Supporting democracy and agency for all children: The learning stories of two immigrant boys

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explore democracy and agency for children with diverse backgrounds in Icelandic early childhood education and care. In the last decade, Icelandic society has become more multicultural, as reflected in the increasing number of children in preschools with a home language other than Icelandic. Hence, this article also aims to promote a discussion of how Nordic traditions can be reflected in preschool practice, especially in relation to multicultural education. The ideas, theories and methods when multicultural education is planned seek support from similar concepts, such as democracy, power relations, social justice and children’s agency. The learning stories of two boys with a cultural background other than Icelandic were documented in accordance with the New Zealand curriculum, Te Whāriki, illustrating the boys’ communication and power relations in their preschools by foregrounding their competencies. The study supports other research showing that immigrant children struggle as they participate in play and are sometimes on the verge of being marginalized in their preschool group. The findings reveal that, in the boys’ learning stories, their competence appeared clearly – they were seen to develop their participation and sometimes their agency emerged. The power relations in their groups were not in their favour; they were marginalized in the group of children. These results suggest that, in line with Nordic policy, preschool teachers might work against the marginalization of children from multicultural backgrounds by building on children’s competencies, listening to them, and relying on their ways to interact and find solutions.

Introduction

Internalization and migration in the Nordic countries, as in other European countries, have resulted in more social and cultural diversity in schools. Multiculturalism emerged in Iceland later than in other countries, but the proportion of immigrants is now closer to what it is in the other Nordic countries. At the beginning of 2020, inhabitants with a cultural background other than Icelandic made up 15.2% of the population (Statistics Iceland, 2020). In Iceland, most children from immigrant families attend preschool, as demonstrated by the percentage of children in preschools with a cultural background other than Icelandic being 13.7% at the end of 2018 (Statistics Iceland, 2019).

Immigrants in Iceland are a diverse group with regard to language, education, religion and social status. Icelandic as well as international studies have revealed that children with cultural backgrounds other than the mainstream culture are more prone to marginalization (Ragnarsdóttir and Lefever, 2018) in their school environment. They are more often excluded from the group of children and have fewer opportunities to take part in play than their peers (Einarsdottir and Ólafsdóttir, 2019; Karlsdottir, 2017). Also, at least later in their schooling, they are more likely to become distressed and isolated in their schools (Ragnarsdóttir and Lefever, 2018), and their high school dropout rate is higher (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2020).

About 95% of Icelandic preschool leaders maintain that preschool teachers and other staff support the view that children should, as early as possible, learn to respect other cultures and understand that people from other cultures can have different values. Nevertheless, this recognition does not always mean that specific approaches are used to support equity in early education (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019). Preschool and primary school teachers encounter challenges in supporting education for all children. Icelandic teachers have expressed their distress and claim to be poorly prepared to take on the responsibility of educating all children, including vulnerable groups of children with different cultural backgrounds (Ólafsson, 2018).

Nordic childhoods have been discussed in relation to the Nordic welfare model, emphasizing child-centredness and social inclusion, together with other values (Wagner and Einarsdottir, 2006). The main values in early childhood policy documents in the Nordic countries (Einarsdottir, 2017; Einarsdottir et al., 2015; Johansson and Broström, 2015) describe an emphasis on educating children to become democratic citizens, supporting care, and focusing on children’s social competence and self-conception. In the Icelandic national curriculum guidelines, the unified platform for education is founded on children’s upbringing, care and education, where learning takes place through social interaction and children’s spontaneous play. The curriculum guidelines describe preschools as democratic places and promote views that include planning learning where all children are seen as active participants in society and their daily lives, and should be provided with an education that builds on their interests and strengths (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011).

The aim of this article is to examine how these values are reflected in praxis, especially for children with multicultural backgrounds. This will be illustrated through the learning stories of two boys with multicultural backgrounds as they participated in their preschool groups in two preschools.

Theoretical background: preschools for all children

This study is based on ideas referred to as the ‘sociology of childhood’, which sees learning as taking place in a social context and children having the right and competence to be agents in their lives (Corsaro, 2015; Prout and James, 2015). It is important to determine if these views support the methods used in preschools and whether they work as a support for vulnerable children, such as those with multicultural backgrounds – that is, those living in a social context but having backgrounds that build on different cultural contexts. Among the suggestions from recent research (Aguilar et al., 2020) are the equal valuation of different languages, valuing multiple meanings and planning specific methods to support anti-prejudice attitudes. In addition, some research underlines the importance of finding a balance between recognizing children and families with multicultural backgrounds as vulnerable and valuing their strengths and right to be agents in their lives (Wihstutz, 2020). Other research recommends that preschool teachers reflect on the reciprocal interactions within the preschool group and closely and critically look into the power balance in interactions between teachers and children (Bentley and Souto-Manning, 2019). Furthermore, some researchers recommend including the voices of children in both preschool practice and participatory research (e.g. Dockett et al., 2012; Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015), and suggest that innovative methods in preschools can be developed by taking children’s perspectives into account, which might become the vehicle for change in multicultural education.

Power relations and children’s agency in preschools

In the Nordic educational tradition, democracy has been evolving for the last century and is, among other things, related to the notion of child-centredness, a concept deriving from Key’s (1909) The Century of the Child. Originally, the aim was to support children’s perspectives and plan education where their interests were leading. In the last decades, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) has supported these views, where children’s rights as participants are valued and they are seen as competent agents in society.

In preschool practice, this means that it is important to seek a more equal power balance between preschool teachers and children (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005; Mayall, 2003). Bae (1996, 2009) recommends that preschool teachers who wish to support children in contributing to their daily lives in the preschool community start by acknowledging that they, as educators, are those with the power to define children’s activities. In this sense, the educators determine what is right or wrong, good or bad, and, on the whole, decide the rules and regulations in the preschool. Bae (2009) argues that this unequal power balance can lead to an atmosphere in the preschool that does not value children’s rights to express themselves. Dahlberg et al. (2013) define democratic communities as places where children’s freedom of expression is valued. They maintain that decisions based on the views of the majority are not sufficient; rather, children’s voices need to be heard and their contribution to the social context valued.

Children’s competencies are the main focus when children’s learning stories are documented. In the preschool context, educators document children’s communication and gain an insight into the children’s competencies and the power relations in the group. This also means exploring the individual child’s way of persisting with a difficulty, to what degree the child seems to sense well-being and belonging in the group, and, finally, how the child influences what happens in the group and contributes to the preschool community (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2019). Within the preschool context, contributing relates to the degree of children’s empowerment in the setting. It includes the preschool climate and whether it allows children to have their say and they are listened to (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2019). Power relations can be reflected in the way children contribute to their preschool context, as well as their inclination to communicate with others using various ways to express themselves and put forth their ideas and feelings. Contributing further refers to considering another’s point of view, sensing justice, and taking responsibility for oneself and others.

In peer groups, it is evident that the social distribution of power and participation in play allows decisions about who can join in and who cannot. A strong component in these decisions is age, as the social meaning of age within the group might imply that younger children have less value. Corsaro (2015) found that children used legitimate resources to get around rules, which enabled them to gain a certain amount of control over their lives in these settings. In most preschools, there is a rule that all children should be able to join in the play. Although this rule is maintained, some research shows that exceptions are allowed, including acts of social exclusion (Löfdahl, 2014; Löfdahl and Hägglund, 2006; Ólafsdóttir et al., 2017). Children might develop strategies in their daily interactions where exclusion is a familiarity within their shared culture. This might lead to some children having a peripheral social position, where, in many situations, they might be more often disposed to give in to other children’s conditions, being marginalized or even excluded.

Social justice

The concept of social justice has been defined differently depending on specific frames of ideology. Even though the concept remains contested, it is vital to acknowledge the necessity of discussing social justice in early education and continuing to develop education for young children that strives to meet the needs and rights of children with multicultural backgrounds (Woods et al., 2013). Valuing the notion of recognizing children’s rights to influence their lives, meeting all children by building on their competence calls for special attention and support for children with multicultural backgrounds.

Education that values social justice requires constant reflection to address issues of concern, such as how preschool teachers might meet children with sensitive life circumstances (Woods et al., 2013). One tool is for preschool teachers to reflect on what social justice in education looks like in connection with children’s participation in activities and play in their peer groups, and how or if children in these situations are provided with an education that is just and fair (Bentley and Souto-Manning, 2019). Socially just education is referred to not only by teachers encouraging equality, where every child is given the same support and opportunities, but also, or rather, by equity in the preschool, supporting each child and group of children in relation to their needs, interests and strengths.

Children with multicultural backgrounds are supported in many ways in preschool. Nevertheless, a consideration of the methods used is needed – for example, by looking closely at the power relations in the group of children in relation to whether some children are privileged while others are being marginalized (Souto-Manning and Lanza, 2019). In some preschools, children with multicultural backgrounds are supported by assimilation, where they are helped to adapt to the norms and rules of the dominant culture. Some researchers (e.g. Groski, 2009) maintain that this is not enough, and neither is attempting to reduce prejudice by attending to feelings and communication in the preschool and group of children. To develop multicultural education with equal opportunities, these researchers recommend that preschool teachers explore their group of children in order to build an understanding of the power relations in the peer groups (Souto-Manning and Martell, 2016). By doing so, the social factors of interactions in the preschool might be changed, and a way may be paved for transformational processes for all children.

In the organization of schools and the way teachers reflect on and research their work, Dowd and Bensimon (2015) emphasize social justice as being connected to power relations and seeking a power balance within the school community. Social justice in this study is discussed in relation to three main concepts: care, fairness and transformation (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015). Care includes discussion and relationships between children and preschool teachers. Fairness may be connected to the organization of preschools and also to the way preschool teachers reflect on and research their work. Transformation involves preschool teachers using their power to instigate changes and thus become a part of the transformation process in preschools. Therefore, social justice comprises both external factors – for instance, the organization of the educational system and preschools – and internal factors – for example, the interaction between participants, such as children and preschool teachers.

The following research questions are discussed in this article:

• How do agency and competence emerge in the learning stories of two preschool boys with multicultural backgrounds?

• How do power relations and marginalization appear in the learning stories of two boys with multicultural backgrounds?

• How can the two boys’ learning stories inform ways to support democracy and social justice for children?

Methodology

The study was conducted in two preschools in Iceland. The research method was inspired by ethnography (Fetterman, 1989; Gobo, 2011), starting with lengthy observations in each preschool and attempting to be open-minded and non-judgmental. The aim was to identify both ordinary and extraordinary day-to-day events by constructing and making sense of data. This process is referred to as generating data (Graue and Walsh, 1998; Hatch and Coleman-King, 2015). The learning story approach, developed in New Zealand, also influenced the study (Carr, 2001, 2014; Ministry of Education, 1996, 2017). Based on the data, the researcher developed learning stories for the participating children. The learning stories were created to reveal how the children participated in their preschool groups and to examine the power balance within the groups. By foregrounding children as competent, the intention was to shed light on their strengths, rather than finding faults that needed to be fixed.

Participants and settings

This article focuses on the learning stories of two 5-year-old boys, Axel and David (pseudonyms). Their stories are used to aim to answer the three research questions. Both boys have an eastern European cultural background and had been living with their families in Iceland for more than two years at the time of the data generation. Both understood Icelandic well and could express themselves verbally, although they sometimes lacked words. This article explores how the boys expressed their views and interests by focusing on their competencies, their agency and the power relations they experienced in their preschools.

Lava Ledge, Axel’s preschool, uses an Icelandic curricular approach: the Hjalli pedagogy (Ólafsdóttir, 1992, 2014). The main goals of the Hjalli pedagogy are to support children in following rules, engaging in positive thinking and independence, and to actively cultivate attributes that are typically considered strengths in the opposite gender – an aim that is advanced, for example, through single-sex groups. The themes in the gendered curriculum focus on social competence, which all children are supported to practise. The themes that are seen as needing more practice in the girls’ groups are independence, positivity and daring, and in the boys’ groups, discipline, communication and friendship (Ólafsdóttir, 2014).

Seaside, David’s preschool, works in the spirit of Reggio Emilia (Malaguzzi, 1998; Rinaldi, 2006), where democracy is valued and the main aims are for children to develop their ideas and hypotheses, and to co-construct meaning both individually and in collaboration with others, and to support children in being creative when working on projects.

The practice in the boys’ respective preschools built on the Icelandic national curriculum guidelines (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011) and a specific curriculum in each school. The specific aims of the two pedagogies can be described as either weakly or strongly framed (Bernstein, 1977). The methods in Lava Ledge were strongly framed – visible or explicit, with preschool teachers having more apparent control over communication and its social base. In Seaside, the methods were weakly framed – invisible or implicit, with children having more apparent control over communication and its social base. In both preschools, the emphasis was on specific methods to encourage children to be agents in their lives. Even though different, these methods were meant to support children’s expression and contributions in their daily lives at the preschool. In the preschools, there was an emphasis on children’s individual rights and personal choice, giving them opportunities to express their views and interests, and supporting their contribution to the preschool groups. Issues that were related to the collective or shared rights within the peer groups were also emphasized. Children were encouraged to be considerate towards others’ views, feelings and wishes, and to find ways to support others and value the rights of all to be included in the group.

Analysis

The analysis process was led by Brown and Clark’s (2013) thematic analysis, repeatedly reading through the observations, closely exploring, reviewing, roughly grouping and seeking key labels from the data. After this, detailed descriptions were written and, from these, the researcher developed the learning stories. In Carr’s (2014: 272) opinion, constructing children’s learning stories (and their use as an assessment method) in preschool practice is also an attempt to ‘shift mindsets and expectations from deficit positioning to an acknowledgment and nurturing of interests and learning identities’, which aligns well with the aim of this article – namely, to discuss and suggest ways to transform multicultural education. Bernstein’s (1977) concepts of weak and strong framing were used to describe the pedagogies in the two preschools.

Ethical issues

Ethical issues involving consent, anonymity and confidentiality were addressed by providing all those involved with detailed information about the research and the researcher. Having obtained consent from the preschool teachers, head teachers, parents and those running the preschools, the children were informed about the study, what taking part in the research would mean for them, and how the data would be used to inform others about the results of what the children were doing in their preschool. Assent from the children was sought each time the researcher went to the preschool. The anonymity of the children and their families was promised and followed up by having all their names changed to pseudonyms. Ethical issues were also dealt with by addressing truth. The researcher tried to be as open-minded and non-judgmental as possible, dealing with realities, meanings and perspectives as multiple, with no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. The purpose of valuing many truths and the participants’ multiple views was to increase the trustworthiness of the study and include multiple meanings and perspectives in relation to the children’s participation in the preschool.

Findings

Valuing children’s agency and building on the child’s competencies

In both preschools, specific methods were used to support the children to express their views and contribute. Both schools valued the view that children have the right and competence to be influential participants in their daily lives (Mayall, 2003; Prout and James, 2015; United Nations, 1989). Among the specific aims put forward in Axel’s preschool, Lava Ledge supported children to be independent and make democratic decisions. The following, from Axel’s learning story, illustrates his strengths when participating in the group:

Repeatedly, Axel’s learning stories reflected his competencies. At the time of the data generation, Axel was seen to be physically active, and he was cheerful most of the time. He liked to joke and tell jokes. He tended to move about quickly in the room and expressed himself by words and sounds. In the observations in this study, he seldom took the initiative to build, but did assist other boys and discussed what would be interesting to do. Once, when playing with two other boys building a chicken farm, he took part by moving around, handing cubes to them, and sometimes singing a song they often sang in the large group, a song which was also a fun game, where the boys moved their whole bodies as they sang. In some situations, Axel was at the centre of the group and could be popular among the others – for example, in the outside area, where he really enjoyed himself and collaborated with the other boys. At other times, he had to fight to be allowed to take part in developing the play, choose his own roles or contribute to the play theme.

This learning story illustrates that Axel did not give in to obstructions; instead, he found ways to express himself more clearly, such as by repeating his views or wishes. In this way, Axel was physically active and joyous, and he clearly expressed his ideas verbally. He seemed to know that he had the right to influence (Mayall, 2003; Prout and James, 2015) the play and the play theme, and could be persistent when he needed to follow through on his intentions.

Among the specific aims put forward in David’s preschool, Seaside, was supporting children’s participation in a democratic society as active agents. The following excerpt from David’s learning story illustrates his strengths when participating in the group:

When building, David was focused and calm, and often deeply absorbed in what he was doing. This ability to become immersed in what interested him was seen when he took part in different activities like play dough, painting and building. David seemed to see himself as a builder, which was often apparent when he was building with Nói, a younger boy from another classroom with the same cultural background as David. The other children from his group also seemed to see him as a clever builder. Several times, a younger boy from the same classroom asked for his help. However, the children in his group (children of the same age) seldom took the initiative to involve him, not even when the teachers intervened to support his participation.

David’s learning story reflects his ability to become immersed in activities that interested him. He seemed to recognize his strengths, as was apparent when he was building (Mayall, 2003; Prout and James, 2015). He was clearly marginalized by the group of children of his own age and reacted by keeping to himself, expressing that he did not want to be part of the group.

The learning stories of both boys reflect their competence and inclination to communicate with others (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2019). How their agency is reflected depends on the boys’ ways of acting and doing, the preschool community and, in general, the social context in which these boys were living. Even though they both struggled to be part of the group of children their own age, they seemed to recognize their right to be agents (Mayall, 2003; Prout and James, 2015) and have their say in the group.

Power relations and marginalization

In the two preschools, methods to support children’s participation in the group were seen as important and had the purpose of giving children the opportunity to have their say and be listened to (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2019), and to find a power balance in the group of children and adults (Bae, 1996, 2009; Dahlberg and Moss, 2005).

The findings from the study show that both boys were sometimes marginalized (Löfdahl, 2014) in their groups, which happened in diverse ways in different situations. It has to be acknowledged that these boys were not marginalized all the time, in other situations or with different children. The excerpt below from Axel’s learning story displays how the power balance in the group was not in his favour and how he was marginalized in the group. He was present but the other boys restricted his participation:

Sometimes the other boys did not accept Axel’s ideas, and he reacted by verbally expressing his ideas very clearly; he was persistent if his ideas were rejected and repeated himself again and again. This was demonstrated clearly when Axel entered a room where three boys were playing alien men with their dogs in a spaceship. As Axel arrived, he expressed that he wanted to be a cat. Finnur said there were no cats in this game, only dogs. Omar explained to Axel that there were no cats because they would not be able to jump from the spaceship as easily as the dogs. For a time, the play continued and, every now and then, Axel repeated that he wanted to be a cat. At one point, Finnur said to Axel, ‘No, Axel, there can’t be a cat, or else you will just be disqualified’. Still, the play continued and, finally, Finnur agreed to let Axel take the role of a cat. Axel made a dwelling place for the cat under some chairs outside the spaceship and played there alone for a while. At intervals, he called out to the other boys, describing what he was doing with comments like, ‘I have made the bed for the cat’ and ‘Now the kitchen is ready’. The other boys did not react to his statements. After playing in the cat’s den alone for a while and watching the other boys in the spaceship, he walked over to the spaceship and told the boys, ‘I am a cheetah . . . a bad cheetah’. Following Axel’s comments, a new dispute started, mostly between Axel and Finnur; it concluded with Finnur saying, ‘This is not that kind of a game’. Axel did not give up and repeated his statement of being a cheetah, and Finnur reacted by saying, ‘Then you are a dead cheetah’.

Axel’s learning story indicates that he seemed to know his right to participate and contribute to the play theme; he persistently repeated his wish to play a cat until the other boys gave in and accepted the role. While Axel was building a den for the cat and had started to act in the role of the cat, the other boys ignored him and his play – that is, they used another rule or method to exclude him from their game. Even as this was happening, Axel kept claiming his right to make decisions and be a part of the game. This time, he stated his wish to play a cheetah, a sign that he was still sure of his right to express his views and contribute. Finnur seemed confident in his right to make all the decisions, even though he (and the other boys) probably knew the rule of everyone in the group having the right to contribute to the play. These boys were using ‘secondary adjustments’ (Corsaro, 2015) – that is, they were breaking a preschool rule known to all in the preschool by marginalizing (Löfdahl and Hägglund, 2006) Axel in this group when they did not allow him to make decisions about the roles he chose or the development of the play. Axel did not have a chance to contribute to the play, and the power balance (Carr and Lee, 2019) was not in his favour.

David’s learning story below illustrates how the power balance in the group was not in his favour and how he was marginalized in the group of children. He kept to himself and, on the surface, did not show much interest in being a part of the group:

In most of the observations in this study, David did not seek the other children’s attention and, if he asked for help, he tended to go to an adult rather than another child. Most of the time, he either played alone or with Nói, as they spoke in their home language when playing. When David took part in a collaborative painting project, from the beginning he marked himself a separate place by turning away from the other children and focusing on his own creation. David watched closely what the other children were doing, but he interacted only when he wanted another colour, and sometimes did that so quietly that the others did not react to his request. He sat close to Oddur and, for a short while, they interacted through exchanging colours. David often looked in Villi’s direction and seemed to be more interested in what Villi was doing than what the other children were doing. Once during the episode, Villi wanted the orange, which David had. David stood up, walked over to Villi and put the colour beside him. Villi did not notice, and David went quietly back to his place. Vera, the teacher, drew the children’s attention to what David had done and said it was good of him to help Villi. The other children did not comment or react in any way.

Reflecting on David’s learning story, his standing in the group seemed weak; the other children seldom made contact with him or commented on his work. When he initially turned away from the other children, it might have been his way of expressing that he at least had the right to have his own place. Several times in his learning story, other children excluded him, such as when two girls did not want to play with him and Nói. Another example was Villi’s lack of reaction when David gave him the orange colour. Villi and the other children knew that they should not exclude children, but nevertheless did so (Löfdahl, 2014; Löfdahl and Hägglund, 2006). They either got around the rules or acted in a discreet way, which was not always obvious to the preschool teachers (Corsaro, 2015). Occasions like these might have led to David reading the situation in such a way that called for a reaction, showing his claim of having his own place or even that he was not prepared to run the risk of being rejected by the group.

Social justice

Social justice in the two preschools was supported by special methods, which were different in each preschool. The preschool teachers reflected on the power relations in the peer group (Souto-Manning and Martell, 2016) to seek a power balance within the school community (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015). The specific aims of the pedagogies were either strongly or weakly framed (Bernstein, 1977), with the power balance in children’s and teachers’ communications appearing to be different.

In Axel’s preschool, a strong framing was evident, in which the children were encouraged to follow rules. The educators clearly told the children what was correct and incorrect, and how to behave towards other children and adults. Several times a day, both in the large group (classroom) and in small groups (group time), every child was ‘handed the word’ – that is, they were given a chance to express their views, what was of interest to them, or just what they had been doing at home or in the preschool. The teachers used these systematic formal methods to give all children a chance to have their say, and sometimes they voted. On these grounds, the children and educators made decisions on behalf of the group. Nevertheless, it was clear to both the children and preschool teachers that the ultimate authority to make decisions remained in the teachers’ hands.

In addition, Suzy, Axel’s preschool teacher, had a special agenda for individual children and the group. She explained the agenda for Axel and said that she was trying to support him in interacting with the other boys and help him find ways to be included and contribute to the play in the boys’ group. In her view, she needed not only to support the other boys to be more open towards Axel’s ideas, but also to support Axel in adapting to the others’ ideas. The following learning story is from Axel’s learning stories at Lava Ledge, illustrating Suzy’s methods when interacting with a group of boys and supporting Axel’s participation in the group:

An example from the boys’ group was when Suzy intervened in the boys’ play when Omar, Axel, Hallur and Finnur were playing spacemen and dogs in the soft-cube area. As the boys were playing alien men with their dogs in a spaceship, Suzy came in and asked, ‘Isn’t everyone happy here?’ Finnur answered, ‘No, Axel is . . . playing a game where he was changing into a cheetah’. Suzy said, ‘But he might want that’. Finnur replied, ‘But we aren’t playing that sort of a game’. Suzy responded, ‘Finnur, are you deciding what the game is, or is everyone?’ Finnur countered, ‘He is playing with us’. Suzy added, ‘Yes, isn’t that great?’ Finnur demurred, but the teacher said, ‘Boys, just try to play in a manner that makes everyone happy’. Then Hallur said, ‘But there is no cheetah’. Suzy said, ‘No, but Axel might want to be a cheetah, huh?’ As Finnur, Omar and Hallur turned their backs on the teacher, she addressed Axel: ‘But Axel, if you want to join them in this game, why don’t you try to be . . . maybe a cheetah does not fit?’

Suzy often had conversations like this with the boys. She discussed what was just from each boy’s perspective, stating that everyone should be able to make decisions about the game, the roles and the play theme, keeping in mind the power relations in the group (Souto-Manning and Lanza, 2019). Suzy used a caring relationship in her interactions and a reflective attitude as she planned methods to support the boys in being fair to each other (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015).

In David’s preschool, elements of weak framing were evident; the children were encouraged to build knowledge by co-constructing meaning. The educators valued having different perspectives coming from the children, and the methods they used aimed to encourage the children to express their views and take part in decision-making through consensus. In different situations, the children were supported to be active participants; the preschool teachers often addressed the whole group and led discussions with open-ended questions, such as asking for the children’s opinion, and the children expressed themselves randomly, with some talking often while others seldom offered their views.

Vera, David’s preschool teacher, had a special agenda for individual children and the group. She planned time for David to play with Nói, so that the two of them could speak their home language as they were building, which was their favourite activity. In interacting with the children in the group, Vera drew the children’s attention to David by describing in words what he was doing or what was clever of him. She also asked the other children if they had noticed what David was doing. David’s learning story below illustrates Vera’s ways of interacting with a group of boys to support David’s participation in the group:

During a project when the children devised a play, David was not involved with the acting, sitting on the teacher’s lap throughout. The teacher, Vera, gave him the role of co-director of the play, saying, ‘David is now the co-director’. Vera made attempts to involve David in the acting and supported him in expressing himself and participating more actively. In this situation (and many others), she asked open-ended questions and made comments directed to the group: ‘Did you hear this? David wants to act as an alien’, ‘Look, David has given the role of the alien to Villi’ and ‘This was nice of you, David’. In this situation, David spent most of the time sitting on the teacher’s lap, was passive and hardly ever expressed himself. He looked as if he was not interested, and his contribution to the group’s interactions was minimal (not visible on the outside). In the end, he tried several times to stand up and go, which he did as soon as he was allowed to do so.

Throughout this project, one issue seemed to be unresolved: including David in the group. He was marginalized (Löfdahl, 2014; Souto-Manning and Lanza, 2019). The situation in the group seemed to be connected to the power relations in the peer group (Corsaro, 2015) and appeared to be a difficult task for both the children and the teacher to tackle.

Although Vera made frequent attempts to support David’s active participation, such as by suggesting a role for him in putting on the play and being his partner as they were directing, the problem of including David in this group during these situations remained. As Vera interacted with the group of children, the power balance seemed to be in the hands of the peer group, and she was aware of the unequal power balance within the group (Souto-Manning and Martell, 2016). The children seemed unable to resolve this difficult situation, and the same can be said of Vera. Her interaction with the group of children reflected a caring relationship and respect for the children’s views. Nevertheless, the methods of the weak framing largely seemed to leave the children to figure out what was expected of them. In these situations, Vera did not use her power strongly enough to transform (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015) the situation in favour of David’s contribution to the group.

Discussion

The purpose of this study has been to discuss social justice for all children by exploring democracy and children’s agency in preschools from a multicultural perspective. Also, focusing on democracy and marginalization in two boys’ preschool groups relates to the preschool teachers’ methods for supporting children’s contributions in their peer groups. The data consists of the learning stories of two boys with multicultural backgrounds attending two different preschools in Iceland.

The boys’ learning stories reveal ways in which they can be seen as agents in their lives and contribute to their preschool groups. The two boys’ contributions in their preschool groups, as well as their strengths and methods, were different depending on their social situations, their personal ways of doing and acting, and factors in the preschool community. The image of the boys as they developed their personal approach and revealed their competencies is in line with views on children’s rights and competence to be agents in their lives (Mayall, 2003; United Nations, 1989). Furthermore, the boys’ learning stories similarly reflect the influence of the power relations in preschool communities on children as active agents and contributors (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2019).

In both boys’ learning stories, their competencies appeared clearly. They showed their strengths through their actions as they participated in the group and were seen to find ways to participate in the group. The learning stories illustrate how they developed their participation, and sometimes their agency emerged. This suggests that focusing on children’s strengths and their right to be agents in their lives (Corsaro, 2015; Prout and James, 2015) can give insight into what happens in a group of children in terms of power relations and their contribution in the preschool context (Carr, 2014).

In both preschools, the children were encouraged to express their views, interests and understanding. Nevertheless, it was apparent in the two boys’ learning stories that the power balance in their preschool groups was not in their favour. They both struggled and were marginalized in their peer groups (Corsaro, 2015; Löfdahl, 2014; Löfdahl and Hägglund, 2006). However, both boys’ learning stories reveal that they knew their right to be participants, with each boy expressing this in his own way.

The strong framing in Axel’s preschool and Suzy’s direct ways of telling him and the boys in his group what to do (or not do) might have encouraged Axel to continue to claim his right to contribute to the group. Suzy used her power clearly to suggest what the boys should do, which had the potential to be developed into transforming the preschool community for all children (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015), including children with multicultural backgrounds. A longer period of data generation would have been needed to follow the transformation and make the process explicit.

The weak framing in David’s preschool, Vera’s methods of using comments to draw attention to David, and her open-ended questions directed to the group did not seem to work to support David during the time of the data generation. Building on data from the research period, transformation was not in sight, and it is possible that Vera might have used her power more effectively (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015) to support David and his peer group in finding a way to equalize the power balance. Nevertheless, in this preschool, a longer period of data generation might have cast light on whether transformational processes would emerge.

In both preschools, the teachers used assimilation, teaching the children to adapt to the norms and rules of the dominant culture. Also, the teachers attempted to reduce prejudice by, for example, referring to others’ feelings. Both of the preschool teachers valued the children’s right to express themselves and seemed to seek a power balance in the group of children, although at different levels. This is in accordance with Bae’s (2009) recommendations for preschool teachers to avoid an unequal power balance and to value children’s right to have their say. Suzy discussed with the boys that they should all play together and everyone should be allowed to contribute, such as by choosing their own roles. Vera also discussed these issues with the children, but in a more vague way. Suzy’s methods were closer to being a transformative force, while Vera’s methods might have been more helpful if she had used her power more effectively. These results underline how important it is for preschool teachers who aim to change and develop multicultural education to reflect on the interactions in their group of children and gain an understanding of the power relations in the children’s peer groups (Groski, 2009; Souto-Manning and Lanza, 2019).

Power relations and marginalization appeared clearly in the two boys’ learning stories. Apart from the teachers’ methods, the peer culture was influential in these social situations. The power relations in the two boys’ groups (the oldest children in the classroom) appeared to be in the hands of a few children, who took most of the initiative and made the greatest contribution in decisions, thereby risking that the views and interests of some children were not or were seldom included in the groups’ activities. This resulted in marginalization processes appearing in the boys’ peer groups (Bentley and Souto-Manning, 2019; Corsaro, 2015; Löfdahl, 2014; Löfdahl and Hägglund, 2006). For some children, these situations might be difficult to negotiate, meaning that they will require support in figuring things out for themselves. This applied to both of the preschools that took part in this study.

The two preschool teachers in this study used specific methods to support the two participating boys, with the aim of creating equal opportunities for them and their peers in the preschools. Nevertheless, during the three months of data generation, the preschool teachers still struggled with supporting the boys and their peers. This is consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (2019) Teaching and Learning International Survey report on teachers expressing insecurity in developing multicultural education and supporting vulnerable children in their early childhood education and care practice.

The two boys’ learning stories can inform early educational practice in finding ways to support democracy and social justice for children. The way forward can be found by developing a closer relationship with families and children’s home cultures to gain knowledge about the language and cultural background of each child. When a more detailed understanding of children’s cultural context is available among preschool teachers and other staff, it becomes easier to assess a child’s strengths in relation to language and culture other than the mainstream (Souto-Manning and Martell, 2016). An assessable asset in all preschools is a greater awareness of detailed information about children’s culturally bound strengths and the opportunities to get to know the individual child and the children in the preschool group. This information can inform educators about interactions and other social factors in the group and lead to a transformation in socially just education for all children (Souto-Manning and Martell, 2016).

The findings of this study suggest that, in line with the Nordic tradition, preschool teachers might continue to support vulnerable children and work against the marginalization of children from multicultural backgrounds by building on their competencies, listening to children, and relying on their ways to interact and find solutions. Furthermore, teachers might continue to support children by equally valuing different languages, taking into account the multiple meanings of children, and planning specific methods to support anti-prejudice attitudes (Aguilar et al., 2020). Finally, preschool teachers might use their power as adult professionals in the preschool to change practices to become democratic for all children, leading to the transformation of society (Dowd and Bensimon, 2015).

Preschool teachers might use the information from the research results of this study in aiming to:

• Be aware of and understand children’s competencies to be able to value their strengths (rather than their weaknesses);

• Understand and value the pathway children choose to express themselves and find solutions to support children in building on their interests and competencies (rather than mainly focusing on their assimilation into the mainstream culture);

• Use their power as professional adults in the preschool to change practices to become democratic for all children (rather than democracy and social justice only being for those children who can cope without preschool teachers’ help).

Final words

This study built on the learning stories of two boys in two preschools by generating data over a three-month period. This is a small-scale study, with the main value being related to the focus on individual children taking part in their preschool context. Further research needs to dig deeper into the ‘minor politics’ in preschools and plan long-term collaborative studies. Such collaborative studies might include preschool teachers, children and researchers’ reflections on their personal and contextual views, particularly in relation to what preschool practice supporting vulnerable children might look like.