Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

International comparisons strongly influence national policy agendas in the early years. However, an appreciation of details and national context and differences is imperative to promote democracy. From the perspective of a Danish social pedagogue¹ lecturing in Early Childhood Studies in England, the author presents a cross-national comparison to elicit parallels and differences in discourses of democracy and schoolification within early years curriculum policies in England and Denmark. An initial discussion of democracy and schoolification leads to a consideration of the differing welfare contexts and quality assurance processes that inform the curriculum frameworks. The influence of schoolification is exemplified in a detailed analysis of the raised expectations with regard to language assessment in England and Denmark. This discussion reveals the tensions between local democratic participation in early years communities and policy agendas that emphasize preparation for school. The article explores how the limitations of a schoolification discourse, which is already dominant in England and becoming more prevalent in Denmark, potentially displacing children, parents and professionals as democratic stakeholders. The conclusion takes the form of an invitation to the early years community, locally, nationally and internationally, to find ways of developing resilience to the pressure of a neo-liberal accountability culture and external governance.

Keywords

Denmark early years curriculum policy democracy England international comparison (language) assessment neo-liberal accountability parents professionals

Introduction: Cross-national comparisons and concern for early years democracy

International comparisons of the early years inform both research and policy, but can be used to promote ideology without an appreciation of the differences of national detail and context (see Cooke and Henehan, 2012; Department for Education, 2013). These comparisons become part of a global discourse which is dominated by market forces, governance and government (Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000; Fairclough, 1992, 2003). Further reviews of early years policy discourses and developments are therefore required to enable us to know how these international comparisons affect the early years, both nationally and internationally.

This article aims to bridge a gap in knowledge of the different ways early years curricula are organized in England and Denmark (Winter-Lindquist, 2013). From the perspective of a Danish pedagogue lecturing in Early Childhood Studies in England, the author presents a cross-national comparison to elicit parallels and differences in the discourse of democracy and schoolification within the policies. Early years democracy can be understood as children and adults taking part in communities of active participation, responsibility, emancipation and egalitarianism (Dahlberg et al., 2007). This democracy is perceived as being threatened by a neo-liberal discourse of accountability and ‘schoolification’ – a term used when the early years are understood as preschooling and not achieving legitimacy on their own terms (Jensen et al., 2010; Klitmøller and Sommer, 2014).

The development of early years curricula is a national policy direction located within the context of a wider movement of harmonization in European education policy (Kampmann, 2013; Sahlberg, 2012). As European early years policies converge, the contrast between a Nordic ‘social pedagogical approach’ and a French/English ‘early education approach’ or ‘readiness for school tradition’ has been identified (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006). Nevertheless, the Nordic/Danish tradition of democracy in early care and education has often been promoted in England (Boddy et al., 2006; Boffey and Rock, 2012; Cooke and Henehan, 2012; Davis, 1998; Moss, 2007, 2010; Penn, 1995; Petrie et al., 2009). In evaluating changes to the Danish early years, examples of English early learning and the involvement of parents have also been presented as inspirational practice in Denmark (Olesen, 2014). A question that arises from this is how such international comparison and harmonization demotes or promotes national and local democracy.

The discussion in this article is based on an analysis of curriculum documents and research within the two countries, and presents a summary of findings, drawing on key document samples to illustrate points. Informed by Fairclough’s (1992, 2003) critical discourse analysis and Bang and Door’s (1995, 1998, 2000) eco-linguistic theory, specific governmental policies are interpreted as representations of the social production and reproduction of power and ideology. In order to illustrate this, examples are presented on how the language used in the curricula contributes to the constitution, reproduction and change of social subjects, relations and situations. While comparing and contrasting key discourses and developments in early years curricula, the author reveals similarities and differences in the positioning of parents, professionals and children (Moreau, 2011, 2015).

The research presented here is based on the view that transparent dialogue and knowledge development in research, policy and practice, both nationally and internationally, are imperative in a democratic society (Cooke and Henehan, 2012; Urban, 2012). From a perspective informed by comparative studies, stakeholders can participate in practice and policy development within the early years and thereby create local, national and international communities that are capable of working towards democracy in the early years (Henry et al., 1999).

Following a brief outline of the early years curriculum frameworks in England and Denmark, the article moves on to expand on the initial notion of early years democracy and schoolification. The article proceeds into an outline of the national and local characteristics of early years schoolification and democracy in England and Denmark, and highlights differences and similarities between the two nations. Considerations of the differing social welfare contexts and quality assurance processes are presented before moving on to an examination of the positioning of parents, practitioners and children within the early years curriculum contexts. Finally, the article illustrates a schoolification discourse in the understanding of children’s language assessment in England and Denmark, and concludes in debating the movements in the early years: democracy versus neo-liberalism.

A brief outline of the current early years curricula in England and Denmark

The Early Years Foundation Stage (Department for Education, 2014) is the current early years curriculum in England, encompassing birth to five years and based in a tradition of early years curricula since 1996. At the age of two, children’s developmental/learning progress is assessed (Department for Education, 2012a), and the Early Learning Goals form a statutory end-of-curriculum assessment of five-year-olds. Compulsory schooling begins from the term after a child’s fifth birthday, but children generally begin school in what is known as a ‘reception class’ in the year they turn five – some only a few weeks after their fourth birthday. The statutory curriculum therefore covers both early years daycare and the beginning of primary school. Although the Early Years Foundation Stage is still statutory and is proposed to remain so, concerns raised with regard to children’s academic attainment have led the government to introduce a baseline assessment of children on entry into the reception class. This will replace the Early Learning Goals from 2016. The aim of the baseline assessment is to provide numerical scores on children’s attainment, which will be linked into school accountability (Brogaard Clausen et al., 2015).

In comparison to the English early years curriculum, the Danish early years curriculum functions as a set of broad-based regulations, and the statutory requirements do not detail a method or provide a specified framework for the individual assessment of children, unlike the more prescriptive English curriculum. The Danish early years curriculum, the Pedagogical Learning Plan, was introduced in 2004 and includes five overall aims and six learning themes (Socialministeriet, 2004). The aims were adjusted in 2007 and 2010, however the learning themes and the stipulation that each individual setting should develop their own learning plan remain. Each setting has to incorporate the overall statutory aims and learning themes statutory requirements, and produce a learning plan for children aged six months to two and a half years, and a learning plan for those between the age of three and school age. Children begin school in what is known as a ‘kindergarten’ class in the autumn term after they turn six. In light of international harmonization, it is important to draw attention to the requirement of a language assessment of all three-year-olds, which was introduced in 2007, and of six-year-olds in kindergarten classes, which was introduced in 2009 and was followed by the kindergarten class becoming compulsory in 2011.

Early years democracy and schoolification: A conceptual examination

The idea of early years democracy has gained strength since the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) and was promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) Starting Strong publication in 2006. The individual’s personal and professional autonomy is essential in creating a democratic environment (Pramling Samuelsson, 2004). This democratic environment provides space for a public voice and (visible) identity formation as children and adults are given opportunities to develop responsibility, take part within a range of democratic communities and influence decisions. Consequently, democracy becomes both content and method. However, as Grindheim (2014: 310) reminds us: ‘democracy is not a settled system or a defined way of governing a community’. It is both changeable and changing. Democracy is an ideal, a way of life where we strive for equality, emancipation and a good life, and where compromise and solidarity are essential as we bring in different interests and conflicting perspectives. As Cohen (1970) originally argued, a democratic ideal is the position from which we should challenge regulations that limit the opportunities of participation in decision-making.

As the importance of early childhood becomes recognized, governments are investing in the education of very young children. With this investment comes policy development, which has brought what K Jensen (2005) calls ‘the discourse of manuals’ into the day-care and teaching professions, forming part of the assumption that such manuals will ensure an appropriate foundation for a future workforce. As governments seek to invest in the development of knowledge capital, comparison and competition in the educational discourse are promoted (Campbell-Barr and Nygaard, 2014; Lloyd and Hallet, 2010; Penn, 2011; Pirard, 2012; Sahlberg, 2012). Following this trend, arguments for international comparisons of school-entry assessments have been made (Tymms et al., 2014). However, the OECD (2006: 219) has identified ‘learning to be’, ‘learning to learn’ and ‘learning to live together’ as important goals for young children, warning that narrow discourses about readiness for school may restrict some of the opportunities children have to reach these goals. In line with this, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2010: 119) warns how such schoolification presents an ‘enhanced risk’, due to the pressure put on early years ‘as a preparation place for school’ – schools that are often perceived as conservative institutions which are not open to dialogue with the early years community. It is suggested that this schoolification pressure on early years communities and the promotion of individual competitive assessment create an accountability culture, where performance pressures threaten democratic values in the early years (British Educational Research Association and Association for the Professional Development of Early Years Educators, 2014; Dahlberg et al., 2007; Kampmann, 2013; Klitmøller and Sommer, 2014; Moss, 2007, 2010, 2013; Petrie et al., 2009; Rose and Rogers, 2012).

Schoolification and neo-liberalism in the English early years curriculum

In a historical review, Brehony and Nawrotzki (2011) established how the centrally set English early years curriculum was based on a positivistic approach, with the neo-liberal focus on creating a future workforce. The emphasis on schoolification was apparent in the introduction of centralized and prescribed learning outcomes in the Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education guidelines (Department for Education and School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 1996). However with the introduction of the Early Years Foundation Stage in 2000 (Department for Education and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2000), children’s play, interests and learning opportunities were emphasized, rather than particular outcomes or goals. A formalized system of assessment of Early Learning Goals was nevertheless introduced in 2002 in order to measure the individual child by the end of reception in a ‘preschool’ assessment (Department for Education and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2002). The assessment was based on prescriptive, normative sequential and predetermined outcomes, which Soler and Miller (2003) critiqued as an instrumentalist approach that was economically driven – restraining, anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. This discourse arguably promoted a neo-liberal ideology of individual competition in a knowledge economy (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Esping-Andersen et al., 2003). A reviewed curriculum in 2007 reiterated a holistic play-focused and less prescriptive curriculum. However, teachers were still required to produce individual profiling of each five-year-old’s attainment, assessed in relation to the 69 Early Learning Goal descriptors (Department for Education and Skills, 2008). Following a change in government, the new coalition government commissioned a review of the curriculum (Tickell, 2011). This review led to a slimming down of the curriculum, citing practitioners’ concerns over a too time-consuming, complex and burdensome curriculum. With a decrease from 69 to 17 Early Learning Goals, the changes were assumed to enable a better transition from the early years to the national curriculum (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2011a).

The English early years curriculum stresses the importance of equal opportunities, participation and an enabling environment, so ‘that every child makes good progress and no child gets left behind’ (Department for Education, 2012b: 2). Normalizing structures and goals have been introduced, based on the assumption that they will ensure later educational and economic achievement (Boddy et al., 2006). However, Basford and Bath (2014) and Simpson (2010) argue that this has meant increased accountability and performance pressure on the early years in England. This accountability culture contradicts evidence that shows how increased and specific targets have little effect on achievement and learning, and promote surface learning (Amrein and Berliner, 2003; Klitmøller and Sommer, 2014; Nichols and Berliner, 2007). Blenkin and Whitehead (1988) and the OECD (2006) warn how a narrow curriculum, where content is organized into neat, logical programmes of instruction, removes the control of the learning process from the child. As Moss (2007: 10) stresses, the focus on achieving narrow normative targets gives ‘no democratic space and gives no encouragement to democratic practice’. Alexander’s (2010) review confirms how such targets apply pressure on children to perform academically at too early an age. This pressure is not limited to children, it consequently affects professionals (and parents), who have to prepare young children for school by writing more, which establishes top-down pressure (Rose and Rogers, 2012). Dahlberg et al. (2007) projected how curricula can be a way of introducing structures for comparison and assessment of performance. This enables governing at a distance, and, in so doing, potentially hinder local democracy and emancipation. These concerns are shared by House (2012), who outlines how the schoolification of the early years in England presents a reductionist understanding of the complexity of young children’s present and future lives. The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years’ (2013) research into school readiness similarly reflects early years professionals’ concerns over a schoolification of the early years. This concern is difficult to refute, as the curriculum specifies the aim of promoting ‘teaching and learning to ensure children’s “school readiness”’, which is assessed against centrally set goals (Department for Education, 2012b: 2).

Early years democracy in the Danish early years curriculum

International research portrays Danish children, parents and professionals as competent citizens who take part in a democracy. They contribute with their varied experiences, points of view, interpretations and ideas within a community (Broström and Wagner, 2003; Einarsdottir and Wagner, 2006; Moss, 2010; Petrie et al., 2009). Children’s self-governed activity and a personal, reflective and relational pedagogy are the key values that underpin the Danish early years. Juul Jensen (2011) and Ringsmose and Kragh-Müller (2013) portray how Danish pedagogues and children do not exist in separate hierarchical domains, but in shared life spaces. The promotion of child–child relationships and interactions places horizontal relationships as equally important as the child’s vertical relationship to the adult (Broström and Frøkjær, 2012). Nonetheless, as discussed above, the democratic focus on equality and emancipation entails an ongoing negotiation of ‘who knows best’ and ‘who makes the decisions’. This has led to research pointing to how professionals do not always sufficiently recognize their own importance (Ringsmose and Kragh-Müller, 2013), and therefore do not take enough of a lead in children’s learning (Broström and Frøkjær, 2012). Koch (2012) proposes that the ideal of a happy and harmonious child is embedded in the democratic Danish early years, which carries the risk of ostracizing the child who does not fit within this ideal. Pedagogues express such concerns, where poor staff–child ratios have been observed to hinder inclusive pedagogy (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2014). These concerns remind us that the ideal of democracy is a daily challenge to ensure inclusion, equality and emancipation.

The Danish tradition of emancipation, autonomy and self-governance meant that there was resistance to external political interference, structure and control when the Pedagogical Learning Plan (Socialministeriet, 2004) was introduced in Denmark in 2004. The implementation of the learning plans increased concerns about the ‘schoolification’ of day care, where more structured learning in early years institutions, in preparation for school, was perceived by some as hindering a ‘good life’ for children (Clausen, 2005; Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012; Jensen et al., 2010; B Jensen, 2009; Kragh-Müller, 2014). The plans were interpreted to be part of an accountability culture, and there was strong opposition to centralization and standardization and the implicit lack of trust in local democracy (Socialudvalget, 2004). The Danish curriculum did not, however, imply structured activities in preparation for school, nor did it initially provide any centrally set assessment expectations.

A 2008 evaluation pointed to a significant 93% of pedagogues who found that the learning plans had had a positive impact on professional identity and quality (Nielsen and Thorgård, 2008). Despite this, 50% of the daycare leaders deemed that it was too time-consuming and took the leader and the pedagogues away from being with the children, reiterating how a discourse of manuals creates pressure on professionals and children (Jensen, 2005). In 2012, daycare leaders reported that developing and evaluating the learning plans had become less of a burden; however, expectations and support in the different municipalities varied significantly (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012). Existing concerns about high child–adult ratios and an increased administrative burden, reducing the amount of time spent with children, were reiterated (Glavind and Pade, 2014). Poor child–staff ratios limit the amount of children’s time and opportunity for individual/small-group activities with an adult (Kragh-Müller, 2014). Managing the curriculum decreased the amount of time adults spent with children in both Denmark and England, thereby affecting the quality of provision.

The context of the early years provision also needs to be considered in light of the differing welfare state models within the two countries, which influence access to provision and the quality assurance of settings as essential parts of early years democracy.

The differing welfare state contexts

In order to understand the prevalence of schoolification in England, the distinction between the Danish social democratic and the English neo-liberal welfare state models needs to be considered (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Esping-Andersen et al., 2003). The Danish state guarantees and provides highly subsidized state childcare. In Denmark, universal day care is available for all children and, subsequently, 91.2% of one- to two-year-olds and 97.2% of three- to five-year-olds access full-time state day care. A maximum of 25% of the cost is to be paid by the parents and less than 5% of nurseries are privately run (Danmarks Statestik, 2011, 2014; H Pedersen, 2011).

In contrast, the English state depends on a large private childcare sector and high parental contributions. The economically driven market approach is predominant in England (Campell-Barr and Nygaard, 2014) and evident in the Childcare Act 2006, where it was specified that state or local authority childcare provision may only be provided as a last resort (Department for Education and Skills, 2006). Despite having a compulsory school start age of five, free schooling for four-year-olds means that a majority of children commence (full-time) school when they are four years old – 98% benefit from free early education. By comparison, the funding for three-year-olds is limited to 15 hours per week, where 93% benefit from free early education. Furthermore, since 2013, 15 hours have been offered to two-year-olds who are designated as disadvantaged (Department for Education and Skills, 2011; Department for Education, 2013). However, provision outside these age groups and outside the funded 15 hours comes at a high cost for parents (Lloyd and Hallet, 2010). State funding and/or privatization indicate discourses of governance (Fairclough, 1992, 2003). In examining how governmental policies represent and reproduce power and ideology, the systems of quality assurance and governance become highly significant.

Quality assurance in the early years in England and Denmark

Quality assurance, power and control in the English early years curriculum are located within an educational administration, with centrally set goals and published inspection reports and comparisons. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) has the responsibility of ensuring quality in early years settings and schools. This administrative authority is well established, with a tradition of external inspection visits based on centralized standards and goals, which have been critiqued for having little supportive focus and a lack of knowledge of the specific settings and their children (Baldock, 2001; Soler and Miller, 2003). As an overview by Ofsted in 2011 revealed, the ‘inspection’s role in improvement is not clear … and [is] leading to inconsistent experiences and expectations of inspection’ (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2011a: 5).

In Denmark, there have been a number of changes to quality assurance in recent years. With the implementation of the learning plans, quality assurance was shared between a parent board that governed each setting and the local municipality (Socialministeriet, 2004). The municipality had the responsibility for developing an overall children’s plan, setting goals for the local area, visiting individual settings and taking the role of a ‘critical friend’. The quality assurance process consisted predominantly of these visits and an evaluation of the setting’s documentation (Nielsen and Thorgård, 2008). As the evaluations often consisted of contextualized narratives from pedagogical practice, it was perceived to be difficult to set overall (decontextualized) goals (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2009), which meant that municipalities and their consultants struggled to maintain an overview (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012). In 2008, the Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut was given national responsibility for the ‘systematic collection, analysis and dissemination of knowledge’, as well as the evaluation of the ‘area’ of day care (Ministeriet for Børn, Ligestilling, Integration og Sociale Forhold, 2014: para. 18). This could evidence part of an international trend of external quality assurance and comparison (Henry et al., 1999; Kampmann, 2013; Sahlberg, 2012). In contrast to England’s Ofsted, these evaluations were not assessments of individual settings. However, promotion of systematic planning and documentation was evident in the Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut evaluation of 2012. This could indicate an external accountability pressure requiring specified methods of planning and documentation. The external quality assurance and curricular discourses described above have also led to a repositioning of parents, professionals and children in both countries.

The (re)positioning of parents, professionals and children in the early years curriculum context

The position(ing) of parents

One of the main aims of the learning plans in Denmark was to make early years practice more visible to parents and provide them with a strong voice (Socialministeriet, 2004). As the policy set general requirements rather than a prescriptive curriculum, parent boards had a key role in approving and evaluating a setting’s individual plan. Parents felt that they had received more information following the introduction of the plans and, although they requested further documentation, they also expressed trust in the professionals (Nielsen and Thorgård, 2008). In a Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2012) survey of a sample of settings, the professionals felt that parental communication had been improved. However, no parents were consulted directly in the survey, and improvement in parental involvement and control were perceived as questionable in a later study on inclusion (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2014). In addition, in 2007, a change in the Danish statutory requirements designated more responsibility and power to the leader of a childcare setting, who was now responsible for the plans, rather than the parent board (Familie Ministeriet, 2007).

Moss (2012) established how English parents have increasingly been positioned as consumers rather than participants in an early years democracy. The Ofsted review (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2011a) recommended that more parents be involved in the inspection process, but the government perceived this to be a matter for Ofsted’s Chief Inspector to design such processes (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2011b). The 2011 Tickell Review further emphasized the need to create more time for the involvement of parents. However, the latter reads more as a need for educating parents: ‘encouraging more mothers and fathers to become involved in their child’s development, helping them understand how to enable their children to make good progress’ (Tickell, 2011: 99). As well as positioning parents as consumers, this discourse reiterates findings from research that positions parents as being in need of education or needing to know what effective parenting means, which is also present in the Early Years Foundation Stage itself (Butcher and Andrews, 2009; Cottle and Alexander, 2012, 2014; Department for Education, 2014). In comparison, the position of the Danish parent is more locally governed.

The position(ing) of the workforce

A range of research has established how government policies impact on professional identity and position, where prescriptive curricula reduce professional autonomy (Bradbury, 2012; Lloyd and Hallet, 2010; Miller, 2008; Moss, 2010; Osgood, 2006). As Bradbury (2012) exemplifies, the introduction of the early years curriculum in England made professionals feel incompetent, unsure and under pressure. According to Pirard (2012), it is necessary to strengthen early years professionalization alongside the introduction of curricula in order to ensure the development of quality and reduce standardization. The workforce in the early years in Denmark and England differs significantly in terms of the level of qualifications and education. In Denmark, 60% of workers in early years settings are degree-qualified, whereas, in England, the Nutbrown Review identified low levels of training and a complexity of different National Vocational Qualifications (more than 200), with only 8% of the workforce holding a degree (Cooke and Henehan, 2012; Nutbrown, 2012). Contrary to the Danish workforce, the English early years workforce has no professional accreditation or nationally set or regulated pay scale and employment conditions (Lloyd and Hallet, 2010).

The level of education of the early years workforce influences whether professionals see themselves as interpreters or implementers of curricular frameworks and goals (Oberheumer, 2005). English early years practitioners’ confidence and freedom to interpret the curriculum is a struggle that is identified in Cottle and Alexander’s (2012) research. In combination with the external inspection system, low level of training potentially disempowers professionals and, consequently, hinder early years democracy and emancipation (Moss, 2013). The limitation of the power and emancipation of the English early years workforce continues to promote conditions for a ‘technical expert’, with limited opportunities for exercising professional values and understandings in practice and policy development (Moss, 2010; Oberheumer and Scheryer, 2008; Osgood, 2006). The focus on prescribed routes and assessed standards skews practitioners’ ability to observe children in an open-ended manner (Daniels, 2012) and, as Basford and Bath (2014: 120) propose, this can make it ‘difficult to recognize children as individual and potentially idiosyncratic learners’.

In Denmark, the education of pedagogues has gone through several changes within the last decade. With an emphasis on academic skills, goals and outputs, pedagogues are being positioned in an ‘accountability and schoolification discourse’ (Brogaard Clausen, forthcoming; Momsen, 2012; Rothuizen and Togsverd, 2013; Tuft, 2012). This discourse will potentially erode the Danish early years workforce’s tradition of democratic professionalism, with reciprocal relationships with colleagues, children and parents (Oberheumer and Scheryer, 2008). A ‘lighter’ Danish curriculum would be considered an example of emphasizing the importance of highly skilled practitioners (Bertram and Pascal, 2002: 38). However, in addition to being placed within an accountability and schoolification discourse, the municipality now decides on the voting rights of the early years professional represented on the parent board, and this, together with the strengthened position of leaders, is introducing a more hierarchical structure that may potentially disempower the professional (Ministeriet for Børn, Ligestilling, Integration og Sociale Forhold, 2014).

The position(ing) of the child

Danish statutory requirements stipulates that the early years setting’s learning plan has to be ‘based in the (specific) composition of children’ within the setting (Socialministeriet, 2004: para. 8), and that children’s play, spontaneous initiatives and exploration are not to be compromised by planning (Socialministeriet, 2004). Early years democracy is reiterated by the aim to include ‘children’s participation in decision-making’, ‘co-responsibility’ and an ‘understanding of democracy’ (Socialministeriet, 2004: para. 8a). This points to a social pedagogical approach that is more local, child-centred and holistic (Jensen et al., 2010; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006). In comparison, the English curriculum’s overarching principle of ‘children learn[ing] to be strong and independent through positive relationships’ (Department for Education, 2012b: 3) indicates an emphasis on the individual’s achievements – individual gain through positive relationships. In contrast to the Danish social pedagogical discourse, this is evidence of an English readiness for school tradition, with more centralized academic aims and methods for individual child assessment (Jensen et al., 2010; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006).

External control and hierarchical structure are evident in the English approach to the individually assessed child, and the comparative assessment suggests a positivistic tradition of evaluating visible and measurable outcomes in a competition discourse (Bradbury, 2012; Brehony, 2000). In the Danish curriculum, children are positioned to take part in planning as democratic participants, and a ministerial publication concerning the learning plans clarified that ‘documenting is not about evaluating each child’s learning within the six themes’ (Kjær and Olesen, 2005: 7).

Schoolification exemplified: Early years language and literacy assessment

The schoolification of the early years was reinforced in England by the raised expectations for children’s literacy in the 2012 early years curriculum (Department for Education, 2012b – these aspects have remained the same in the 2014 version). Instead of seeking an early beginning of literacy, as in the 2008 version of the curriculum (Department for Education and Skills, 2008), the expectation in 2012 was for five-year-old children to display literacy, and the discourse shifted to a technical vocabulary. Children were now being assessed according to their ability to ‘read and understand simple sentences’, ‘use phonic knowledge to decode regular words’ and ‘read them aloud accurately’ (Department for Education, 2014: 25), in comparison to 2008, where children were to ‘read a range of familiar and common words and simple sentences independently’ as well as ‘explore and experiment with sounds, words and texts’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2008: 13). In 2008, the children are assessed as engaged learners – who ‘enjoy listening to and using spoken and written language, and readily turn to it in their play and learning’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2008: 13). With the 2012 changes the children are assessed in their ‘technical performance’, with a strengthened instrumental language of performance – to display reading, to decode and to be accurate (Department for Education, 2014: 24).

Children’s language and literacy acquisition became a technical performance. The aim of assessing how children ‘listen with enjoyment, and respond to stories, songs and other music, rhymes and poems and make up their own stories, songs, rhymes and poems’, ‘use language to imagine and recreate roles and experiences’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2008: 13) – all representing creative, (playful) social and emotional aspects of language and literacy – were taken out of the assessment framework in 2012. In the Early Learning Goals (Department for Education, 2014: 24), these aspects were replaced with the instructional discourse of ‘answering appropriately’, ‘follow instructions’, ‘express themselves accurately and effectively’ and ‘answer questions’, rather than asking them. This promotes a hierarchical discourse that disempowers both the child and adult. Measurable achievements are given value over less measurable outcomes, such as social and emotional well-being. The fundamental aspect of language and literacy as emotional and social communication to and from others is therefore devalued. With a prescriptive, normative, sequential and instrumental approach to young children’s holistic learning, the policy represents a very restricted (and restricting) understanding of children’s learning, where only the measurable is deemed valuable. Baldock et al. (2013) similarly found that the school-readiness agenda has been strengthened, with the new Early Learning Goals aligning more closely with the national curriculum. Despite a movement towards assessment for learning in the first decade of the 21st century (Basford and Bath, 2014), the curriculum and the recent introduction of a baseline assessment on entry to reception reinforce the assessment of learning (Brogaard Clausen et al., 2015). Such an excessively formal curriculum in the early years could discourage children from learning (Sylva and Pugh, 2005). Alexander (2010) explains how children in England, despite having comparatively high reading scores, often lose pleasure in reading. As Anning (2005: 26) argued: ‘if the curriculum was genuinely designed around children’s learning needs, perhaps then we would encourage a generation of children with a love of learning rather than groups of anxious and dispirited “beginning readers” already feeling that they are failing’.

In comparison to the English curriculum, the Danish curriculum provides minimum specifications with regard to the expectation of language awareness. The government’s guidance remains limited to: ‘Language (vocabulary, pronunciation, knowledge of the written language, rhymes and proverbs, the existence of numbers, letters and what they are used for, IT/media and communication’) (Socialministeriet, 2004: para. 2). It is, then, the specific setting that decides on the methods and emphasis on the different parts. The ‘Gold Guide’, published by the Ministeriet for Familie- og Forbrugeranliggender (2005), expressed no intention of introducing (formal) reading and writing in the early years. However, from 2007, language assessment of all three-year-olds became compulsory (Familie Ministeriet, 2007). Assessment results were to be reported to the local municipality and could be used to evaluate and publish quality of practice in settings and further structure the municipal aims and framework (Kommunernes Landsforening et al., 2010). At the same time, changes in the education of pedagogues strengthened Danish as a subject in 2007, and language assessments for all children on entry to kindergarten became compulsory in 2009, indicating a more subject-specific focus in line with other European early years curricula (Boddy et al., 2006; Oberheumer, 2005; Sahlberg, 2012). However, in 2010, language assessment of all three-year-olds was replaced with targeted assessment and compulsory intervention (Social Ministeriet, 2010) which remains the statutory requirements in the 2014 revision (Ministeriet for Børn, Ligestilling, Integration og Sociale Forhold, 2014). Nevertheless, the recommendation remains to assess or at least screen all children and, in 2012, 85% of settings used the test developed by the government (Servicestyrelsen, 2012). When specific skills are singled out and assessed for school readiness, particularly in a test format, it indicates a schoolification of the early years (Bauman, 2011; Klitmøller and Sommer, 2014; Tonsberg, 2014). Emerging evidence reveals how the curriculum has led to that the pedagogues focus on accessing children’s knowledge, and therefore interrupt the children’s play and create more hierarchical relationships (Hviid, 2011). Researchers in Denmark continue to express concerns about neo-liberal schoolification, and report that a test culture leads to performance anxiety, which takes away the child’s desire for learning, curiosity and self-esteem (Klitmøller and Sommer, 2014). This has led Schultz Jørgensen to conclude that ‘children have almost no value in themselves any more’ (cited in Krogh Sørensen, 2014), reiterating the tension between democracy and schoolification in the early years.

As Pramling Samuelsson et al. (2006) have identified, all curricula are value-orientated, either explicitly or implicitly, and the above analysis shows how curricular discourse is ‘socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned’ (Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000: 448). Explicit and centralized goals for children constitute an English society focused on learning outcomes, conditioned by a schoolification discourse. The Danish curriculum’s structures of dominance, normativity, discrimination, power and control in language (Fairclough, 1992, 2003) appear, in a more implicit way, as aims and goals that are set locally. Local governance has been further strengthened by changes in 2010, and the statutory requirements maintains a strong notion of democracy. However, evaluation practices and language tests imply a move towards more schoolification and external power and control.

Neo-liberal pressure on Danish early years democracy

Kampmann (2013) identifies an international political drive towards early education and individualization in a competition society. In Denmark, in 2004, it was stipulated that the learning plans had to be ‘based in the (specific) composition of children within the individual setting’ (Socialministeriet, 2004: para. 8a), and that children’s play, spontaneous initiatives and exploration were not to be compromised. In 2007, the position of children as democratic citizens was nevertheless weakened in the statutory requirements: ‘On preparation of the pedagogical curriculum, the composition of the group of children shall be taken into consideration’ (Familie Ministeriet, 2007: para. 8). Children were moved from being the starting point in 2004 to ‘just’ being ‘taken into consideration’, which was concurrent with the strengthening of the childcare leaders’ position of power within the curriculum formation and evaluation and indicated a more hierarchical structure. It is, however, more complex than a simple move towards schoolification, as, since 2007, the statutory requirements has made it compulsory to work with a child perspective within a new environmental law, where including children’s voices has become a perceived requirement in the local development and evaluation of the learning plans (Dansk Center for Undervisningsmiljø, 2014).²

With more external governance and control, the question is: How much room is there for recognizing and negotiating differing opinions and values (Grindheim, 2014)? In a national evaluation of aspects of the learning plans, there was no consultation with parents or children, and very little with pedagogues (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012, 2014). In evaluating whether the plans have made an impact on children’s learning, there were predominantly judgments from kindergarten-class teachers and local municipality consultants (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012). Interviews with 15 daycare leaders were included, but it is striking that there were no references to children’s involvement in developing the learning (plans), despite such involvement being stipulated in the statutory regulation. A tension has arisen between the democratic principles set in the statutory requirements and the lack of children’s voices in the civic and public sphere of participation (Ärlemalm-Hagsér and Davis, 2014). A move towards a more hierarchical structure restricts the opportunity to influence decisions and challenge regulations and external assessment, which limits professionals’, parents’ and children’s opportunities to have an influence. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2009) both develop guidance for learning and quality evaluation, but also assesses the implementation of these evaluations (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012), which points towards a centralization of power external to the early years settings, which may potentially result in external demands for change to practice in these settings (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2012: 65). This hinders emancipation, conflicts with the OECD’s recommendations for the involvement of local stakeholders, and demotes ‘local initiative and experimentation’ (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006: 221).

Final considerations and conclusion

In an era of international comparison and performance competition, it is increasingly necessary to identify how raised targets of normative and prescriptive goals put pressure on young children, parents and professionals. Governments understand the need and importance of investing in the early years, however this then comes at the cost of becoming more scrutinized, accountable and controlled (Oberheumer, 2005). This is problematic, since ‘soft values’ are less measurable, and therefore curricular assessments are likely to be driven by assessing and comparing the measurable, such as in language assessments and tests. Lenz Taguchi (2010) points out that the more we know about the complexities involved in young children’s learning and meaning-making, the greater the tendency to shape policy around narrow, controlling, complexity-reducing curricula and teaching strategies.

The pressures of individual child-profiling and external inspection hinder English children’s freedom and democratic participation, promoting individualism and ‘technical performance’, and restricting the understanding of children’s learning. Consequently it also demotes the ‘principles and professional values relating to enabling children’s interests’ (Cottle and Alexander, 2012: 651), and only appears to include parents as in need of learning and/or as consumers, rather than as equal citizens. The neo-liberal discourse hinders local democracy and parents’, professionals’ and children’s voices.

The Danish early years is well rooted in a social welfare state model and social pedagogical practice. However, a neo-liberal schoolification discourse is becoming evident in the increased expectations of individual testing, external evaluations and accountability. This suggests that Denmark is moving from being a welfare state to a competition state, where, rather than protecting citizens from the pressure of international competition, it is led by it (OK Pedersen, 2011). Despite language assessment no longer being compulsory, language tests have now become predominant practice. The local municipal leadership sets the agenda, to a large degree, for the early years in Denmark. Heavily influenced by international comparisons, central evaluations and initiatives, the municipalities appear to be heading towards the schoolification of the early years. Consequently, the traditional egalitarian and democratic culture in Denmark is becoming increasingly hierarchical and dictated by externally set strategies, displacing the democratic participation of children, professionals and parents. As Dencik (1989) warned two and a half decades ago, we appear to be continuing with an instrumental cost–benefit agenda, where the neo-liberal approach to investment and return overrules children as agents and citizens, and there is a failure to recognize childhood for its intrinsic value to the child itself.

The question therefore remains: Are professionals, parents and children able to establish and maintain equality and democracy in early years settings under the pressure of a neo-liberal cost–benefit agenda? Can we, by strong advocacy in the early years, promote democratic values and develop resilience to the pressures of a neo-liberal accountability culture and external governance? Danish policy still maintains strong features of democracy and promoting citizen voice, and emphasizing this lawful entitlement can aid in the resistance to pressure from a neo-liberal accountability and testing culture. Ongoing research in England poses the question as to whether observation-led baseline assessment, focusing on well-being and involvement, would turn practitioners’, parents’ and politicians’ attention towards more human recognition and appreciation of the life children live now. The research proposes that valuing and assessing children’s wellbeing and involvement is equally, if not more, relevant in supporting children in preparation for school and their future life, whilst maintaining a recognition of their current lived lives, democracy, voice and well-being (Brogaard Clausen et al., 2015). As researchers, parents, professionals and politicians, we need to engage in local initiatives. We need to have locally, nationally and internationally active and informed citizens who resist being treated as objects or consumers in a neo-liberal cost–benefit agenda (Henry et al., 1999). This is to ensure that we keep seeing the child as an individual within the context of strong connections to friends, family, professionals and the community, and keep seeing childhood as having intrinsic value to the child itself and to the community and society as a whole.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Sigrid Brogaard Clausen is a Senior Lecturer and Researcher in Early Childhood at the University of Roehampton. Her research interests arise from her experience of the Danish and English early years and range from the policy conditions for children’s well being, learning and democratic participation, to the development of professional identity in the early years. She is currently working on a collaborative research study on the recently introduced baseline assessment in England, examining teachers’ experiences of working with well-being and involvement in the context of the assessment. Further to this, she is participating in research into parents’ and early years practitioners’ perceptions of children’s well-being. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a member of the steering group of the Early Childhood Studies Degrees Network.

References

Alexander

(ed.) (2010) Children, Their World, Their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. London: Routledge.

Amrein

Berliner

(2003) The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership 60(5): 32–38.

Anning

(2005) Play and legislated curriculum: Back to basics: an alternative view. In: Moyles

(ed.) The Excellence of Play. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 19–33.

Ärlemalm-Hagsér

Davis

(2014) Examining the rhetoric: A comparison of how sustainability and young children’s participation and agency are framed in Australian and Swedish early childhood education curricula. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 15(3): 231–244.

Baldock

(2001) Regulating Early Years Services. London: David Fulton.

Baldock

Fitzgerald

Kay

(2013) Understanding Early Years Policy. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.

Bang

Door

(1995) Eco-Linguistic Theory Series. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.

Bang

Door

(1998) Eco-Linguistic Theory Series. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.

Bang

Door

(2000) Eco-Linguistic Theory Series. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.

10.

Basford

Bath

(2014) Playing the assessment game: An English early childhood education perspective. Early Years 34(2): 119–132.

11.

Bauman (2011) Forord i Leg og Laering I Fremtidens Dagstilbud, Kobenhavn, Forskning Børn & Unge 11 Aarhus, BUPL.

12.

Bertram

Pascal

( 2002) International Review of Early Years Curriculum and Assessment Funded by QCA. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

13.

Blenkin

Whitehead

(1988) Creating a context for development. In: Blenkin

Kelly

(eds) Early Childhood Education: A Developmental Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman, pp. 32–60.

14.

Blommaert

Bulcaen

(2000) Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447–466.

15.

Boddy

Cameron

Moss

. (2006) Introducing Pedagogy into the Children’s Workforce. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

16.

Boffey

Rock

(2012) Labour looks to Denmark for childcare policy. Guardian, 18 February. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/feb/18/labour-childcare-pledge-working-women

17.

Bradbury

(2012) ‘I feel absolutely incompetent’: Professionalism, policy and early childhood teachers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education 13(3): 175–186.

18.

Brehony

(2000) Montessori, individual work and individuality in the elementary school classroom. History of Education 29(2): 115–128.

19.

Brehony

Nawrotzki

(2011) From weak social democracy to hybridized neo-liberalism: Early childhood education in Britain since 1945. In: Hagemann

Jarausch

Allemann-Ghionda

(eds) Children, Families, and States: Time Policies of Childcare, Preschool and Primary Education in Europe. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 237–256.

20.

British Educational Research Association and Association for the Professional Development of Early Years Educators (2014) Policy advice and future research agendas. A BERA Early Childhood Special Interest Group/TACTYC: Association for the Professional Development

21.

Brogaard Clausen

(forthcoming) The professional identity, power and control of the Danish pedagogue. In: Kragh-Müller

Ringsmose

(eds) The Nordic Social Pedagogical Approach to Early Years Learning. London: Springer.

22.

Brogaard Clausen

Howe

Guimaraes

. (2015) Assessment of young children on entry to school: Informative, formative or performative? International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education 6(1): 2120–2125.

23.

Broström

Frøkjær

(2012) Paedagogers syn paa laerimg i bornehaven i Sverige og Danmark. VERA Tidsskrift for Pædagoger 59: 37–41.

24.

Broström

Wagner

(eds) (2003) Early Childhood Education in Five Nordic Countries: Perspectives on the Transition from Pre-school to School. Aarhus: Systime Academic.

25.

BUPL, Born og Unge Pedagogers Landsforening (2006) The Work of the Pedagogue: Roles and Tasks. Kobenhavn, BUPL.

26.

Butcher

Andrews

(2009) How well am I doing on my outcomes? In: Eke

Butcher

Lee

(eds) Whose Childhood Is It? The Roles of Children, Adults and Policy Makers. London: Continuum.

27.

Campbell-Barr

Nygaard

(2014) Losing sight of the child? Human capital theory and its role for early childhood education and care policies in Finland and England since the mid-1990s. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 15(4): 346–359.

28.

Clausen

(2005) Børneliv og læreplaner. Aarhus: Academia.

29.

Cohen

(1970) Democracy. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

30.

Cooke

Henehan

(2012) Double Dutch: The case against deregulation and demand-led funding in childcare. IPPR Report, October. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

31.

Cottle

Alexander

(2012) Quality in early years settings: Government, research and practitioners’ perspectives. British Educational Research Journal 38(4): 635–654.

32.

Cottle

Alexander

(2014) Parent partnership and ‘quality’ early years services: Practitioners’ perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 22(5): 637–659.

33.

Dahlberg

Moss

Pence

(2007) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Languages of Evaluation, vol. 2. New York: Routledge.

34.

Daniels

(2012) Supporting the development of positive dispositions and learner identities: An action research study into the impact and potential of developing photographic learning stories in the early years. Education 3–13 41(3): 300–315.

35.

Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2009) Evalueringer af pædagogiske læreplaner i kommunalt perspektiv. Copenhagen: Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.

36.

Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2012) Laereplaner i praksis: Daginstitutionernes arbejde med paedagogiske laereplaner. Copenhagen: Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.

37.

Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (2014) Inklusion i dagtilbud: Kortlægning af arbejdet med inklusion i daginstitutioner og dagpleje. Copenhagen: Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.

38.

Danmarks Statestik (2011) Børnepasning mv. 2010. Sociale forhold, sundhed og retsvæsen. Nyt fra Danmarks Statistik 80, 22 February, Copenhagen, Denmark.

39.

Danmarks Statestik (2014) Børnepasning mv. 2013. Levevilkår. Nyt fra Danmarks Statistik 146, 20 March Copenhagen, Denmark.

40.

Dansk Center for Undervisningsmiljø (2014) Børneinterview. Available at: http://dcum.dk/boernemiljoe/boerneinterview

41.

Davis

(ed.) (1998) Researching Early Childhood Education: European Perspectives. London: SAGE.

42.

Dencik

(1989) Growing up in the post-modern age: On the child’s situation in the modern family, and on the position of the family in the modern welfare state. Acta Sociologica 32(2): 155–180.

43.

Department for Education (DfE) (2012a) Early Learning and Childcare: Guidance for Providers and Improving the Quality and Range of Education and Childcare from Birth to 5 Years. London: DfE.

44.

Department for Education (DfE) (2012b) The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). London: DfE.

45.

Department for Education (DfE) (2013) More Great Childcare: Raising Quality and Giving Parents More Choice. London: DfE.

46.

Department for Education (DfE) (2014) The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). London: DfE.

47.

Department for Education (DfE) and Department of Health (2011a) The role and performance of Ofsted: Second report of session 2010–11. London: DfE and Department of Health.

48.

Department for Education (DfE) and Department of Health (2011b) The role and performance of Ofsted: Responses from the Government and Ofsted to the second report of the Committee, session 2010–11. London: DfE and Department of Health.

49.

Department for Education (DfE) and School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) (1996) Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education. London: DfE and SCAA.

50.

Department for Education (DfE) and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2000) The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. London: DfE and QCA.

51.

Department for Education (DfE) and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2002) The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage: Early Learning Goals. London: DfE and QCA.

52.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2006) Childcare Act. London: DfES.

53.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2008) Early Years Foundation Stage. London: DfES.

54.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2011) Education Bill Early Intervention Grant and Free Early Education Places for Disadvantaged Two-Year-Olds. London: DfES.

55.

Einarsdottir

Wagner

(eds) (2006) Nordic Childhoods and Early Years Education: Philosophy, Research, Policy and Practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

56.

Esping-Andersen

(1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

57.

Esping-Andersen

Gallie

Hemerijck

. (2003) Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

58.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

59.

Fairclough

(2003) Analyzing Discourse and Text: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

60.

Familie Ministeriet (2007) Pedagogiske laereplaner. LOV [Law] No. 501, 6 June. Copenhagen: Familie Ministeriet.

61.

Glavind

Pade

(2014) Notat om udviklingen i daginstitutionernes bemanding siden 1986. Copenhagen: Vaerlose Bureau 2000 – Analyse og forskning.

62.

Grindheim

(2014) ‘I am not angry in the kindergarten!’ Interruptive anger as democratic participation in Norwegian kindergartens. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 15(4): 308–318.

63.

Henry

Lingard

Rizvi

. (1999) Working with/against globalization in education. Journal of Education Policy 14(1): 85–97.

64.

House

(2012) Why I believe the plans for EYFS reform don’t make the grade. Nursery World, 10 January. Available at: http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/opinion/1105850/believe-plans-eyfs-reform-dont-grade

65.

Hviid

(2011) Og ved du så, hvor krokkodillen bor? Leg og laering i mikroperspektiv. Forskning Børn & Unge 11: 14–16.

66.

Jensen

Broström

Hansen

(2010) Critical perspectives on Danish early education and care – between the technical and the political. Early Years 30(3): 243–254.

67.

Jensen

(2009) A Nordic approach to early childhood education (ECE) and socially endangered children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17(1): 7–21.

68.

Jensen

(2005) Professionsfagenes krise: En udfordring til lærer-, pædagog- og sygeplejerskeuddannelserne. Copenhagen: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag.

69.

Juul Jensen

(2011) Understandings of Danish pedagogical practice. In: Cameron

Moss

(eds) Social Pedagogy and Working with Children. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 141–159.

70.

Kampmann

(2013) Societalisation of early childhood education and services. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 21(1): 1–4.

71.

Kjær

Olesen

(2005) Informationshåndbog om pædagogiske læreplaner i dagtilbud. Copenhagen: Learning Lab Denmark, Ministeriet for Familie og Forbrugeranliggende and Styrelsen for Social Service.

72.

Klitmøller

Sommer

(eds) (2014) Læring, dannelse og udvikling: Kvalificering til fremtiden i daginstitution og skole. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

73.

Koch

(2012) Idealet om det glade afstemte barn – paedagogers blik for trivsel i bornehaven. Nordisk Barnehageforkning 5(2): 1–26.

74.

Kommunernes Landsforening, Undervisnings Ministeriet, Social Ministeriet and Finansministeriet (2010) Sprogvurdering adf bork i treaarsalderen, inden skolestart og i bornehaveklassen, Stottemateriale > Copenhagen, Kommunernes Landsforening: Dagtilbud og skolen.

75.

Kragh-Müller

(2014) Kvalitet i daginstitutioner. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

76.

Krogh Sørensen

(2014) Drukner vi vores børn i tests? Jyllands-Posten, 4 January. Available at: http://www.jyllands-posten.dk/premium/indblik/Indland/ECE6380064/Drukner+vi+vores+børn+i+tests%3F/

77.

Lenz Taguchi

(2010) Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education: Introducing an Intra-Active Pedagogy. London: Routledge.

78.

Lloyd

Hallet

(2010) Professionalising the early childhood workforce in England: Work in progress or missed opportunity? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(1): 75–88.

79.

Miller

(2008) Developing professionalism within a regulatory framework in England: Challenges and possibilities. European Early Childhood Research Journal 16(2): 255–268.

80.

Ministeriet for Børn, Ligestilling, Integration og Sociale Forhold (2014) Dagtilbuds loven. Copenhagen, Ministeriet for Børn, Ligestilling, Integration og Sociale Forhold.

81.

Ministeriet for Familie- og Forbrugeranliggender og Learning Lab Denmark (2005) Guldguiden. Copenhagen: Ministeriet for Familie- og Forbrugeranliggender.

82.

Momsen

(2012) En styrket pædagoguddannelse – anbefalinger fra følgegruppen for pædagoguddannelsen. Copenhagen: Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte for Følgegruppen for Pædagoguddannelsen.

83.

Moreau

(2011) The societal construction of ‘boys’ underachievement’ in educational policies: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Education Policy 26(2): 161–180.

84.

Moreau

(2015) Becoming a secondary school teacher in England and France: Contextualising career ‘choice’. Compare 45(3): 401–421.

85.

Moss

(2007) Bringing politics into the nursery: Early childhood education as a democratic practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15(1): 5–20.

86.

Moss

(2010) We cannot continue as we are: The educator in a struggle for survival. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(1): 8–19.

87.

Moss

(2012) Making democracy a fundamental value: Meaning what exactly? In: Miller

Hevey

(eds) Policy Issues in the Early Years. London: SAGE, pp. 93–107.

88.

Moss

(2013) Beyond the investment narrative. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 14(4): 370–372.

89.

Nichols

Berliner

(2007) Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

90.

Nielsen

Thorgård

(2008) Slutevaluering AKF. Copenhagen, Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, NIRAS Konsulenterne og UdviklingsForum Ministeriet for Fami l i e - og Forbrugeranliggende.

91.

Nutbrown

(2012) Foundations for quality: The independent review of early education and childcare qualifications. Final report. Nutbrown Review, June. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175463/Nutbrown-Review.pdf (accessed 23 October 2013).

92.

Oberheumer

(2005) Conceptualising the early childhood pedagogue: Policy approaches and issues of professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 13(1): 5–16.

93.

Oberheumer

Scheryer

(2008) What professional? Children in Europe 15: 9–12.

94.

Olesen

(2014) Digitaliseringen kan øge læringen i dagtilbud. ‘Kommunernes Landsforening temaer Bornetopmodet’ Copenhagen, Kommunernes Landsforening.

95.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006) Starting Strong 11: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.

96.

Osgood

(2006) Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7(1): 5–14.

97.

Pedersen

(2011) BUPL: Horingssvar om aendring af dagtilbudsloven (mulighed for at private leverancorer kan traekke overskud ud af driften af udliciterede dagtilbud), Aarhus, BUPL.

98.

Pedersen

(2011) Konkurrencestaten. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

99.

Penn

(1995) Changing expectations? A brief account of childhood services in Denmark and Spain. International Journal of Educational Management 9(3): 26–28.

100.

Penn

(2011) Quality in Early Education and Care: An International Perspective. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

101.

Petrie

Boddy

Cameron

. (2009) Pedagogy: A Holistic, Personal Approach to Work with Children and Young People, across Services: European Models for Practice, Training, Education and Qualification. London: Institute of Education.

102.

Pirard

(2012) Accompaniment and quality in childcare services: The emergence of a culture of professionalization. Early Years 32(2): 171–182.

103.

Pramling Samuelsson

(2004) Starting Strong: Curricula and Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education and Care. Five Curriculum Outlines. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

104.

Pramling Samuelsson

Sheridan

Williams

(2006) Five preschool curricula: Comparative perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood 38(1): 11–29.

105.

Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years (2013) Concern over ‘schoolification’. London, PACEY.

106.

Ringsmose

Kragh-Müller

(2013) How positive childhood experiences promote children’s development of democratic skills: A reflection from Denmark. Childhood Education 89(4): 224–233.

107.

Rose

Rogers

(2012) Principles under pressure: Student teachers’ perspectives on final teaching practice in early childhood classrooms. International Journal of Early Years Education 20(1): 43–58.

108.

Rothuizen

Togsverd

(eds) (2013) Hvordan uddannes pædagoger? Perspektiver fra et forskningsprojekt. Aarhus: VIA UC Videncenter for Socialpædagogik og Socialt Arbejde.

109.

Sahlberg

(2012) Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.

110.

Servicestyrelsen (2012) Sprogvurdering: Risikofaktorer, typer af sprogvurdering, Socialministeriets sprogvurderingsmateriale. Available at: http://www.sprogpakken.dk/materialer/Sprogvurdering%20-%20tekst.pdf

111.

Simpson

(2010) Becoming professional? Exploring early years professional status and its implications for workforce reform in England. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8(3): 269–281.

112.

Socialministeriet (2004) Lov om ændring af lov om social service: Pædagogiske læreplaner for børn I dagtilbud til børn. LBK No. 708, 29 June. Copenhagen: Socialministeriet.

113.

Socialministeriet (2010) Dagtilbudsloven: Paedagogiske laereplaner. SKR No. 9435, 9 June. Copenhagen: Socialministeriet.

114.

Socialudvalget (2004) Betænkning afgivet af Socialudvalget den 11. marts 2004: Betænkning over Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om social service. Copenhagen: Socialudvalget.

115.

Soler

Miller

(2003) The struggle for early childhood curricula: A comparison of the English Foundation Stage Curriculum, Te Whariki and Reggio Emilia. International Journal of Early Years Education 11(1): 57–67.

116.

Sylva

Pugh

(2005) Transforming the early years in England. Oxford Review of Education 31(1): 11–27.

117.

Tickell

(2011) Tickell Review of the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Department for Education and Department of Health.

118.

Tonsberg (2014) Borns leg er livsvigtig. UCC Professionshojskolen, Aktuelt. Available at: https://ucc.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/boerns-leg-er-livsvigtig

119.

Tuft

(2012) Pedagog – historien om uddannelsen. Leksikon for det 21. aarhundrede. Available at: http://www.leksikon.org

120.

Tymms

Merrell

Hawker

. (2014) Performance indicators in primary schools: A comparison of performance on entry to school and the progress made in the first year in England and four other jurisdictions. Research Report, June. London: Department for Education.

121.

United Nations (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Geneva: United Nations.

122.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2010) Caring and Learning Together. Paris: UNESCO.

123.

Urban

(2012) Researching early childhood policy and practice: A critical ecology. European Journal of Education 47(4): 494–507.

124.

Winter-Lindquist

(2013) Early childhood education in Denmark. Oxford Bibliographies. Available at: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0093.xml

Schoolification or early years democracy? A cross-curricular perspective from Denmark and England

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction: Cross-national comparisons and concern for early years democracy

A brief outline of the current early years curricula in England and Denmark

Early years democracy and schoolification: A conceptual examination

Schoolification and neo-liberalism in the English early years curriculum

Early years democracy in the Danish early years curriculum

The differing welfare state contexts

Quality assurance in the early years in England and Denmark

The (re)positioning of parents, professionals and children in the early years curriculum context

The position(ing) of parents

The position(ing) of the workforce

The position(ing) of the child

Schoolification exemplified: Early years language and literacy assessment

Neo-liberal pressure on Danish early years democracy

Final considerations and conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Notes

Author biography

References