Advertisement

Economistic Subjects: Questioning Early Childhood Pedagogies of Learning, Participation, and Voice

  • Emma Buchanan
Part of the Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood book series (CCSC)

Abstract

At both national and global levels, instrumental, human capital logics are seen to dominate contemporary rationales for the investment in, and expansion of, early childhood education (ECE) (Farquhar & Fitzsimons, 2013; Stuart, 2013). In scholarly commentary, primarily economic rationales for investment in ECE are often related with standardized conceptions of curriculum. Standardization is typically seen to derive from psychological understandings of universal developmental stages (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2007) or from “schoolified” emphases on discrete knowledge and skills (Lee, Carr, Soutar, & Mitchell, 2013). A common critical response to these developments is to advocate for early childhood pedagogies that foreground diverse forms of learning, children’s participation, and voice. Such approaches are often framed as offering an unambiguous and positive alternative to dominant instrumental logics. Moreover, a pedagogical focus on the child as a competent, and what is often described as “agentic,” learner is advanced by advocates as a move toward a more democratic form of ECE (Mitchell & Carr, 2014).

Keywords

Early Childhood Early Childhood Education Assessment Practice Curriculum Document Curriculum Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biesta, G. (2013). Interrupting the politics of learning. Power and Education, 5(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan, E. (2011). Assessment in New Zealand early childhood education: A Foucauldian analysis. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1691Google Scholar
  3. Carr, M. (1998). Assessing children’s experiences in early childhood: Final report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning stories. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, M., Jones, C., & Lee, W. (2005). Beyond listening: Can assessment practice play a part? In A. Clark, A. T. Kjørhol, & P. Moss (Eds.), Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services (pp. 129–150). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, M., & Lee, W. (2012). Learning stories: Constructing learner identities in early education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, M., May, H., & Podmore, V. (1998). Learning and teaching stories: New approaches to assessment and evaluation in relation to Te Whāriki: Symposium for8th European Conference on Quality in Early Childhood Settings, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September 1998. Wellington: Institute for Early Childhood Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, M., Smith, A. B., Duncan, J., Jones, C., Lee, W., & Marshall, K. (2009). Learning in the making: Disposition and design in early education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Carter, M. (2008). From critique to possibility: New Zealand’s radical approach to assessment. In A. Pelo (Ed.), Rethinking early childhood education (pp. 119–120). Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.Google Scholar
  10. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. R. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Drummond, M. J. (2003). Assessing children’s learning (2nd ed.). London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
  12. Duhn, I. (2006). Cartographies of childhood: Mapping the modern/global child (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2292/375Google Scholar
  13. Farquhar, S. (2008). Narrative identity: Ricoeur and early childhood education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2292/2625Google Scholar
  14. Farquhar, S., & Fitzsimons, P. (2013, December 6–9). Starting strong III: Unpacking the metaphor. Paper presented at the Measuring Up: Proceedings of the 43rd PESA Annual Conference Melbourne.Google Scholar
  15. Farquhar, S., & Fleer, M. (2007). Developmental colonisation of early childhood education in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia. In L. Keesing-Styles & H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues (pp. 27–49). Castle Hill: Pademelon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fendler, L. (2001). Educating flexible souls: The construction of subjectivity through developmentality and interaction. In G. Dahlberg & K. Hultqvist (Eds.), Governing the child in the new millennium (pp. 119–142). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  17. Fendler, L. (2010). Michel Foucault. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  19. Graham, L. J. (2011). The product of text and “other” statements: Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 43(6), 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hatherly, A., & Sands, L. (2002). So what is different about learning stories? The first years: Ngā Tau Tuatahi. New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 4(1), 8–12.Google Scholar
  21. Hedges, H. (2013). The future of Te Whāriki: Political, pedagogical and professional concerns. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 277–298). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  22. Hultqvist, K. (2004). The traveling state, the nation, and the subject of education. In B. M. Baker & K. E. Heyning (Eds.), Dangerous coagulations?: The uses of Foucault in the study of education (pp. 153–187). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, W., Carr, M., Soutar, B., & Mitchell, L. (2013). Understanding the Te Whāriki approach: Early years education in practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying post-structural ideas. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCulloch, G. (1992). Introduction. In G. McCulloch (Ed.), The school curriculum in New Zealand: History, theory, policy and practice (pp. 9–25). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopunao Aotearoa. Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Education. (2004). Kei Tua o te Pae Assessment for Learning: Early childhood exemplars. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of Education. (2009). Te Whatu Pōkeka: Kaupapa Māori Assessment for Learning: Early childhood exemplars. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, L., & Carr, M. (2014). Democratic and learning-oriented assessment practices in early childhood care and education in New Zealand. Early childhood care and education working papers series. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  31. Mutch, C. (2003). One context, two outcomes: A comparison of Te Whāriki and the New Zealand curriculum framework. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te W h āriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 111–130). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  32. Nuttall, J. (2003). Exploring the role of the teacher within Whāriki: Some possibilities and constraints. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 161–186). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  33. O’Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Olssen, M., & Morris Matthews, K. (Eds.). (1995). Education, democracy and reform. Auckland: New Zealand Association for Research in Education in conjunction with the Research Unit for Maori Education, Education Dept., University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  35. Paki, V. A. (2007). Kimihia, rangahaua ngā tikanga heke iho he taonga huahua e riro mai. Exploring whakapapa as a tool towards a kaupapa Maori assessment framework in early childhood education. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Waikato, Hamilton. Retrieved from http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2285Google Scholar
  36. Pufall, P. B., & Unsworth, R. P. (2004). The imperative and process forrethinking child hood. In P. B. Pufall & R. P. Unsworth (Eds.), Rethinking childhood (pp. 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rameka, L. K. (2011). Being Māori: Culturally relevant assessment in early childhood education. Early Years, 31(3), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritchie, J. (2003). Te Whāriki as a potential lever for bicultural development. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 79–110). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  39. Ritchie, J. (2013). Te Whāriki and the promise of early childhood care and education grounded in a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 141–156). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2008). The governmentalization of learning and the assemblage of a learning apparatus. Educational Theory, 58(4), 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, A. B. (2007). Children’s rights and early childhood education: Links to theory and advocacy. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  42. Stuart, M. (2013). A trinity of saviours—parent, teacher and child: Human capital theory and early childhood education in New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(4), 51–57.Google Scholar
  43. Te One, S. (2003). The context for Te Whāriki: Contemporary issues of inf lu-ence. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 17–48). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  44. Tuschling, A., & Engemann, C. (2006). From education to lifelong learning: The emerging regime of learning in the European Union. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 38(4), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White, E. J. (2009). Assessment in New Zealand early childhood education: A Bakhtinian analysis of toddler metaphoricity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/198069Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Theodora Lightfoot-Rueda and Ruth Lynn Peach 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma Buchanan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations