Abstract
As I am writing this here in Melbourne, Australia, it is late July and we are in our second ‘lockdown’, which has been labelled here as ‘Stage 3’ in the fight against COVID-19. This means that I am only allowed out of my home to exercise, buy supplies from the market, supermarket or pharmacy, and care for family members. I am not allowed to invite anyone, not even my family, into my home. Early childhood centres have been open for most of the time. Indeed, the government announced in April that childcare for children from birth to five years of age would be free: Around one million families are set to receive free child care during the coronavirus pandemic under a plan from the Morrison Government that will help deliver hip pocket relief and help the early childhood education and care sector make it through to the other side of this crisis. (Prime Minister of Australia, 2020)
However, as the first wave of the virus subsided, early education became the first subsidy to be reined in, and the financial relief came to an end: ‘Dan Tehan has suggested the days of free childcare are numbered, as a return to the old subsidy model will be needed to keep centres viable as Australians return to work’ (Karp, 2020). Meanwhile, schools had been closed and children were learning with their teachers and classmates online. Some teachers provided a very structured day, while others went for a broad approach, with tasks being set for children and families to complete in their own time. The government introduced a phased return, with Preparatory (first year of school) and Years 1 and 2 returning in late May, only to be shut down again and back into online learning mode again this week, in late July. Debates circulated about whether schools should be open or not, and the discussions continue, since all children except those in the final two years of school and the children of essential workers attend on-site.
Thus, as usual, there was a lot of contestation about fundamental issues in early childhood education, and while the government initially invoked some alternative and provocative measures to cope with the situation in hand, it seems evident that the ‘new normal’ might look very much like the ‘old normal’ as we lapse back into traditional tropes.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood was founded on the principle of being an alternate voice to the well-accepted developmentally appropriate practice mantra. Our scholars and authors incorporate cutting-edge research methodologies and canvas new ways of viewing and making meaning in the world. Now more than ever, these views resonate in these new and uncertain times.
In this issue, we have another set of well-crafted and diverse articles. Kate Hoskins and Sue Smedley write about ‘Higher education provision and access for early years educators: Localised challenges arising from national policy in England’. They interviewed 33 early years practitioners in order to uncover the challenges facing state-maintained early years settings in contrasting geographical contexts in England (rural, suburban and urban). Their findings indicate ‘uneven access to higher education in contrasting geographical contexts for those professionals seeking to gain graduate status’. Kate and Sue consider the implications of this for early years practitioners and managers attempting to improve their qualifications and status in the profession.
Then, in ‘Dinner theater in a toddler classroom: The environment as teacher’, Kristine Sunday explores the connection between place and pedagogical practices that are inspired by the municipal preschools of Reggio Emilia. Kristine draws on theories of new materialism to consider the concept of environment in a Reggio-inspired preschool. She questions how the environment teaches. Kristine locates her thinking in performance theory and uses a narrative vignette to reflect about onto-epistemological questions of being a teacher.
In ‘Room for monsters and writers: Performativity in children’s classroom drawing’, Leslie Rech Penn states that ‘[m]uch research on children’s classroom drawing emerged from an interest in the relationships between drawing and early writing, and focused on drawing as a pedagogical tool to engage young children in planning, generating, and illustrating story ideas’. She shares a case study of children’s drawing in a kindergarten language arts curriculum. Leslie’s study focuses on children’s drawings as ‘emergent events’. In reflecting on the drawings as material, discursive and productive events, Leslie aims to broaden our thinking about children’s drawing beyond them being regarded as ‘indicators of development, aesthetics, or literacy acquisition into critical, creative, and constructive learning experiences with significant cultural implications’.
Mark Nagasawa’s article, ‘An “old fight”: A case study of enduring struggle in early childhood education’, tells us about political struggles over early education in the USA. Mark incorporates archival, interview and observational data from the US state of Arizona. He reveals how a combination of the episodic nature of public attention paid to early care and education in the USA, internal tensions within US early care and education between its educational and caring purposes, and competition over scarce resources has worked to undermine the development of universal early care and education in the USA.
While located in Arizona, the case study has relevance both nationally in the USA and internationally, in provoking questions that might be applied to early childhood education in other countries.
Jessica Prioletta interrogates ‘Patriarchy in the preschool classroom: Examining the effects of developmental ideologies on teachers’ perspectives and practices around play and gender’. Using post-developmental perspectives, she takes a critical feminist lens to explore the ‘gendered implications’ of child development ideologies on Canadian teachers’ pedagogies and practices. Jessica collected data in four preschool classrooms, and contends that the preschool teachers’ dependence on child development ‘inadvertently perpetuated a patriarchal culture in their classrooms, as gendered power dynamics went unnoticed and unaddressed in children’s play’. Jessica offers MacNaughton’s concept of the feminist pedagogic gaze to counter this.
In ‘Constructing deficit data doppelgängers: The impact of datafication on children with English as an additional language’, Mandy Pierlejewski explores the ways in which we construct children as data. She suggests that the ‘complex, chaotic and unpredictable nature of the child is reconstituted in numerical form – a form which can be measured, compared and manipulated’. In doing this, we view children as ‘data doppelgängers, ghostly apparitions which emulate the actual embodied child’. Further, she critiques the deficit view of the child that arises out of this data, which is often used to marginalise specific cohorts of children.
We also have a colloquium by Joohi Lee on the popular topic of ‘Coding in early childhood’, and two book reviews.