Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood

ISSN 1463-9491

Volume 3 Number 1 2002

CONTENTS

[click on author's name for abstract and full text]
 

Editorial, pages 1-2
Sally Lubeck & Adrianna Kezar. Constructions of Head Start as an Organization: views from the field, pages 3-18
Marilyn Fleer. Where Do We Put Our Research Efforts? An Investigation of the Perceived Research Needs of Early Childhood Professionals, pages 19-37
Lourdes Diaz Soto & Beth Blue Swadener. Toward Liberatory Early Childhood Theory, Research and Praxis: decolonizing a field, pages 38-66
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry. Who’s Ready for What? Young Children Starting School, pages 67-89
Jeanette Rhedding-Jones. An Undoing of Documents and Other Texts: towards a critical multiculturalism in early childhood education, pages 90-116
Margaret Sims, Teresa Hutchins, Chris Dimovich. Juniors minding Junior: the experiences of junior child care workers, pages 117-131
COLLOQUIA
Jackie Marsh. Electronic Toys: why should we be concerned? A Response to Levin & Rosenquest (2001), pages 132-138
Liz Jones. Derrida Goes to Nursery School: deconstructing young children’s stories, pages 139-146
BOOK REVIEWS VIEW FULL TEXT
Play and Literacy in Children’s Worlds (Bronwyn Beecher & Leonie Arthur), reviewed by Sandra Lennox, page 147
Hands Off! The Disappearance of Touch in the Care of Children (Richard T. Johnson), reviewed by Courtney C. Bentley Ewald, page 149
Experiencing Reggio Emilia: implications for pre-school provision, (Lesley Abbott & Cathy Nutbrown, Eds), reviewed by Anne Wilks, page 153

Editorial

In this, the first issue of another new year in the third millennium, we begin with an eclectic mix of interesting articles. They not only reflect the multidisciplinary and dynamic nature of early childhood as a discipline, but also the strength of the field in times of uncertainty and confusion. Now in its third year, it is timely to consider the range and impact of a journal such as Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Our origins came from discontent with traditional views of young children, their families, early childhood education and a need for a discussion arena for ideas that we considered essential as we entered the new millennium. The articles that have been published in the journal have been at the forefront of new thinking in early childhood education and we continue to seek articles that challenge early childhood educators and all those who interact with young children and their families in a variety of contexts.

In the first article, Sally Lubeck & Adrianna Kezar interrogate constructions of Head Start as an organisation. They use data from interviews with Head Start members from seven grantee agencies to discuss the ways in which each context provides different perspectives for viewing Head Start as an organisation. From the interviews with the staff members, Lubeck & Kezar show that the alternative frames that they offer elucidate the ways in which we create and are constructed by the social milieu in which Head Start programmes operate. The article argues that such frames provide new and effective possibilities for how Head Start could be organised, with implications for programme improvements.

Marilyn Fleer surveyed a large number of Australian early childhood educators who worked in various contexts related to early childhood education. Her article outlines the need for policy to be based on empirical data and for research efforts in the discipline to be coordinated. Fleer makes the point that although early childhood policy-makers around the world have identified the need for evidence-based research, we need to consider what early childhood professionals see as important research projects.

In the next article, Lourdes Soto & Beth Swadener undertake an extensive literature review that is aimed towards liberatory early childhood theory, research and praxis. They consider the role of critical pedagogy in early childhood education and for the purpose of the literature review, identify six loosely connected categories that represent the changing landscape of early childhood education. The article concludes with a discussion of social justice and liberatory praxis as a space in which there are new possibilities for hybridity in theorising, researching and enacting early childhood education.

Sue Dockett & Bob Perry ask, ‘Who is ready for what?’ in relation to starting school in the state of New South Wales, Australia. The article begins with a brief survey of research about school readiness and discusses four different views of readiness. It then reports results of a survey conducted with children, parents and educators about their concepts of school readiness. A range of responses serves to highlight the varying nature of experiences for different children, making context a pivotal feature of concepts about readiness. Different people (children, parents and teachers) have different understandings and expectations about being ready for school, and look for different things as indicators that children are prepared for school.

In a contribution from Norway, Jeanette Rhedding-Jones uses anecdotes, documents and personal experiences to identify how childhoods are ethnicised by children, adults, texts and discourses. She believes we need further understanding about how this happens, particularly in relation to the influence of dominant religious, ethnic, language and literacy practices. The premise attached to such critical understanding is that change can then occur, and Rhedding-Jones provides some unique ideas about how this might be approached.

Margaret Sims, Teresa Hutchins & Chris Dimovich discuss a disturbing practice that is occurring in childcare centres in Western Australia. They researched the experiences of childcare workers aged 14‑16 years. Employing these workers violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The workers were placed in positions where they were engaged in menial tasks and were often left alone in charge of young children. The authors argue that the young workers could have made a valuable contribution as adjunct assistants, and that this would have had benefits for both the workers and the young children in their care. Other issues discussed in the article include the health and welfare of the young employees, ways in which they were disempowered, and the need for clear specification of responsibilities in regulations.

In the first colloquium, Jackie Marsh responds to the article by Levin & Rosenquest (in this journal, Volume 2, Number 2, 2001). This is followed by Liz Jones, who takes Derrida, a deconstruction theorist, into the English nursery school to open possibilities for creating spaces for thinking differently about young children’s stories.

Three book reviews complete this issue. Sandra Lennox writes about Play and Literacy in Children’s Worlds by Bronwyn Beecher & Leonie Arthur (2001). In the second review, Courtney C. Bentley Ewald considers Hands Off: the disappearance of touch in the care of children, written by Richard T. Johnson (2000). Finally, Anne Wilks contemplates Experiencing Reggio Emilia: implications for pre-school provision, edited by Lesley Abbott & Cathy Nutbrown (2001).

Constructions of Head Start as an Organization: views from the field

SALLY LUBECK University of Michigan, USA
ADRIANNA KEZAR University of Maryland, USA

Head Start is the American anti-poverty program that, over time, has served more than 18 million children. For this article, the authors culled interviews with Head Start staff members across seven grantee agencies to explore how people talk about the organization and invest it with meaning. They illustrate how the varying discursive constructions (e.g. metaphors and ‘frames’) staff members employ are similar to interpretative frames that have been used by organizational theorists over the last century (structural or rational/formal, organic, human resources, etc.) It is argued that alternative frames are useful for understanding how we construct and are constructed by the social fields in which we operate, and for imagining new possibilities for organizational life.

Where Do We Put Our Research Efforts? An Investigation of the Perceived Research Needs of Early Childhood Professionals

MARILYN FLEER University of Monash, Frankston, Australia

In many countries around the world, policy developers have argued for evidence-based policy development. In some countries, demonstrating the long-term outcomes of early childhood education has become an important goal. However, what does the early childhood profession believe? This article reports on a study that examined the research needs in Australia for supporting early childhood education. The findings have relevance for early childhood education across the international community.

Toward Liberatory Early Childhood Theory, Research and Praxis: decolonizing a field

LOURDES DIAZ SOTO Teachers College, Columbia University, and Pennsylvania State University, USA
BETH BLUE SWADENER Arizona State University, USA

This article surveys the emergence and application of critical pedagogy to the field of early childhood education in the USA and beyond. It explores selected portions of the field’s vast body of literature vis-à-vis loosely configured and intersecting lines of research and praxis. The field continues to expand, with positivist orientations of child development, postmodern critical reconceptualizing models, and post-colonial discourse spaces. The article concludes with a discussion of liberatory praxis as a space of possibility and suggests post-colonial hybridity as a framework for the field of early childhood education.

Who’s Ready for What? Young Children Starting School

SUE DOCKETT & BOB PERRY University of Western Sydney, Australia

Each year, as children start formal schooling, there are discussions between parents and educators about children who are, or are not, ‘ready for school’. The first section of this article examines issues of readiness, definitions of readiness, and considers some implications of decisions about children’s readiness status. Following this, and in the context of different perspectives of readiness, the views of Australian children, parents and educators are considered. These views indicate some similarities between the expectations of parents and educators, and some differences between what children and adults regard as important in the transition to school. Implications for early childhood education and educators are considered.

An Undoing of Documents and Other Texts: towards a critical multiculturalism in early childhood education

JEANETTE RHEDDING-JONES Oslo University College, Norway

This is an attempt to demonstrate a critical practice of thinking, reading, teaching and observing. As such, it addresses the constitution of ‘the child’ and ‘the student teacher’ in discourses/documents regarding ethnicity. Pedagogical day care as pre-schooling is the target, though this blurs thematically with schooling, family, higher education and other institutions and communities. A critical textual deconstruction is the methodology, as theories of culture and discourse focus on the complexities of ethnicities, languages and gender. These are pointed to rather than systematically analysed for conclusions and strong arguments. Cameos of interactions and samples of text analysis thus mark an essay intended to set in motion waves of change. The aim is to show various texts as sites of institutional and personal support for and against dominant discourses, and the political effects of these.

Juniors minding Junior: the experiences of junior childcare workers

MARGARET SIMS & TERESA HUTCHINS Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
CHRIS DIMOVICH Children’s Services Consultant, Perth, Australia

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a child (any person under 18) has the right to be protected from work which is exploitative or threatens their normal development. International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 further defines particularly hazardous or demeaning child labour. This research project investigates the experiences of junior (aged 14‑16) childcare workers in Western Australia (WA) working under conditions which violate these conventions. The childcare sector has undergone changes, resulting in the employment of an increased number of juniors. These young people work for low wages, are given a high level of responsibility, and are often unassertive, inarticulate and unaware of their industrial rights. The research draws on workers’ own accounts of their work experiences to document and analyse the current situation, and makes recommendations for action.

Electronic Toys: why should we be concerned? A Response to Levin & Rosenquest (2001)

JACKIE MARSH University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

In an earlier issue of Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Levin & Rosenquest (2001) suggested that early years educators should be concerned about the increasing use of electronic toys because of their perceived limitations in terms of fostering children’s imaginative and creative play. In this response, I propose that such a stance reflects a generalised ‘moral panic’ that is often adopted in relation to electronic innovations and suggest tat there is a need to develop further research which examines carefully the impact of such technology on the communicative practices that are currently taking place in contemporary childhoods.

Derrida Goes to Nursery School: deconstructing young children’s stories

LIZ JONES Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

In many ways, an engagement between Derrida and teacher research seems an unlikely affair. However, this article attempts to illustrate some of the benefits of a liaison between the two. Using data generated from practice in a nursery classroom, the article details some of the advantages when practices of deconstruction are incorporated into practitioner research. It exemplifies how deconstructive thinking can be put to work in confronting young boys’ dependency on ‘superhero’ play. Additionally, the article demonstrates how deconstructive thinking seeks to dismantle habitual ways of thinking in order to create a space for thinking differently.

© SYMPOSIUM JOURNALS
a division of wwwords Ltd
PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford OX11 9ZQ, United Kingdom
info@symposium-journals.co.uk
www.symposium-journals.co.uk