as part of SMSC. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380595/SMSC_Guidance_Maintained_Schools.pdf. Accessed: 12.2.2018.
  16. Department for Education. (2014c). Listening to and involving children and young people. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/listening-to-and-involving-children-and-young-people. Accessed 12.2.2018.
  17. Department for Education. (2015). Inspecting registered early years providers: Guidance for inspectors. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-inspection-handbook-from-september-2015. Accessed 12.2.2018.
  18. Department for Education. (2015b). Working together to safeguard children. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children%2D%2D2. Accessed: 01.04.2017.
  19. Dimitrijevic, N. (2015). Constitutional theory in times of crisis. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(3), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzioni, A. (1995). New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues, institutions, and communities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  21. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freud, S. (2011). Totem and taboo. London: Greentop Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Health and Social Care Board. (2012). Childminding and day care for Children Under Age 12. Available at: http://www.early-years.org/misc-docs/mim-standards-implement.pdf. Accessed: 01.04.2017.
  24. Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 19(4), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodgson, N. (2008). Citizenship education, policy, and the educationalization of educational research. Educational Theory, 58(4), 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jerome, L. (forthcoming). Interpreting children’s rights education (CRE): Three perspectives and three roles for teachers. Citizenship, Social and Economic Education.Google Scholar
  27. Jerome, L., & Clemitshaw, G. (2012). Teaching (about) Britishness? An investigation into trainee teachers’ understanding of Britishness in relation to citizenship and the discourse of civic nationalism. The Curriculum Journal, 23(1), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joerges, C., Sand, I. J., & Teubner, G. (2004). Constitutionalism and transnational governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kumm, M., Lang, A., Tully, J., & Wiener, A. (2014). How large is the world of global constitutionalism? Global Constitutionalism, 3(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kymlicka, W. (2008). Education for citizenship. In J. Arthur & I. Davies (Eds.), Citizenship education (pp. 128–150). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research. Airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative Report, 8(1), 100–103.Google Scholar
  33. Larkin, C. (2001). Citizenship education or crowd control? The Crick report and the role of peace education and conflict resolution in the new citizenship curriculum. University of Bradford, Working paper. Available at: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/confres/assets/ccr9.pdf. Accessed 12.2.2017.
  34. Lawy, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). Citizenship-as-practice: The educational implications of an inclusive and relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, R. G. (2005). Resources, rights, and environmental regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 32(1), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leonard, M. (2016). The sociology of children, childhood and generation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Lloyd, E. (2015). Early childhood education and care policy in England under the Coalition Government. London Review of Education, 13(2), 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luhmann, N. (1981). Selbstlegitimation des Staates. In N. Achtenberg & W. Krawietz (Eds.), Legitimation des modernen Staates (pp. 65–83). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
  39. Madeley, H. M. (1920). History as a school of citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mattheis, C. (2012). The system theory of Niklas Luhmann and the constitutionalization of the world society. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 4(2), 625–647.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, D. (2000). Citizenship: What does it mean and why is it important? In N. Pearce & J. Hallgarten (Eds.), Tomorrow’s citizens. Critical debates in citizenship and education (pp. 26–35). London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  43. Moss, P. (2009). There are alternatives! Markets and democratic experimentalism in early childhood education and care. The Hague: Bernard Van Leer Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. O’Connor, D., & Angus, J. (2013). Give them time – an analysis of school readiness in Ireland’s early education system. Education 3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education,(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  45. O’Sullivan, F. W. (2014). Citizenship education: An investigation of Crick’s model and citizenship coordinators’ perceptions of the subject’s purpose. Worcester: The University of Worcester.Google Scholar
  46. Office for Standard in Education. (2014). Are you ready? Good practices in school readiness. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418819/Are_you_ready_Good_practice_in_school_readiness.pdf. Accessed 12.2.2018.
  47. Olssen, M. (2004). From the Crick report to the Parekh report: Multiculturalism, cultural difference, and democracy – the re-visioning of citizenship education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(2), 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Osler, A. (2000). The Crick report: Difference, equality and racial justice. Curriculum Journal, 11(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Osler, A. (2011). Teacher interpretations of citizenship education: National identity, cosmopolitan ideals, and political realities. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Osler, O., & Starkey, H. (2006). Education for democratic citizenship: A review of research, policy and practice during 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 433–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Piaget, J. (2011). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scollan, A., & Gallagher, B. (2016). Personal and socio-emotional development and technology. In L. Kaye (Ed.), Young children in a digital age (pp. 113–133). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). Understanding the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and progression in learning in early childhood. Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 3–13.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, N., Lister, R., Middleton, S., & Cox, L. (2005). Young people as real citizens: Towards an inclusionary understanding of citizenship. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(4), 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Teubner, G. (1988). Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  60. Teubner, G. (2010). Constitutionalising polycontexturality. Social and Legal Studies, 19, 327–341.Google Scholar
  61. Teubner, G. (2013). The project of constitutional sociology: Irritating nation state constitutionalism. Transnational Legal Theory, 4(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teubner, G. (2014). Constitutional fragments, societal constitutionalism and globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. The Guardian. (2014, August 8). Childcare experts dismayed by plans to cut funding for childcare that does not promote “FBV”. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/aug/08/childcare-funding-british-values-early-years-education. Accessed 12.2.2018.
  64. Tomlinson, S. (2005). Race, ethnicity and education under New Labour. Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vanderstraeten, R. (2006). The historical triangulation of education, politics and economy. Sociology, 40(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Verschraegen, G. (2011). Hybrid constitutionalism, fundamental rights and the state: A response to Gunther Teubner. Rechtsfilosofie & Rechtstheorie, 40(3), 216–229.Google Scholar
  67. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  68. Wyness, M. (2014). Childhood. London: Polity.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health and SocietyUniversity of NorthamptonNorthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations