‘Glocality’ in play: Efforts and dilemmas in changing the model of the teacher for the Norwegian national framework for kindergartens

Abstract

Norwegian society is becoming increasingly heterogeneous. In order to meet challenges and provide conditions for high quality kindergartens ‘The National Kindergarten Act’ and the ‘Norwegian Framework Plan for Kindergartens’ are under revision (period 2013 to 2016). A central challenge of this is how to formulate ideas that support teachers’ pedagogical practices in complex contexts. The article describes how a working group with a mandate from the Norwegian government (Ministry of Education and Research) provide solutions, including a wide vision of the ‘glocal teacher’, a framework where ethical considerations for the future of children were highlighted and where local, situated and culture-sensitive practices were encouraged. Furthermore, the article raises questions and gives illustrations of what kind of model of the teacher and the child should be created in the best interest of children in a growing pluralistic society. A further elaboration of the concept of ‘glocalisation’ in the context of teachers’ pedagogy is needed in order to meet diversity and the educational challenges that follow. A ‘glocal’ model of the teacher could serve as a thinking tool for increasing awareness of globally shared concerns and at the same time for understanding the impact of local traditions and recent practices. The concept of ‘bildung’ (‘danning’) includes such visions and nourishes suggested pedagogical strategies for teacher practices.

For a long time, the youngest children have been on the periphery of the field of education. More recently, however, ‘early childhood education and care’ has been at the top of the political agenda in many global organisations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to mention a few. The increasing worldwide government interest in early childhood education comes from the aspiration to disrupt those cycles by which disadvantage tends to reproduce itself (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005). Another clear reason is that nations are participating in competitive economic situations increasingly based on knowledge and flexibility, and the importance of lifelong learning skills has become obvious.

In an era of globalisation, Norwegian policy- and curriculum-making processes are also closely linked to the national and global economies. As a result, the early childhood sector has been placed high up on the economic agenda in Norway in the last couple of years. Kindergarten is increasingly seen as an arena for social mobility and lifelong learning (Field, 2006) that needs to be addressed by early intervention and by challenging the dominance of a child-centred approach (Jensen, 2009b; Rege, 2011). Both the National Kindergarten Act and the Norwegian Framework Plan for Kindergartens are under revision in the period 2013 to 2016. As this article will reveal, the teacher is meant to play a key role in securing better kindergartens. Both research and political strategy documents point to teachers’ practices in the attempt to improve quality (Jansen and Tholin, 2011; Jensen, 2009a; Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2010).

Teachers’ practices are, on the one hand, both personal and relational; the conditions for such practices are, on the other hand, deeply ideological and political. What teachers can or cannot do and engage in with children, what artefacts they choose or are expected to present for and to use with children, are entangled in structural, philosophical and ideological preconditions. These are more or less well identified, understood and acted upon by the teacher. A curriculum is discursive and negotiated over time; it is politically planned and mandated, it entails a process of formulation and construction and a process of implementation or enactment and transformation. The epistemology of early childhood education (ECE) programmes and practice are closely related in a tangled way to a global policy consensus on common new learning challenges. Intertwined are also the nation state’s political ideas and national historical events, as well as the country’s demographic situation. The scope of action and influence for the teacher to use and develop local and global knowledge in the professional communities will be conditioned in this web and therefore awareness will be crucial for practice. Such communities will operate in a blurred discursive landscape which will regulate and habituate the action space and the consciousness attached to it. Historical socio-cultural contexts are conditioning the way kindergartens institutionally act and organise practice. Several researchers have pointed to the connection between travelling ideas, nation building, local culture, social values and political ideas and ideals within the field of early childhood education (Allen, 2000; Birkeland, 2013; Bjervås, 2011; Roth, 2006; Wollons, 2000; Ødegaard, 2013b; Ødegaard and Koreponova, 2013).

Norwegian researchers have also pointed to a need for future focus on the role of the teacher in Norwegian kindergartens. In a recent study of the implementation of the current framework plan, the result showed that kindergarten teachers seem to have only a limited critical and analytical approach to the national curriculum, and it was unclear whether they were adequately and necessarily prepared for understanding the complexity of the relationship between planning and practice (Tholin et al., 2009). In a study of children’s activities in Norwegian kindergartens, 798 long-term observations in 18 kindergartens were analysed. The results revealed a low level of teacher–children interactions in both planned and spontaneous activities. Against this background, the researchers pointed to a possible confusion on the part of the teachers concerning their role in a child-centred tradition (Kallestad and Ødegaard, 2013). Is it possible to acknowledge and protect children’s play and play culture and simultaneously argue for a participant and dialogical model of the teacher? Further professional discussions are needed in order to understand the local cultural impact on how the model of the teacher is experienced and exercised.

A process of revising the national Norwegian Framework Plan for the Norwegian kindergartens provides an opportunity for a wide-ranging discussion of visions for our common future society, models for frameworks and strategies for teachers’ practices. In an era of globalisation, the field should raise and discuss what kind of kindergarten suits our children, their families and our nation. For example: what kind of curriculum positions does the state mandate for and what are the relations between this Norwegian mandate and globalisation? What will best suit local traditions and considerations for new and old plurality and traditions? How should aspects of children’s rights to play, culture and protection be considered and acted upon in the future? What kind of model of the teacher and the child reflects the best interests of children in an increasingly pluralistic society? What kind of pedagogical values and strategies for teacher practices would it be wise to propose for a local Norwegian early childhood framework? And could a ‘glocal’ model of the teacher be part of the answer to global shared concerns and local traditions for our children in the future?

This article will touch upon all these questions, with the emphasis on addressing the last. Examples will be given from a document outlined by a working group appointed by the Ministry of Education and Research to give suggestions of revising the Norwegian Framework Plan and tasks for kindergartens. ¹ The article is written from the position of the leader of the working group (who was appointed by the Ministry of Education and Research and will be followed up by the Norwegian Directorate of Education) to draft a proposal for revising the Norwegian National Framework plan (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2011) (here referred to as WGRNFP). A political mandate was issued based on recent political documents and research, which will be presented later in this article.

The aim of the article is to illustrate how a process of revising a curriculum implies processes of ‘glocalisation’. With a fresh example of such a process going on in Norway, the article will serve as a descriptive case of such a process. ‘Glocalisation’ is to be understood as the co-presence of both universalising and particularising tendencies (Featherstone et al., 1995). ‘Glocalisation’ conceptualises the idea that political globalisation does not necessarily penetrate every aspect of the local culture, local traditions and views. In spite of globalisation, local conditions can be adopted, held on to and transformed. Local models and varieties across a nation can also put pressure on the development of local models. The model of the democratic process of a revising process will condition whose voices are invited and heard. ² In a global era where travelling ideas wander, a suggestion of pedagogical strategies could be addressed to the ‘glocal teacher’ as a reminder for the professional teacher to situate practice in the local environment. Such a reminder is seen as crucial when political pressure on teachers increases and when a range of international actors are on the market offering teachers ready-made materials and programmes as solutions to their pedagogical challenges.

In line with the Nordic tradition, the WGRNFP has placed high up on the agenda democratic pedagogy for sustainable futures and the kindergarten as an arena for cultural formation. In the Nordic tradition, the model of the child has been the child as a social actor, the framework has been holistic and nature and outdoor activities are integrated and seen as an important cultural activity and ideology to maintain and encourage (Alasuutari et al., 2014; Alvestad and Samuelsson, 1999; Birkeland, 2013; Ødegaard, 2012b). The complicated task for such a working group is to operationalise these global ideas and recommendations of encouraging lifelong learning and early intervention, and at the same time consider local culture and traditions. The transformative revising processes are taking place in a local national context, which is a heterogeneous one. The framework plan should be formulated in a clear and readable language for all citizens and must take new knowledge on children, education and institutional conditions into serious consideration. Both the WGRNFP and the invited public voices incurred a loss of time. Two contemporary drafts and considerations of the voice of the public should result in suggestions on approximately 30 pages in six months. The democratic model of taking the heterogeneous voices of the public into consideration at the same time made the process, in my personal opinion, not necessarily more democratic, but rather heteroglossic. Such a time-hurried process easily gives power to the masters of the pen and of rhetoric.

Early childhood programmes as a ‘glocal’ field

As addressed in the introduction, the early childhood field has become an arena where nations tend to believe that, with investment in early years’ education, it is possible to produce predefined outcomes. Programmes and technical practices travel across borders; they are exported and imported.

Travelling ideas are, however, not a new trend. The idea of an early years’ programme such as the German Fröbel kindergarten circulated across national and institutional borders and was locally transformed. Roberta Wollons shows, by a series of examples from around the world, how the kindergarten idea has been diffused, and how local policies have transformed and recontextualised kindergartens (Wollons, 2000). At the present time, there is, however, something new in the global market for educational programmes. Policy elites have come to think about young children and their cognitive potentials in a new way. The OECD points, in their recent report Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education and Care (Taguma et al., 2013), to certain strengths in the Norwegian framework. Along with the compared countries New Zealand and Sweden, Norway integrates education and care in order to provide holistic development. It is also mentioned that Norway emphasises children’s agency and play, recognising parental cooperation, and is given credit for highlighting inclusion. The Norwegian tradition is, therefore, to a large extent democratic and locally oriented (Korsvold, 2011, 2012; Ødegaard, 2007, 2013a). The OECD recommendations, however, include developmental focus and goal-oriented assessments. They point to (a) defining goals and content; (b) curriculum alignment for continuous child development; (c) effective implementation; and (d) systematic evaluation and assessment (Taguma et al., 2013). According to Ann-Christine Vallberg Roth, the Nordic tradition seems to be in a process of taking on the colour of the Anglo-Saxon tradition (Roth, 2013).

The global field of early childhood education and care is not only complex and multifaceted, it also occupies an important platform for governments’ economic and social policy and thereby increasingly shapes new narratives (Farquhar and White, 2014). The OECD and the Norwegian government are well-meaning in their efforts to promote desirable outcomes for every child; nevertheless, they claim to know what constitutes valued knowledge. Ontological differences as well as divergences about the significance of cultural values are also at stake.

I work from a position where I believe that if a nation wishes to advance its human and economic capital, if it wants to provide itself with good citizens for the future, this must entail a national provision of teachers who can work from within the child’s socio-cultural situation (and location). In these locations, the teachers will have to deal with social and genetic differences, a variety of languages and cultural heritages. The idea of the ‘glocal’ teacher could be suggested as part of the answer. A ‘glocal’ teacher will have both a global and a local awareness and knowledge, and therefore it is reasonable to believe that the glocal teacher is also better prepared in locally situated practices. Such a model of the teacher is expected to be able to frame a larger picture and take different perspectives into consideration before making judgements and decisions.

In line with Fuller (2007), I worry that to push universalised and standardised schooling downwards will, contrary to good intentions, risk disempowering children, families and local communities. We need to take into consideration new knowledge on situated and contextual conditions for meaning-making, identity and learning. Several researchers have described the mistake of using universal pedagogical methods in multicultural and multi-ethnic classrooms, and some also offer culture-sensitive and appropriate approaches (Balto, 2009; Gupta, 2006; Mannion, 2010; Paley, 1997; Tobin, 2013).

To suggest pedagogical values and strategies for teacher practices implies a model of the teacher that balances the focus on intended practices, based on knowledge of high quality practice, while leaving space for professional local, culture-sensitive and child-centred judgements. A technical or instructional approach is neither what the Norwegian mandate asks for, nor is it in the Nordic tradition. The WGRNFP therefore agreed with the ambition that the model of the child should be based on internationally recognised research on children’s rights and development and in addition based on a Nordic tradition where children’s conditions for learning, such as the importance of play, creativity and exploration, are highlighted. This includes the view that children should be viewed with an acknowledgement of differences and should be seen as social participants and actors. The model of the teacher should include knowledge about professional leadership, responsibility for quality pedagogy for all children and a generational responsibility that embraces living democracy as world citizens and pedagogy for a sustainable future. The pedagogical ideal of the world citizen is, according to Peter Kemp, an ideal to strive for. He argues that knowledge and technique include both everyday life as well as political life. This means that from a very early age pedagogical institutions represent the ethical voice of society. This voice must be the voice of the world citizen (Kemp, 2013: 28). Global challenges are of concern to us all and go beyond the issue of humanity. A close relationship with nature is a characteristic of Norwegian culture, which mirrors many kindergartens’ excursions to nearby urban or rural landscapes, arranging for the children to take a nap or eat outside in fresh air, take part in outdoor activities and work on the values and knowledge of biodiversity, starting with attendance at kindergarten as one-year-olds. In line with Wolfgang Klafki (2001), Kemp also sketches some key concerns that education must address. These are:

Global aspects of finance in relation to democratic control, the economy and technology.

The clash between cultural/national consciousness and global responsibility.

The threat against sustainable development from the consumption of food, health, pollution and global warming (Kemp, 2013: 22).

In addition, there will be threats across these issues such as international crime, terrorism and genocide. Sustainability in its pure form is, of course, a utopia, a fact that has been taken up by critics (Stables and Scott, n.d.). In spite of this, it will be possible to work this vision into spontaneous and planned pedagogical events. The effort of trying to localise possible educational spaces where sustainability can be an ethical ideal and will form our habits and politics is a challenge, and Gert Biesta states that real education always involves a risk. The risk is there because education is about lighting a fire. He makes a strong argument for giving risk a central place in education (Biesta, 2013). Teachers’ practice is, from this point of view, fundamentally a relational pedagogical practice. Personal experience and local knowledge include a wide space for local judgement in particular situations and are seen as crucial. Borders between self and other must be explored, problematised and redrawn. The goal of education in a pluralistic and complex society could be to decentre learners from their own culture-based assumptions and to develop a cultural identity that embraces the child both as citizen of the world and at the same time as belonging to local settings in families, in local activities and landscapes of different sorts. This must include engagement with other human beings, with local artefacts, places and nature. Education and pedagogy is a highly cultural, ideological and political field and therefore not a simple, but rather a complex, difficult and blurred task.

Before I outline the suggested operationalisation of values and pedagogical strategies for the (glocal) teacher, I will briefly give additional information on the background for the revising process of the Norwegian Framework Plan.

The background for the revising process situated in Norway

The Norwegian government has a history of close relationships with the other Nordic countries. Consequently, the Norwegian Framework Plan shares its main ideas with the Swedish ‘læroplan’ (curriculum) (Regeringskansliet, 2010), as pointed out in curriculum research (Alvestad and Samuelsson, 1999; Roth, 2006; Taguma et al., 2013; Ødegaard, 2013b). The Swedish researcher Ann-Christine Vallberg Roth has compared the Nordic countries’ governing documents for kindergartens. She has provided a nuanced and faceted Nordic image, and tracks current interwoven threads in a Nordic (transnationally influenced) curriculum. She states that the term ‘quality’ has been introduced widely in educational policy, often in combination with safety, assessment, training, evaluation, accountability and control, but also as an idea and the means to create better conditions for children’s lifelong learning, as has also been identified by other researchers (Biesta, 2006; Dahlberg and Moss, 2005; Roth, 2006). She finds that the Nordic tradition differs from the tradition she calls the ‘preparation for school tradition’. The Nordic tradition provides a view of the child and childhood where the child is a subject of rights: to autonomy, to well-being and to growth on the child’s own premises. The child will learn naturally and with research strategies. She also finds a child with a great sense of the pleasures of outdoor life and freedom; a time for childhood that can never be repeated (Roth, 2014: 158).

The first framework plan for kindergartens was enacted in Norway in 1996, in Sweden in 1998 and in Denmark in 2004. These three Scandinavian countries share much common history, and although their early years frameworks differ in the detail, they share the Scandinavian, and the wider Nordic, early childhood educational view on democratic education and a holistic pedagogical approach to play and learning. Local varieties such as goals and evaluations are worth mentioning. While the Swedish and the Norwegian framework share an approach in which goals are connected to the process of aiming for certain abilities and skills, the Danish framework mandates local planning for learning goals that can also be measured. Another interesting difference is how play is described in the frameworks. While the Swedish curriculum emphasises that play shall be consciously used with a view to development and learning, and the Danish merely describes the conditions for play, the Norwegian Framework connects more directly to the UNCRC: ‘Play has a value in its own right and is an important aspect of children’s culture’ (page 15 in the Norwegian Framework Plan of 2011) (Evalueringsinstitutt, 2013).

Let us look more closely to the guidance for teacher practices. Common to the Nordic tradition is that the national curriculum guides the choice of pedagogical themes and projects.

Confidence is placed in the teachers’ professionalism and in the child’s own learning strategies, that is, in learning through relationships, through play and through educator scaffolding or guidance at the appropriate moment. This approach contrasts with the ‘preparation for school tradition’. In a more academic approach such as this, we may find that the teacher has to balance a mixture of instruction and child-initiated activities, and thematic work is encouraged and managed by the teacher. Emphasis is placed on a national curriculum that must be ‘delivered’ correctly. The relationship with the children is characterised by an emphasis on individual autonomy and self-regulation (Roth, 2014: 159).

When the Ministry of Education initiated a revising process in 2013, the political situation in Norway was a socio-democratic (red–green) coalition, in power from 2007–2013. This Stoltenberg Government had given priority to a structural change in early childhood educational policy: over a period of several years, intense pressure was put on local municipalities to give priority to building and reorganising the educational sector to the benefit of the youngest children. The result was that, in 2013, kindergartens had full coverage for families who want an institutional place for their child. ³ In 2013 the time had come to take initiatives to enhance not only structural quality, but the quality of the curriculum, teacher education, all round staff ⁴ qualification and looking into how the Kindergarten Act and Framework Plan regulates the content and tasks of kindergarten.

Before the last election in autumn 2013, when a conservative and liberal (blue–blue) government was elected, the Ministry of appointed a group of professionals and researchers to suggest a revised framework programme for kindergartens as a regulatory instrument for the last Kindergarten Act (Ministry of Education, 2011). The mandate referred (among other documents) to White Paper no. 41 (2008/2009): Quality in Kindergartens and White Paper no. 24 (2012/2013): The Kindergarten of the Future. The mandate stated that some parts of the proposal were to be omitted because of an expected change of the Kindergarten Act as suggested in Norwegian Official Report (2012: 1) To the Best Interest of the Child. The group was permitted to complete their work under the same mandate by the new Solberg Government, and therefore submitted a proposal in February 2014 and the reasoning for it in March 2014. The time schedule followed the lines predicted and planned for by the red–green coalition. This work has now been put on hold until the announced changes to the Kindergarten Act have been legislated. This interval provides further opportunities to reflect on the Norwegian model, its strength, flaws and dilemmas.

Let us first look at what the mandate says, particularly concerning pedagogical strategies and teacher practices. The mandate suggested consideration of, and the potential need for, an extra description of working methods and organisation of the pedagogical work. This consideration was to be done in accordance with new research on children and childhood, and general challenges relating to welfare, inclusion and social mobility in an increasingly pluralistic society. Particular attention was to be given to how indigenous Sami children should receive a high quality service. The mandate emphasised the importance of a continued Nordic holistic approach. At the same time the political documents that the mandate referred to suggested that the government wanted to raise quality for the youngest children (one- to three-year-olds), the oldest children (the five-year-olds, particularly in terms of preparation for school) and examine the teacher’s role and pedagogical strategies. The philosophical concept of ‘danning’ ⁵ should be operationalised in ways that could guide teacher practices.

Understanding the first paragraph of the Kindergarten Act is crucial for solving the task. The visions for quality, the obligations to international law and the values are formulated here. ⁶ In the first paragraph it is stated that ‘The kindergarten shall, in cooperation and consultation with the home, safeguard children’s need for care and play, and promote learning and “danning” as the basis for a holistic development’.

The group interpreted the values formulated in the kindergarten as fundamentally democratic values that included a responsibility of pedagogy for a sustainable future in the best interest of the child. Accepting the fact of a strong relation between high quality practice and an engaged teacher made explicit the task of the grounding values in which the teacher shall think, judge and act. A further task was to struggle with the complex nature of making the philosophical concept of ‘danning’ operative and making it guide teachers’ practices. Moreover, the political mandate asked for a judgement of whether it would be recommended to make the teachers’ pedagogical strategies more explicit. Such a task would entail the construction of a new model of both the teacher and the child. This was a notification that had to be continually discussed through the process. When the work in progress gave notice to one aspect of the teacher’s practice, this would easily change the model of the child. When the work in progress aimed to empower the children, this would move the model of the teacher. What did these changes actually mean? And what was the optimal balance between the model of an engaged, explorative and playful teacher and the model of a participating child?

The model of a participating child has strong roots in the Nordic early childhood curriculums, as also stated internationally by the UN (1989). If we strengthen the teacher’s role with more explicit tasks, how do we not reduce the child’s role as an actor and a participant? The group interpreted the values formulated there as fundamentally democratic values that implied a model of the teacher where responsibility for a pedagogy aimed at a sustainable future in the best interest of the child was predominant. This difficult task was solved by writing about the teacher’s role as a responsible, dialogical one and by taking on board explicit markers of situated, local and cultural sensitivity.

Giving the primary attention to sustainability and democracy as values in the suggested framework touches on the economical and sociological phenomenon of ‘glocalisation’. This phenomenon is characterised by a transnational economy that spreads and succeeds by ‘thinking globally and acting locally’, as seen, for example, to a certain extent in UNESCO’s promotion of early childhood education, and especially in the UN placing children’s rights high up on the political awareness agenda worldwide. It is noted that Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has transformative powers and will encourage a dynamic and far-reaching reflection as well as reinforcing its role as a basis for development, and in doing so thereby promote a global exchange of good practices (UNESCO, 2010). Globalising processes are in play. Good practices must be locally discussed and negotiated. The model of a ‘glocal’ teacher emerges as a consequence and a necessity. The ‘glocal’ teacher emerges as the model of a teacher who must simultaneously manoeuvre between global ideas and local needs and situated judgements.

The critical question to be asked is whether it is possible or wise to take a concept such as ‘glocalisation’, developed within the field of global economy, and associate it with intended and prescribed teachers’ practices. Is it wise to adopt such a concept and apply it to the model of a teacher? Such a model will embrace an understanding of acting as a responsible world citizen while simultaneously being present here and now with the group of children. A ‘glocal’ teacher must act according to ideals of cultural sensitivity and situated practices.

The concept of ‘danning’ and the teacher as a relational and situated actor

The Norwegian concept of ‘danning’ has been high on the educational agenda over the last few years and is now one of the key concepts in the recent revision of the Kindergarten Act 2011: Section 1 (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2011). ‘Danning’ has been difficult for teachers to grasp when it comes to practice. In the current text from 2011, close ties were made between the concept of ‘danning’ and the concepts of learning and care. This confused teachers: how could they discriminate between the concept of learning and ‘danning’ when they operate in pairs, as expressed in the current framework plan? Another difficulty was that public debate on the concept related to university studies, where liberal art philosophy was closely connected to the German concept of ‘bildung’ (Bostad et al., 2009). ‘Danning’ is derived from pedagogical philosophy and can be traced back to Aristotle’s concept of paideia, understood as bringing a child into cultural heritage, and phronesis, understood as ethical wisdom. The concept is, however, used in various ways in the literature.

A common way of understanding the concept is to understand it as ‘bildung’, implicit as ‘self-bildung’, a process of being a critical, participating and democratic citizen. While some claim close ties between the concept of ‘danning’ and ‘bildung’, others claim that socialisation covers the description of how an individual operates as part of a society (Lyså, 2012). Some argue that the phenomenon of ‘danning’ could be understood as processes of cultural formation or cultural shaping; how an individual undergoes relational and cultural shaping processes (Ødegaard, 2012a). All these concepts have different connotations and are therefore not synonymous, and as a consequence the meaning changes in accordance with the choice of the connotative meaning. The researchers who claim that ‘danning’ can be understood as cultural shaping delineate the meaning of the concept to be understood as continuous processes that occur in and in relation to people and artefacts within a social and cultural location in a community. Children and teachers shape themselves and are shaped in dialogical processes with other people, culture and history, nature and society. Cultural formative processes are physical, bodily and mental. Such formation occurs when we have the experience and knowledge of the outside world, other people and ourselves. Experience and knowledge include both what people actively do and are included in, and how the process of experience takes place. Values, habits, life forms and knowledge we grow up with are conditions for our actions, movements and mental orientations of self and culture, yet these forms of structures can be changed (Ødegaard and Krüger, 2012).

Such an approach serves analytical and descriptive approaches. A framework provides a societal mandate and is therefore normative. In this context certain cultural values will be addressed and highlighted by a society. Values as responsibility is emphasised in the literature when discussing ‘danning’ (Straume, 2013). The connection between the pedagogical cultural tradition versus an academic educational one becomes evident (Mollenhauer, 2006; Turmo et al., 2013).

Let us read some excerpts from how the group conceptualise ‘danning’.

Kindergarten should address current global challenges in accordance with the United Nations, which has pointed out how the unequal distribution of benefits and increasing environmental challenges must be taken seriously. This must be captured in pedagogy for a sustainable future. Such a pedagogical approach promotes a generational solidarity and global perspective. Sustainable development happens when we as a society live in such a way that we leave behind the values and resources so that future generations have the opportunity to harvest at least as much as we have. The kindergarten’s pedagogical practice will be designed according to such ideals.

Nature experiences can make a deep impression and shape the child’s relationship with himself and nature. The goal is for children’s outdoor experiences to create a further commitment to the environment and sustainable development. Respect for life and biodiversity is fundamental. Staff should be good role models and let the children understand nature as an essential condition for life, food and health.

The Kindergarten Act states that children should learn to take care of themselves, each other and nature. This means that children must have the opportunity to develop knowledge of, respect for and interaction with both fellow humans and nature. Staff and children must ask important, appropriate and ethical questions about local and global environmental problems, poverty, solidarity, equitable distribution and equality. This should be part of the kindergarten’s pedagogical content. The staff must discuss what such ethical issues involve for kindergarten practice. They can work with sustainable development through all subject areas (11). ⁷

Global concern is here suggested as an obvious issue for kindergartens in accordance with documents and ecological pedagogical philosophy (Kemp, 2013; Klafki, 2001; UNESCO, 2010).

Further on, the WGRNFP suggested a transformative text where Nordic tradition is taken up and comprised in accordance with the core values of the purpose of the Kindergarten Act:

Kindergartens will promote democratic values, and therefore citizenship is a central pedagogical ideal. To be formed to democracy is all about being a brave, thoughtful and responsible participant in the small and large communities the child enters into and is a concern of any work in kindergarten. Children must have space for participation by being welcomed on their own premises, and children’s initiatives are to be followed up. Children must be supported in continuing with investigations of different perspectives, formulating their own views and making sense of the world they are part of. Formation of democratic values in kindergartens can best be realised if it creates good cooperation between children, between generations, between the sexes and between people who have different conditions for participation, perceptions, opinions and beliefs (8).

The excerpt shows an effort to balance the teacher and the child as participating actors defining the curriculum space. An understanding of the concept of ‘danning’ can include the teacher as a human being who is always situated in a certain context and in relation to certain children and a particular curriculum. The concept ‘danning’ here embraces the teacher’s processes of being and conditioning the child’s processes as a participant in the world.

A consequence of such a dialogical approach is the sensitivity and awareness of culture and diversity. Let us continue to read the following passage:

‘Danning’ is closely linked to culture and may be about heritage and traditions as well as creation, animation, innovation and actualisation. Culture in kindergarten must also be understood as work, art, aesthetics, forms and expressions that create conditions for children’s learning processes. Staff should look for opportunities to expand and inspire children’s knowledge and ‘danning’ by introducing various aspects of culture and let the children participate in the various forms of culture. Staff can work with activities by making children familiar with people from different generations. Older generations may be invited to participate in kindergarten activities. Children’s culture is culture that concerns the children’s generation and is therefore culture both by, with, and for children. The kindergarten will offer rich cultural influences and experiences. When children play, their understandings, insights and skills are adapted and modified, as are those of their peers, and as a consequence child culture is created (8).

In this excerpt, on the one hand, we can see a model of the teacher that is teacher-centred, but on the other hand we can see an effort being made to take a child-centred approach.

Considerations for how to meet the processes of globalisation in local practices are suggested in the following excerpts:

‘Danning’, identity and belonging are linked; this is the process that starts in the close relationships and continues through a myriad of experiences in various venues throughout life. Identity is not something developed once and for all, but something which is presented, discussed, negotiated, confirmed and rejected in the company of others. How children experience interaction with others is part of their sense of self and lays the foundation for a child’s experience of belonging. Staff must see the children both as individuals with thoughts, feelings and intentions and as part of a social and cultural community who actualise their identity and belonging to the group of children.

Key elements of Sami8 cultural stories, closeness to nature and interaction with it should be part of what all children experience in kindergarten. In Sami kindergartens such content must be included in daily life, celebrations and the design of outdoor and indoor environments, equipment and toys. Also, Sami children who attend day care outside the Sami districts will learn that Sami content is included in the general pedagogical content. Sami children and other children for whom it is relevant must be allowed to pursue their own interests in this way to develop local, national and global identities and a sense of belonging.

As a consequence of globalisation, the world is experienced as smaller but can expand perspectives. Children in kindergarten are already integrated into the global network through travel, relocation, refugee migration and use of media. The staff’s cultural understanding should include local, national and international perspectives. Kindergarten lays the foundation for respectful interaction between different ethnic groups. Children must discover variations in living conditions and cultural forms of expression and have opportunities for philosophising and developing thoughts, values and attitudes such as solidarity. Together, the staff and children should work to sort out and process information, relate to and act upon their discoveries (9).

Efforts have been made to include the Sami perspective in an inclusive way. The Sami people have certain legalised rights and a Sami parliament. The Sami perspective is being mentioned in an inclusive text, and not as a special group under a special rubric. In this way, variations and diversity are given the colour of a resource perspective. An inclusive indigenous approach was to a large extent inspired by the Te Whariki approach (Lee et al., 2013). This bi-cultural curriculum from New Zealand has some similarities to the holistic approach, but also certain differences, as pointed out by the OECD (Taguma et al., 2013).

The suggestion of the working group also addresses the complexity of everyday practices and attempts to be explicit about what is often phrased as the ‘hidden’ curriculum. The following excerpt connects ‘danning’, the discoursive and material aspects of institutional lives:

Ways to connect and be together, materials, procedures, daily rhythm, habits, theme work and celebrations represent pedagogical content that concerns ‘danning’. Children make experiences with ‘what’ and ‘who’ that are made available for them through daily practice and academic content. What kindergarten staff provide will show high or low value; what they choose and decide to present, consciously and unconsciously, reflects what is made important, invisible or omitted in kindergarten practice. The goal is that children develop awareness that they are part of the cultural interaction. How can children learn that what they do or do not do has meaning for them and the environment? Staff must put the spotlight on conditions for ‘danning’ and be willing to reflect on their own attitudes, habits and actions.

The staff's overall work on ‘danning’ must be built on knowledge and pedagogical judgement. The work requires regular practice assessments and potential modification of the content and organisation. Staff must constantly try to understand how children experience their lives in kindergarten and continually try to improve conditions for children’s pedagogical and ‘danning’ processes (9).

This excerpt illustrates the effort of considering local and situational practice. The reason why such a long passage about ‘danning’ is suggested must be understood in the Norwegian local context where this concept has been a philosophical and a blurred concept for people outside the academic field of pedagogical philosophy.

What kind of models of the curriculum can be read from the excerpt? The concept of ‘danning’, as it has developed in the Norwegian pedagogical debate, seems to have led the WGRNFP to transform the two conceptions of pedagogy as elaborated in Farquhar and White (2014): the liberal, emphasising the autonomy of the child; and the conservative, emphasising the authority of the teacher. Such a conceptualisation can be read from the suggestions from the group. The intention was to try to meet the global pressure on ‘down-schooling’ processes by pointing at Early Childhood Education (ECE) pedagogy as a fundamental relational concept, rather than a response or an intervention. ‘Danning’, understood as the child’s processes of being a participant in the world, takes up, on the one hand, the liberal conception and the contemporary early childhood discourse on underlining child-centred approaches. On the other hand, the concept meets the critics who point to the danger that a child-centred approach, by emphasising the teacher’s role as a cultural and participatory agent, leads to more inequality and social differences and that children are not reaching their potential (Jensen, 2009b).

Teachers are actors of social and cultural reproduction, but unlike the historical understanding of class as the stand-alone determination, social and cultural issues work in relationship to gender and ethnicity/race and are affiliated with subcultural context (Luke, 2010). Standardised and scripted pedagogy risk offering obedience as a key social skill to children born into indigenous neighbourhoods, rural areas and families with low income. By underlining the agency of the teacher we open the floor for a possible teacher-in-context reflexivity. The concept of ‘danning’ opens up a pedagogy of child-in-context and subsequently pedagogical judgement.

In extension of the reflection on the illustrations, a short reading according to Glenda MacNaughton’s three curriculum positions (conforming to society, reforming society and transforming society) (MacNaughton, 2003: 111–244) might be helpful. It is possible to read all three positions in the passages above; I will, however, claim that the last two positions, and especially the last position, are dominant.

‘Conforming to society’ will deal with cultural transmission and technical approaches that aim to reproduce skills needed to achieve national economic, social and political goals. According to MacNaughton, Ralph Tylor is the key thinker for this curriculum approach. The Norwegian Framework Plan does not have goals for the individual child’s achievements. Emphasis has, however, as already pointed out, been put on the learning environment, and the teachers are seen as crucial for creating good learning communities. The holistic profile is ‘conforming’ in the sense that a framework will always have a societal mandate. The strength of this position could be judged by how detailed the goals are and how close the relationship is between the goals and the evaluation practices.

‘Reforming society’ deals with making moderate changes to society. This curriculum position believes that education can reform the individual child so that autonomy can be developed and values such as freedom and justice can prevail (MacNaughton, 2003: 156). John Dewey may be mentioned as a key thinker for this curriculum position, and some will argue also as a key thinker for transformative thinking (Letnes, 2014).

‘Transforming society’ addresses a desire to change existing practices, rules, traditions and understandings to achieve greater social justice and equity. Such a position is characterised by modelling the teacher and the child as actor and participant. The ideas can be said to derive from social constructionism and social activism such as that of Paulo Freire, feminism, postcolonial resources and human rights movements. The section on sustainability builds on such a curriculum position. Also, the section about the Sami people puts pressure on acknowledging cultural identity, ethnicity and minority groups connected to the aspect of belonging. We can also see that the content explores diverse possibilities for children’s becoming (MacNaughton, 2003: 190). Such a position will demand a global and local engagement from the teacher. Responsibility for dialogical relationships (Holquist, 2002; Junefelt, 2011; White, 2009; White and Peters, 2011) will be expected of the teacher. Such relationships must include collaborative learning and acknowledgement of cultural diversity and anti-biased attitudes.

Grounded in a ‘reforming society’ curriculum position and a ‘transforming society’ position, the WGRNFP suggested five areas of pedagogical strategies that could develop the concept of ‘danning’. The intentions were to synthesise the demand and political expectations of controlling and develop high quality kindergartens (a tendency seen in global travelling ideas) within the Nordic holistic tradition and the Norwegian emphasis on ‘danning’ as relational, democratic and transformative pedagogy. The suggestions can be read as efforts of ‘glocalisation’.

Valuable contextualisation

Communication and conversation

Situation and relation

Organisation and improvisation

Variation and progression

An effort is made to control the teacher by pointing at preferred pedagogical strategies. The effort to control the teacher is not technical; rather, a large space is created for situational judgement. Pair four: systematic organisation and playful improvisation seem to be binaries. On the contrary: improvisational pedagogy will need framing in order to make sense of and meet the situated and local relational act with sensitivity. Aspects of teachers’ approaches to pedagogy are put together in order to open up new pedagogical possibilities.

Reflections on the ‘glocal teacher’ as a vision

We have seen that, in spite of the given position and opportunity to draft and sketch suggestions for a revised framework plan for kindergartens, the position is not a free one. A political mandate encouraged by overseas documents on the one hand and the expectation to be concerned about the Nordic holistic tradition on the other is a contradictory and therefore difficult task to transform. This group agreed upon solving this contradiction by emphasising the aspect of ‘danning’ and by creating some pedagogical strategies for teacher practices. The mandate anticipates a stronger teacher’s role and possibilities to control for enhancing quality in kindergarten. Our answer was to make a wide vision of the ‘glocal teacher’, a framework where ethical considerations for the future of children were highlighted and where local, situated and culture-sensitive practices were encouraged. The concept of ‘danning’ includes such visions as Peter Kemp (2013) suggests with his vision of the world citizen.

The mandate expected that the suggestions should include a text that would help teachers to work in the direction of a ‘danning’ oriented framework. After the terror attack in Norway on 22 July 2011, which was a protest against the state administration and against young politicians from the socio-democratic youth party at Utøya, the concepts of ‘danning’ and democracy have been closely interlinked and seen as a crucial direction in all education. Some years later, these events seem to be fading and falling into the shadows in the discussion of coherence between kindergarten and school and also kindergarten as a preparation for school, as seen in the already mentioned OECD recommendations. However, these excerpts illustrate how a national concern for ‘danning’ to foster democracy is adopted and extended in this new suggestion. The WGRNFP suggestions can be labelled as a ‘danning’ oriented framework; other suitable translated labels might be equity based/ecological/democratic/dialogical. The term holistic that is commonly used when referring to the Nordic tradition has limitations, being a term that claims to include every aspect. As indicated throughout this article, teacher practices rest on and are conditioned by the philosophy and ideology of the framework.

In the next couple of years, we will know the answers to what kind of philosophy and ideology will dominate when decisions about the law and framework are to be taken, as well as how aspects of economic and cultural equity, human (children’s) rights to play, learning and protection will be considered and acted upon. This article has raised the question, and given illustrations of suggested answers, concerning what kind of model of the teacher and the child is in the best interest of children in a growing pluralistic society. The pedagogical values and strategies presented here have already been suggested to the government in the process of revising the national framework. The Norwegian context is increasingly heterogeneous. A ‘glocal’ model of the teacher could serve as a thinking tool in the process of increasing awareness for globally shared concerns and at the same time understanding the impact of local traditions. A further elaboration of the concept of ‘glocalisation’ in the context of teachers’ pedagogy is needed in order to meet this challenge. The play of ‘glocality’ seems inevitable.