How neoliberal globalization is shaping early childhood education policies in India,China,Singapore,Sri Lanka and the Maldives

Abstract

In rapidly globalizing systems of schooling around the world, economic considerations have led to a push to impose neoliberal reforms in the field of education. Under this influence early childhood education and teacher education in Asia have increasingly become positioned as regulated markets governed by neoliberal policies, leading to peak activities in privatization, consumerism, standardization and high-stakes testing. This article, based on a series of qualitative inquiries, presents a review of recent early childhood policies in India, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The impact of the policies on pedagogy is discussed within the frameworks of neoliberal globalization and postcolonial theory, emphasizing the growing need to recognize the third space of pedagogical hybridity in classrooms that are becoming increasingly multicultural and global.

Keywords

Early childhood education policy neoliberal globalization pedagogical hybridity postcolonial theory

Introduction

The impacts of globalization on schooling systems around the world have led to economic considerations that have increasingly sought to impose neoliberal and conservative reforms on global and local standards (Apple, 2011; Green, 2005; Ross and Gibson, 2007). Prior studies have examined these influences on early childhood education (ECE) in the contexts of several countries and regions including the USA, the UK and other nations in the European Union, Central Asia, New Zealand, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, Pacific nations, Singapore, and India (Duhn, 2010; Gupta, 2012, 2014; Kaskac and Pupala, 2013; Lee, 2012; Lim, 2016; Paik, 2008; Rana, 2012; Robinson and Diaz, 2006; Simpson et al., 2015; Sims and Tiko, 2016; Steiner-Khamsi et al. 2006).

This article is based on a review of recent early childhood education policies in five Asian countries: India, Singapore, China, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. No attempt is made to suggest that there is a single ‘Asian’ context. Asia is a vast and diverse continent comprising cultures that are as diverse and foreign to each other as on any other continent. The countries included display these very wide-ranging socio-cultural, economic, political, linguistic, racial and ethnic diversities. Nevertheless, it is evident that waves of neoliberal globalization have influenced changes in the educational and economic policies of these five nations.

In this article I use the conceptual frameworks of globalization and postcolonial theory to discuss critically how and why neoliberal ideas and the rise of consumerism are increasingly defining ECE policies and practices in Asia. An overview of recent ECE policies in the five countries included here revealed shifts in pedagogy from an academically rigorous, teacher-directed approach toward a more learner-centered one, largely influenced by a Euro-US developmental discourse. The impact of social and economic policy approaches of world organizations on ECE in Asia is discussed; and the challenges that educators face as they confront forces of neoliberalism are highlighted.

Conceptual framework: globalization and postcolonial theory

For the purposes of this article I accept the concept of globalization, as proposed by Giddens, as the ‘intensification of worldwide social relations which link localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events happening many miles away and vice versa’ (Giddens, 1990; as cited in Arnove, 2007). Globalization is not a recent phenomenon: it has occurred since the very first trade routes were established. Although waves of globalization flow in both directions, globalization has served prominently as a channel for bringing dominant ‘Western’ influences into the ‘non-West’, perhaps inevitably having a profound impact on educational policy worldwide. Policy may be created and implemented in a highly contextualized manner, but it travels globally to affect places far away (Rui, 2007). Accordingly, ‘Globalization of education’ may then refer to the impact that worldwide discussions, processes and institutions have upon local educational practices and policies (Spring, 2009). Globalization can have a critical influence on core educational decisions such as ‘what counts as responsive and effective education, what counts as appropriate teaching… and who benefits from it throughout the world’ (Apple, 2011: 222–223). The latest occurrence is the ‘globalization of neoliberalism’: this allows the entry of foreign investments and foreign corporations into the national markets of emerging economies (Chatterjee, 2016). The influence and assimilation of ‘foreign’ ideas and practices into local contexts is certainly not a new phenomenon as seen from histories of colonialism. Neoliberalism fosters a neocolonialism as economic and political hegemonies of dominant powers are now established in nations considered to be weaker emerging economies. This justifies the use of postcolonial theory to frame this discussion.

The framework of postcolonial theory is particularly helpful in exploring the juxtaposition of diverse perspectives, to examine how knowledge is produced, and to explain imbalances in the relationships between discourses that reflect dominant/marginalized, or colonizing/ colonized. Postcolonial theory addresses the two-way dialogues and transactions between seemingly binary ideas opposing each other. But when these binaries are viewed as cultures with fluid boundaries interacting with each other, then the exchange can appear as a form of cultural translation as ideas from one culture become modified and embedded into another culture (Bhabha, 1994). This process of transformation may lead to the creation of a grey area, a third space of cultural hybridity, which holds fresh possibilities (Bhabha, 1994, 2009). Furthermore, this approach provides for a deeper understanding of the transaction and the knowledge production that occurs within the space of cultural hybridization (Tikly, 1999).

The same approach can be applied when ideas from one pedagogical discourse become embedded in a culturally different one. Postcolonial theory enables an examination of the flow of diverse educational ideas and the curriculum that is enacted within the third space, in this case a space of pedagogical hybridity. Teaching and learning processes occurring within this space of pedagogical hybridity constitute a pedagogy of third space (Gupta, 2006, 2016). In earlier studies, Gupta (2006, 2013) demonstrated how early childhood teachers in urban India were observed to navigate between tradition and modernism, their voices in dialogue with the voice of the dominant discourse of the ‘West’ (Gupta, 2006). Discourses not only refer to what is said and thought but also who has the authority to speak and when. Using a ‘Western’ discourse to describe educational philosophy and pedagogy undoubtedly provides credibility to schools in the developing world. Much more attention needs to be paid to the impact of globalization on the field of early childhood education, and on teacher education pedagogy and policy in postcolonial societies of the global South.

The next section highlights some international forces that helped create an environment which fostered neoliberalism and rise of consumerism in ECE.

Background

The 2015 deadline of Education for All (EFA)¹ galvanized countries around the world to develop and expand early childhood as one of the targets in the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Historically, ECE was not a central government mandate, resulting in an absence of a distinct and organized ECE system in most of Asia. This posed a huge challenge with regard to the EFA deadline and many goals remained unmet. Aiming to fill those gaps the UN’s new agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now identifies 17 objectives to be achieved by the year 2030. The fourth of these goals seeks to ensure inclusive and quality education for all, with a sub-goal that specifically addresses early education and teacher education:

4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education;

4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States. (UN, 2016)

To date, in much of Asia ECE has been offered by programs managed variously by private, non-government and/or government organizations, but with no systematic framework to manage or regulate these programs. National governments are working to establish regulatory systems to ensure adequate access and quality that will provide appropriate ECE standards to all children. The paucity in Asia of both ECE and ECE teacher education has been a niche that began, and continues, to be filled rapidly by privately-managed pre-schools and ‘teacher training’ institutions. Although privatization of education in Asia has experienced rapid expansion, many centers have questionable standards. Achieving universal access to primary education was one of the MDGs; now, quality of education is a focal point for the 2030 SDGs with the aim of ensuring inclusion and equity.

In working toward improving quality there have been major revisions in ECE and teacher education policies in countries across Asia and the Pacific. However, the process of policy-making itself is beset with struggles between conflicting interest groups. Most often policies reflect the values of the more dominant groups. Many of these changes can be linked to the effects of global and neoliberal ideologies shaped by capitalist values of a Euro-US ‘West’. The core of neoliberalism comprises the ideas of individualism, consumerism, free choice, competition and efficiency – and these are also the core concepts of a market economy. When translated into educational policy and pedagogy these ideas reflect a distinct shift from a group-orientation to an individual-orientation; education pivots from being a social, not-for-profit enterprise to a consumer-based, for-profit movement. In Asia, a ‘… shared trend of making a “right” turn through neoliberal policies to reform preschool education’ (Lee, 2012: 31) has been observed. This shift is manifested in increased privatization of schools, standardization of curriculum, regulation of institutions through stricter licensing procedures, increased hierarchical control over teachers with a corresponding decrease in teacher autonomy, and a policy narrative that is couched in the language of dominant ‘Western’ ECE discourses.

Methodology

This article is based on research findings from a series of inter-related qualitative inquiries conducted by the author and situated within the urban social–cultural–political context of the five countries considered here (Gupta, 2014). These countries were selected on the basis of their socio-cultural, economic, political, linguistic, racial and ethnic diversities, not only with regard to each other but also within themselves. The selection was also determined by research opportunities that were available to the author. The focus of the larger study was to examine how changes in national ECE policies in Asia were reflected, or not, in local early childhood classrooms. The inquiries used a comparative approach to examine current trends in ECE policy and practice within specific socio-cultural contexts and world-views. The methodology allowed for:

A bibliographic investigation and review of institutional and policy documents, to provide an overview of current and proposed recommendations for early education and teacher education in each country; and

An empirical investigation comprising (a) interviews with policy makers, teacher educators and teachers; and (b) non-participatory classroom observations in teacher education colleges and pre-primary schools in each of the countries.

Data were collected from a wide range of sources including policy institutes, research organizations, teacher preparation colleges and institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and pre-primary and primary schools. Interviews were audio-taped and then transcribed. Data analysis entailed coding and categorizing to identify information with regard to the aims of the study.

The next section highlights recent ECE policy changes, and the related neoliberal influences on the field, in India, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. It is important to note that policies are best understood within the local context, and with regard to the process by which they become transformed as and when global trends interact with local values (Rui, 2007).

Findings from a review of ECE policies in Asia

India

Since the early 1990s major changes in India’s economic–political agenda have affected the nation’s educational policy from pre-primary through higher education. A distinct move away from traditionally academic teacher-directed approaches toward learner-centered and inclusive policies in education are included in national policies such as the National Curriculum Framework 2005 (NCF, 2005); the National Council of Educational Research and Training Focus Group on Early Childhood Education (2007); National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE, 2009) policy revisions; and the Right To Education Act (2009).

The National Policy on ECCE (Ministry of Women and Children, Government of India, 2013) was adopted by the Government of India ‘to reiterate the commitment to promote inclusive, equitable, and contextualized opportunities for promoting optimal development and active learning capacity for all children under the age of 6 years’ (Ministry of Women and Children, Government of India, 2013). The policy reiterates a quality and holistic approach to ensure optimal education, care and development, recognizing the interdependent relationship between the health, nutrition, psycho-social and emotional needs of each child. The policy is applicable to all ECE programs (private, public or non-governmental, variously referred to as crèches, play-schools, play-groups, pre-schools, nursery schools, kindergartens, preparatory schools, anganwadis, balwadis, home-based care, etc.). The standard that addresses quality refers to capacity-building of an adequately qualified staff trained in developmentally-appropriate practices and assessment procedures. The National Policy recognized the shortfall in the availability of trained human resources and recommended the development of a plan to strengthen existing early childhood teacher preparation institutes.

According to the Law Commission of India,

…state government and the local authority shall provide free and appropriate pre-school education based on a Pre-primary Education policy that shall be formulated by the state government, to all children above the age of three years till they complete six years so as to prepare them for elementary education. (Law Commission of India, 2015: Report 259)

According to the 2011 census, there were some 158.7 million children between the ages of 0–6 years in India at that time (2011 Census). To attain the Law Commission of India’s goal, it was proposed that pre-school centers should be established in all government and aided schools in a phased manner within three years – that is, by 2018; a child-friendly curriculum should be developed by academic authorities for these centers, to be linked to the anganwadies for providing Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) services to all the children; and the minimum academic and professional qualifications required for pre-primary teachers shall be as prescribed by the NCTE (Law Commission of India, 2015: Report 259).

Furthermore, with the government supporting private–public partnerships, dozens of franchises have emerged in the area of ECE. Organizations such as the Education Alliance, or Network for Quality Education Foundation, actively work on aims such as:

Help design and facilitate execution of policies/programmes for setting up Government-Partnership schools that work for all relevant stakeholders, particularly children, government and school operators based on global best practices. Develop a strong pipeline of quality non-profit operators available to operate schools in the geographies covered by The Education Alliance; Assist in monitoring and evaluation in Government-Partnership Schools to ensure delivery of quality education. Assist in securing funding to fill the gap between costs incurred by non-profit players to operate schools and the expenses borne by the government. (Education Alliance)²

The Right to Education Act (2009) ensures school access for economically disadvantaged children. As a result there was a substantial increase in student enrollment numbers; and there has been a corresponding increase in private schools to accommodate all students. The incidence of privatization of early childhood centers and teacher preparation institutions has also increased dramatically. However, for ECE to be an organized and sustainable system, close collaboration with government agencies is needed. It is noted that although ‘… there appears to be greater awareness… about the need for appropriate practices in ECE … market forces appear to be diluting the efforts of practitioners and experts to make ECE a more professional field’ (Centre for Early Childhood Education and Development (CECED), not dated: 108).

China

Recent publications by the Chinese Ministry of Education reflect a changed discourse regarding children and their education, with emphasis being placed on the need for children to experience a childhood defined by leisure and play rather than by study and toil, on the basis that this new approach is crucial for children’s individual development and for a strong and stable Chinese nation (Naftali, 2010). The following policy emphases indicate a shift from teacher-directed to learner-centered approaches:

Guidance for Kindergarten Education (2001): bridge the gap between practice and theory;

Shanghai’s 2004 Second Phase Curriculum Reform: theme-based curriculum and decreased duration of school lessons to allow children more free time to play;

Shanghai’s People’s Congress Standing Committee (2004): noting children’s physical and emotional changes based on their developmental stages; and

Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Educational Reform and Development (2010) in which Chapter 3 refers specifically to ECE.

The China State Council document released in 2010, Issues Regarding Current Development of Early Childhood Education, highlighted the following issues of importance (Zhou, 2011):

A more prominent position of ECE in the government’s agenda by working closely with social and private stakeholders;

Increased government funding for early education;

Building teacher capacity to ensure an adequate supply of qualified teachers with minimum professional standards;

Special government funding for the education of minority children and bilingual education;

Each province to develop program standards according to central government regulations and diverse social needs;

Improved security in ECE programs to ensure children’s safety;

Fee regulation in ECE programs;

ECE to be based on children’s development, and combine play with care and education;

Local governments to actively coordinate all stakeholders in ECE in order to create a cohesive and integrated system; and

A three-year Action Plan to be developed and implemented with clearly stated developmental goals for the children.

The privatization of ECE institutes reveals the impact both global and neoliberal forces have on education. Between 2001 and 2007 the number of public ECE services in China dropped from 60% to 40%, but there was an increase in the number of private ECE services, from 40% to 60%, during the same period (Zhou, 2011). The welfare model of the kindergarten, which was regarded as an outcome of the socialist system, is being changed by neoliberal market reform as Chinese kindergartens have increasingly become self-managed small businesses (Gu, 2006). Private kindergartens have developed at a faster rate than public ones. By the end of 2013 there were 133,451 private kindergartens, an increase of 8813 (7.1%) from 2012, accounting for 67.2% of the total number of kindergartens nationwide.³

Even the language used to describe some kindergartens is market-based. One website presents the following description:

… private preschool education institutions in China include Etonkids, Golden Kids International School, Kid Castle, R.Y.B, Golden Cradle, etc, of which Etonkids and Golden Kids International School brand themselves as high-end providers. As far as business model is concerned, Etonkids adopts the model of direct operation, and Golden Kids International School employs a combined model of direct operation and holding venture.³

Singapore

Singapore pre-schools consist of childcare centers and kindergartens. Childcare centers are licensed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and provide education and care for children aged two months to six years: the centers are regulated under the Childcare Center Act of 1988. Kindergartens are regulated by the Ministry of Education (MoE) under the Education Act of 1958 and cater to the education of children aged three to six years. All preschools are run by the private sector, including religious bodies, community foundations, business organizations and social organizations (Pre-School Education, Ministry of Education, 2007; cited in Ng, 2011).

In recent years the MoE has been promoting an ECE policy which is more globally informed, with higher teacher qualifications for nursery and kindergarten. The Early Childhood Development Agency (2013) was created as an autonomous body to integrate the Preschool Education Branch and the Child Care Division, and works to develop children holistically, nurture positive attitudes towards learning, and facilitate the transition of preschoolers to formal education, as well as to increase efforts to support and strengthen Singaporean families. A Kindergarten Curriculum Framework was presented in 2013 with the core belief that children are curious, active and competent learners. The shift away from teacher-directed academic methods supports a pedagogy that emphasizes the holistic development of children; the need to build confidence and social skills during the pre-school years; and the need to develop learning dispositions which will prepare children for lifelong learning. The Framework also provides more details on the role of the teacher in facilitating a purposeful play pedagogy. Six learning areas, with learning goals within each area, are defined: aesthetics and creative expression; discovery of the world; language and literacy; motor skills development; numeracy; and social and emotional development.

To keep education competitive in the context of globalization, scholars, teachers and principals were sent on study tours to the USA and the UK to learn about and develop innovative skills (Gopinathan, 2001). Western ideas of education were brought back into local contexts as exemplar practices. Similarly, as a result of political influences and the desire to be more child-centered, many kindergartens have been mentored by non-profit organizations in ‘Western’ pedagogies and approaches such as Reggio Emelia.⁴ As Tzuo suggested,

Driven by the trends of the highly globalised world, there is a need to cultivate creativity and thinking skills in children… the new preschool initiatives are different from the deeply rooted academic drives of Singapore education. This change requires preschool teachers to reorient themselves to align their beliefs and practices with the global fashion of education. (Tzuo, 2010: 80; cited in Ng, 2011)

The five recommendations by the MoE in 2003 were to identify desired outcomes of pre-school education; develop a curriculum framework; study the benefits of pre-school education and the new curriculum; raise the standards of teacher training; and enhance the regulatory framework for kindergartens (Tharman, 2003: 1; cited in Ng, 2011). The language used and the recommendation of a systematic study to prove the benefits fell squarely within a neoliberal discourse.

In the process of being established as commodities, ‘child care centres and kindergartens position themselves first as businesses, emphasising particular kinds of teacher performance that could reduce the educational process into a series of mechanical tasks to be completed’ (Connell, 2013; cited in Lim, 2016: 22). Lim (2016) noted that typical global business environments foster mergers and acquisitions and this can be seen happening with childcare centers in Singapore. One of UK’s largest nursery school chains, Busy Bees, now owns 50 centers representing three popular Singaporean childcare brands (Lim, 2016: 23); and the locally developed Cherie Hearts has 50 centers in Singapore and manages another 200 in Australia (Lim, 2016: 24). Such branding and the emergence of ‘niche schools’ has become enormously popular; furthermore, the commercialization and privatization of early education has also led to the same change occuring with early childhood teacher education (Lim, 2016).

Sri Lanka

The Early Childhood Development sector of education in Sri Lanka caters for children between the ages of 3 and 5 years. As elsewhere in Asia, most preschools – including nursery schools, kindergartens and Montessori schools – have been managed by private operators. Local or provincial government authorities such as Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas have offered programs for young children, but most preschools are in the private sector. Unfortunately, a large number of private preschools have been found to be of sub-standard quality, functioning as no more than money-making enterprises. Many preschool administrators and teachers lack adequate ECE qualifications and the expertise necessary to offer quality experiences. Even when preschools are staffed by qualified teachers this does not always imply good practice, because the standards of many institutes which award ECE certificates are themselves questionable.

The Early Child Development Standards developed by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Education in 2008 started work on the premise that good early childcare aims at school readiness and enables children to use the educational opportunities provided for them for improving their life chances and becoming productive citizens. Sri Lanka’s National Development Policy Strategy, encapsulated in the Mahinda Chintana (Sri Lanka Department of National Planning, Ministry of Finance and Planning, 2016), is an articulation of the government’s desire to promote equitable, broad-based economic growth through the expansion of infrastructure, rural development and investment in human capital (World Bank, 2012). According to a World Bank Report (2014) there is growing recognition in Sri Lanka of the importance of investing in early education, for the following three reasons: ‘(i) equalizing learning and earning opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, (ii) maximizing returns to investment, and (iii) preparing children for formal schooling to improve their learning levels in school and accelerate human capital accumulation’ (World Bank, 2014).

To achieve this aim all preschool/early childhood development centers and day-care centers are required to maintain minimum level of standards and be registered with the Government.⁵ What has hitherto been a decentralized system of early education is now under pressure to be more regulated and standardized. According to the National Policy of Early Childhood Care and Development the central government will provide the national policy guidelines and standards for preschools, while provincial governments will be responsible for regulating the same.⁶ The aim of the Ministry’s Preschool Development Plan is to develop a ‘child friendly’ pre-school system with higher standards; upgrade infra-structure facilities in the preschools; uplift the professionalism of pre-school teachers; and ensure the implementation of a common procedure in every preschool in Sri Lanka.⁷ The language of policies and the use of dominant ‘Western’ standards to assess quality both offer clear evidence of the strong influence of neoliberal globalization and neocolonialism on early education.

Maldives

In the Maldives, too, most preschools are non-governmental or private institutions (Latheef and Gupta, 2007); but there have been some which are managed by local councils. Preschools cater for children aged 3–5 years, with Baby Nursery for two-and-a-half-year-olds, Nursery for three-year-olds, Lower Kindergarten for four-year-olds, and Upper Kindergarten for five-year-olds. Cybo, listing schools in Naifuru, one of the Maldivian islands or atolls, mentions the island’s three preschools: Nooraanee Preschool, Roashanee Preschool, and Lifelong Learning Preschool.⁸ The first two are the oldest preschools in the Maldives (Nooranee was established in 1947) and are managed by the local council, while Lifelong Learning is a private school. Before the introduction of modern day preschools, the traditional edhuruge (gathering of children in a private home to learn to read the Koran) functioned as an ECE setting. The edhuruge and the modern preschool have been contrasted in the following ways, respectively: home-based versus school-based, untrained teachers versus trained teachers, free versus fee-based, lack of learning materials versus use of modern equipment, flexible attendance versus scheduled attendance, no curriculum versus prescribed curriculum, rote-learning emphasized versus play-based learning (Fariq et al., 2010).

The Early Childhood Development Unit was created in 2004 within the Education Development Center to strengthen preschool education in the Maldives, and promote best practices in ECE based on developmentally appropriate play-based learning. In the National Curriculum Framework (published in 2014) key competencies for early childhood were identified as: relating to people, thinking critically and creatively, making meaning, understanding and managing self, living a healthy life, practicing Islam, using technology and media, and learning for sustainable development. International preschool models have been recently established, the largest of these being Kangaroo Kids International Preschool. The curriculum is designed by Kangaroo Kids Education Limited (www.kkel.com), an international education franchise with over 30 years’ experience in early years learning, using ‘action-based learning using innovative teaching methods’ (Kangaroo Kids Preschool, 2010).

The first-ever four-year undergraduate degree program for preparing early childhood teachers in the Maldives was designed at the Faculty of Education in 2009. With the government mandating that early childhood education would be compulsory, as are primary and secondary education, there have been sustained efforts toward offering pre-primary teacher training. The UN has been actively offering teacher training in child-friendly pedagogies and a UNICEF Report⁹ describes ‘child-friendly’ schools at Meedhoo on the Maldivian island of Raa Atoll. As UNICEF’s report states, in order to ‘support the changes in the education system, UNICEF has helped to establish Teacher Resource Centres throughout the atolls of the Maldives. Used by teachers and pupils alike, the centres offer some of the latest in high-tech teaching tools, such as interactive Smart Boards and broadband internet access, to achieve remarkable results.’.

The five nations

In summary, a significant relationship can be seen to exist between the global agenda to shape socio-economic development in emerging economies and their educational policies and practices. The findings revealed the following themes that characterized early education trends across the five countries studied:

Movement away from the traditionally academic teacher-directed approach toward learner-centered, child-friendly and inclusive policies in education;

A prominent role given to the discourse of play pedagogy;

Clear attempts to create an organized and sustainable ECE system;

Increased privatization of early childhood programs for children and for teacher preparation;

Neoliberal forces affecting education as a result of increased privatization – centers positioned primarily as businesses and described in market-based language;

Educators sent on study tours to Western English-speaking countries to learn about and bring back innovations in education in order to continue to be competitive in the face of globalization;

Increase in the rate of establishing international preschool models and global schools; and

Decentralized systems of early education now becoming more regulated and standardized.

One of the concepts highlighted in most policy shifts was the idea of play being central to ECE. I will provide a glimpse into what this policy shift looked like in the classrooms and in the perception of some teachers.

Privileging the role of play in classroom practice

The discourse on play has received much prominence and warrants a brief discussion in the context of this study. Many emerging private schools are marketed as ‘global’ or ‘world-class’ based on the fact that they use a ‘play-way method’ or ‘play-based curriculum’ and provide instruction in English. These descriptions are linked to a ‘global’ discourse on play and are viewed as adding value and prestige to an institution. Preschool teachers’ understandings of ‘play-based’ schools implied that children were allowed to ‘play’ and have experiential learning opportunities as opposed to the more traditional local schools where children had to ‘work’ on academic topics.

Several teachers described play as referring to activities such as circle time, working with manipulatives, finger painting, singing, dancing, tearing and pasting, clay modeling, and so forth. They viewed a play-based classroom as one which was well-designed; displayed children’s artwork on the walls and bulletin boards; included activities such as those listed above; where meaningful learning was taking place and everyone was smiling; where children worked in small groups, and were engaged in active games while learning numbers and alphabets (Gupta, 2013).

In a community preschool for 4–6 year olds in Singapore, the classrooms were set up as in a progressive early childhood room in the USA: instead of the traditional desks and chairs, several learning or play centers in the classroom offered children the opportunities to draw and paint, build with blocks, play dress-up, play at the sand or water tables, or examine objects on a science table; parent involvement in the classroom was encouraged, and the curriculum was based on hands-on activities (Gupta, 2013: 221).

Although many classrooms observed during this study were colorful, warm, welcoming, and bright, this was certainly not reflective of all early childhood classrooms in Asia.

Discussion: neoliberalism and postcolonialism in Asian education

The impact of neoliberal globalization in Asia through the sponsorships of world organizations is evident in the policies outlined above. Bodies such as the World Bank, the IMF and the UN are based in Europe or the USA and work largely in the development of emerging economies. Their approaches to education development have been closely defined by a child development discourse rooted in US research on neuroscience, behavioral science, and developmentally appropriate practice (Mahon, 2010), emphasizing a future-oriented rationality that views the child as human capital in the making (Dahlberg and Moss, 2008) . Thus investing in children has become fundamental to these organizations’ larger social and economic policies and investment projects. Financial support is offered to local NGOs, community-based schools, vouchers, and public–private partnerships to benefit the very poor, but the support is couched in a neoliberal narrative (Mahon, 2010) which positions education and teacher education as regulated markets: test scores are used to measure student outcomes, teachers are measured by students’ test performances rather than by their own professional knowledge (Brown, 2009) ; and teacher candidates are taught how to deliver standardized and regulated curricula and comply with specific assessment systems (Mayer et al., 2008).

The World Bank (2011) referenced Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman whose work has demonstrated the economic returns of investing in quality ECE. Another World Bank report (World Bank, 2006) cited a return of US$2–US$5 for every US$1 invested in ECE in developing countries. Policies adopting this approach are based on the recommendation that good early learning programs for younger children reduce costs later in life, while enhancing the nation’s economic growth; thus high-quality ECE experiences can help break the cycle of poverty. This incentive has caused a number of economically developed countries to work toward regulating the early childhood sector and, consequently, they are also shaping ECE policy decisions in Asian countries as well. Under neoliberal influences the main purpose of education has thus shifted from preparing all children to participate effectively in society to, now, preparing students for future employment (Baltodana, 2012). ‘Education has become an “adjunct of corporate control”’ (Giroux, 2015: 123; cited in Sims and Tiko, 2016).

The policy shifts in Asia clearly demonstrate the influence of a neoliberal market economy on early childhood schools and teacher preparation institutions: there are significantly increased emphases on issues such as standardization, teacher capacity, stricter regulations, fee-based programs, assessments linked to student outcomes, more rigid qualifications to enter teacher education, and widespread privatization and creation of franchises. Interestingly, Oberhuemer noted that ‘against a background of globalisation it seems that new economic, social and knowledge contexts are having contradictory effects on education systems’ (Oberhuemer, 2005: 33). While national governments exert more control over school curricula and classroom teaching, there is simultaneous evidence of increased privatization and decentralization; and systems of education in turn respond to the global economic agenda by prioritizing competencies such as school readiness based on test-scores (Oberhuemer, 2005; Pearson and Degotardi, 2009).

Peaks in the privatization of educational institutions have created a system with a wide range of fee-charging private schools. Families in any socio-economic group now have access to private schooling: ‘…as the field of education is redefined as a marketplace…the parents and children/students are reconfigured as consumers while educational programs are commodified’ (Lee, 2012: 31). Through privatization, neoliberal policies might seem to offer increased choice and improved school experiences to all children. However, ‘this “freedom to choose” is socially constructed and economically reconfigured to transform our common sense while prescribing a particular way of being, acting and behaving’ (Lee, 2012: 39): this is not a real choice, and the quality of education many children receive is questionable. Equally, it is troubling that quality assessment of early childhood programs is measured against ‘Western’ standards, as the following evaluation illustrates: ‘Pre-school education in Sri Lanka has developed a style of its own that is uniquely out of step with the more widely accepted Early Childhood Education theories and practice valued in most developed countries’ (King, 2010). This seems to exclude pedagogies that may draw upon culturally-relevant local traditions.

Governments in Asia have undoubtedly become increasingly global in their outlook as they engage in a give-and-take process in which global policies are borrowed and modified to meet the needs of local educational institutions. The concept of policy borrowing has been a central issue in the context of globalization (Phillips and Ochs, 2003; cited in Rui, 2007). This process creates a space of hybridity. As local cultures evolve under global influences, respective school systems also witness a simultaneous evolution. It is likely that a hybrid space in pedagogy may reflect established practices as well as newly-borrowed ideas in educational philosophies, pedagogies, and curricula. If previously, in formerly colonized nations such as India, the educational discourse of an exam-driven and textbook-oriented curriculum was predominantly reflective of European colonialism, then the current early educational discourse may be more reflective of Western progressive education in its emphasis on child development and a developmentally appropriate curriculum. Learner-led activities, academic teaching and the transmission of local socio-cultural ideas by way of the ‘hidden’ curriculum could be embedded in a prescribed curriculum (Gupta, 2006).

A private pre-school in India…claimed to use a play-way method or play-based pedagogy for teaching. At the same time, phonics was used widely to teach the 4 and 5 year olds. There was a definite structure to the day with regard to the daily schedule and timed periods which gave the feel of a teacher-directed experience. A sample daily routine for any classroom would include outdoor games…; indoor games like Oranges and Lemons, and A Tisket A Tasket; oral work; doll house play with dolls and their accessories (this occurred in a separate room that was used for housekeeping play); writing for the prep or kindergarten classes (consisting of the four and five-year olds) and drawing for the nursery class (consisting of three year olds); a break or recess at about 10:20 am; indoor games; lunch from 12 noon–1:00 pm. Each period was of 20 minutes duration. Every Friday there was held an imaginative activity was held, such as recreating a local wedding. This seemed to be where children could implement their ideas most freely. (Gupta, 2013: 221)

As global and local discourses engage with and transform each other, the ‘discourses’ find themselves in the hybrid ‘third space’ that is thus created (Bhabha, 1994). This ‘third space’ can be the medium which fosters the emergence of pedagogical hybridity reflecting a discourse that combines diverse thoughts on teachers, teaching and children’s development that draw on both local and global ideals (Gupta, 2006, 2015, 2016).

Conclusion: we have to go through it

Neoliberal globalization has shaped early education in Asia in two primary ways: (1) by applying the discourse of a market economy to educational institutions and transforming them into commodities for consumers; and (2) by applying the discourse of the widely used US ECE guide, Developmentally Appropriate Practices, first published in the USA in 1987 (Bredekamp, 1987).

These ‘Western’ discourses seem to provide credibility to schools in the emerging economies. Vavrus (2004) noted the legitimacy that is given to changes in the local systems through the borrowing of language and educational models from external countries. However, the projects that are sponsored and funded are usually accompanied by pedagogical practices that are also shaped by a dominant Euro–USA nexus. In the debate on policy borrowing and lending, Steiner-Khamsi asserted that ‘reforms from elsewhere are not necessarily borrowed for rational reasons but for political and economic ones’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012: 4).

Four major challenges face early education reforms in Asia today as a result of neoliberal globalization:

Market economy policies that are resulting in the creation of private schools and franchises, many of which are unregulated and are of sub-standard quality;

Increasing enrollment of children in pre-primary and primary schools, leading to overcrowding of classrooms and teacher shortages;

Teachers who are not adequately qualified or prepared to handle the increasing socio-economic diversity in their classrooms; and

Cultural incursions occurring when a ‘Western’ progressive early-childhood discourse is viewed as the basis of ‘appropriate’ pedagogy in Asian classrooms.

Sims and Tiko (2016) made reference to the children’s book ‘We’re Going on a Bear Hunt’ (Rosen and Oxenbury, 1993) and likened the forces of neoliberal globalization to the thick ooze of mud encountered in the story’s refrain – ‘we can’t go over it, we can’t go under it, we have to go through it’. Early childhood education as a field, as opposed to higher levels of education, still retains a smidgeon of luxury in allowing teachers the space and opportunity for minimizing a top-down academic curriculum, and maximizing a learner-centered culturally-appropriate one. Early childhood teachers thus play an important role in the highlighting of local cultural values which may, or may not, be in conflict with the ‘Western’ values that drive policy and pedagogy in a national discourse. The obstacles posed by neoliberal forces are challenging and it is important to keep in sight the early childhood efforts that ‘value and promulgate indigenous languages and cultures and produce children who are culturally strong and resilient’ (Sims and Tiko, 2016: 8). As a final observation here, perhaps the tenets of a hybrid discourse can incorporate cultural beliefs on pedagogy and child development that are both local and global, to be enriched by the complex interplay of ideologies and interpretations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Amita Gupta is a professor of Early Childhood Education, and chair of the Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture at the City College of New York (CUNY). Her research and scholarship focus on post-colonial theory within the context of international and comparative early childhood education and teacher education, and she has published extensively on these topics.

References

Apple

(2011) Global crises, social justice, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 62(2): 222–234.

Arnove

(2007) Introduction: reframing comparative education: the dialectic of the global and the local. In: Arnove

Torres

(eds) Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Baltodana

(2012) Neoliberalism and the demise of public education: The corporatization of schools of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25(4): 487–507.

Bhabha H (1994) The Location of Culture. London, UK: Routledge.

Bhabha H (2009) An interview with Homi Bhabha: Cultural translation and interpretation: A dialogue on migration, identity, and ethical responsibility: An argument against fixed identities. Sangsaeng (26): Winter 2009. Asia-Pacific Center of Education for International Understanding, UNESCO.

Brown CP (2009) Confronting the contradictions: A case study of early childhood teacher development in neoliberal times. Contemporary issues in Early Childhood 10(3): 240–258.

Bredekamp S (1987) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association of Education of Young Children.

Centre for Early Childhood Education and Development (CECED) (not dated). Preparing teachers for early childhood education and development. Ambedkar University, New Delhi: CECED. Available at: http://www.teindia.nic.in/e9-tm/Files/Preparing_Teacherins_for_Early_Childhood_care_and_Education.pdf (accessed 31 January 2015).

Census (2011) Available at: http://censusmp.nic.in/censusmp/All-PDF/4childpopulation0-6-21.12.pdf (accessed 17 June 2017).

10.

Chatterjee I (2016) Oxford University Press Blog. Available at: http://blog.oup.com/2016/05/globalization-in-india/ (accessed 07 November 2016).

11.

Dahlberg G and Moss P (2008) Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Teachers Work 5(1): 3–12.

12.

Duhn

(2010) ‘The Centre is My Business’: Neo-liberal politics, privatisation and discourses of professionalism in New Zealand. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(1): 49–60.

13.

Fariq FY, Farhath A, Mufeed A and Rauffiya A (2010) University presentation in an education administration class in the Maldives. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/FaznaFariq/ece-maldives-final-7296428 (accessed 15 April 2013).

14.

Giddens

(1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

15.

Green

(2005) The Privatization of State Education: Public Partners, Private Dealings, Abingdon: Routledge Falmer Press.

16.

Gopinathan

(2001) Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In: Tan

Gopinathan

(eds) Challenges Facing Singapore Education System oday, Singapore: Prentice-Hall, pp. 3–17.

17.

Giroux

(2015) Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism, Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

18.

(2006) Chinese early childhood education in transition. WINGSPAN. Journal for Leadership, Learning, and School Development 16(1): 30–41.

19.

Gupta A (2006) Early Childhood Education, Postcolonial Theory, Teaching Practices and Policies in India: Balancing Vygotsky and the Veda (1st Edition). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

20.

Gupta

(2012) Neoliberal globalization and pre-primary teacher education policy and practice in India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. In: Kapoor

Barua

Datoo

(eds) Globalization, Culture and Education in South Asia: Critical Excursions, New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 103–121.

21.

Gupta A (2013) Play: Early childhood pedagogies and policies in a globalizing Asia. In: Lillemyr OF, Dockett S and Perry B (eds) Varied Perspectives of Play and Learning: Theory and Research on Early Years’ Education. Charlotte, North Carolina, USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.

22.

Gupta

(2014) Diverse Early Childhood Education Policies and Practices: Voices and Images from Five Countries in Asia, New York: Routledge.

23.

Gupta

(2015) Using postcolonial theory to critically re-frame the child development narrative. In: David

Goouch

Powell

(eds) Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care, Abingdon: Routledge.

24.

Gupta

(2016) Policy trends in teacher professionalization and professionalism in India. In: Li

Fox

Grieshaber

(eds) Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Early Childhood Education in the Asia–Pacific Region, Singapore: Springer, pp. 221–239.

25.

Kaščák

Pupala

(2013) Buttoning up the gold collar – the child in neoliberal visions of early education and care. Human Affairs 23(2): 319–337.

26.

King D (2010) Failure of Preschool Education in Sri Lanka. Available at: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/01/failure-of-pre-school-education-in-sri.html (accessed on 02 November 2011).

27.

Law Commission of India (2015) Early childhood development and legal entitlements, Report 259. New Delhi: Law Commission of India.

28.

Lee

(2012) Unpacking neoliberal policies: Interrupting the global and local production of the norms. Journal of Pedagogy 3(1): 30–42.

29.

Lim

(2016) Marketization and corporation of early childhood care and education in Singapore. In: Li

Fox

Grieshaber

(eds) Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Early Childhood Education in the Asia–Pacific Region, Singapore: Springer, pp. 17–32.

30.

Mayer D, Luke C and Luke A (2008) Teachers, national regulations, and cosmopolitanism. In: Phelan A and J Sumpsion (eds) Critical Readings in Teacher Education: Provoking Absences. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp. 79–98.

31.

Naftali O (2010) Recovering childhood: Play, pedagogy, and the rise of psychological Knowledge in contemporary urban China. Modern China 36(6): 589–616.

32.

National Council of Educational Research and Training Focus Group (2007) Position Paper: National Focus Group on Early Childhood Education. New Delhi, India: NCERT.

33.

NCF (2005) National Curriculum Framework. New Delhi, India: NCERT.

34.

NCTE (2009) National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Educators: Towards Preparing Professional and Humane Teachers. New Delhi: NCTE.

35.

National Curriculum Framework (2014) National Institute of Education. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/edurights/media/docs/2cda5a0a236191e565a7e98f824f23c08b5dad32.pdf (accessed 17 June 2017).

36.

Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India (2013) National Policy on ECE. Available at: http://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/npcenglish08072013_0.pdf (accessed 2013).

37.

(2011) Preschool curriculum and policy changes in Singapore. Asia–Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education 5(1): 91–122.

38.

Oberhuemer

(2005) International perspectives on early childhood curricula. International Journal of Early Childhood 37(1): 27–37.

39.

Paik

(2008) ‘Learning English, imagining global’: The narratives of early English education experiences in South Korea. International Journal of Learning 15(10): 71–78.

40.

Pearson

Degotardi

(2009) Education for sustainable development in early childhood education: A global solution to local concerns? International Journal of Early Childhood 41(2): 97–111.

41.

Rana

(2012) Globalisation and its implications for early childhood education. He Kupu – The Word 3(1): 14–22.

42.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act of 2009. Avaiable at: http://mhrd.gov.in/rte.

43.

Robinson

Diaz

(2006) Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education: Issues for Theory and Practice, New York: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill.

44.

Rosen

Oxenbury

(1993) We’re Going On a Bear Hunt, London: Walker Books.

45.

Ross EW and Gibson R (eds) (2007) Neoliberalism and Education Reform. New York: Hampton Press.

46.

Rui

(2007) Comparing policies. In: Bray

Adamson

Mason

(eds) Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods, Dordrecht: Springer.

47.

Simpson

Lumsden

Clark

(2015) Neoliberalism, global poverty policy and early childhood education and care: a critique of local uptake in England. Early Years 35(1): 96–109.

48.

Sims

Tiko

(2016) We’re going on a bear hunt: Reconciling neoliberalism and postcolonialism in Pacific early childhood. Cogent Education 3. . Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1152673.

49.

Sri Lanka Department of National Planning, Ministry of Finance and Planning (2016) Mahinda Chintana: A vision for a new Sri Lanka. Discussion Paper: A ten-year horizon development framework 2006–2016. Available at: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/ncsa-documents/MahindaChintanaTenYearDevelopmentPlan.pdf (accessed 06 June 2017).

50.

Steiner-Khamsi

Silova

Johnson

(2006) Neoliberalism liberally applied: Educational policy borrowing in Central Asia. In: Ozga

Seddon

Popkewitz

(eds) World Yearbook of Education 2006: Education Research and Policy – Steering the Knowledge-Based Economy, New York/London: Routledge, pp. 217–245.

51.

Steiner-Khamsi

(2012) Understanding policy borrowing and lending: Building comparative policy studies. In: Steiner-Khamsi

Waldow

(eds) World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education, London/New York: Routledge, pp. 3–18.

52.

Spring

(2009) Globalization and Education, New York: Routledge.

53.

Tikly L (1999) Postcolonialism and comparative education. International Review of Education 45(5/6): 603–621.

54.

Tzuo

(2010) The ECE landscape in Singapore: Analysis of current trends, issues, and prospect for a cosmopolitan outlook. Asia–Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education 4(2): 77–97.

55.

Tharman S (2003) Speech by Me Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and Education Official Launce cum Seminar of MOE’s Pre-School Curriculum Framework, 23 January. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2003/sp20030120.htm (accessed 28 February 2008).

56.

UN (2016) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld (accessed 21 August 2016).

57.

Vavrus F (2004) The referential web: Externalization beyond education in Tanzania. In: Steiner-Khamsi (ed.) The Global Politics of Education Borrowing and Lending. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 141–153.

58.

World Bank (2006) Inclusive Growth and Service Delivery: Building on India's Success. World Bank, 29 May 2006. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank (accessed 9 August 2013).

59.

World Bank (2011) Why Invest in Early Childhood Development. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTCY/EXTECD/0,,contentMDK:20207747~menuPK:527098~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:344939,00.html.

60.

World Bank (2012) Country Partnership Strategy: FY 13–FY16. Washington DC: The World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/04/16253477/sri-lanka-country-partnership-strategy-period-fy2013-16 (accessed December 2016).

61.

World Bank (2014) Laying the Foundation for Early Childhood Education in Sri Lanka. World Bank Group, Human Development Unit, South Asia Region. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/23362/Laying0the0Fou0nd0investing0for0all.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 31 October 2016).

62.

Zhou

(2011) Early childhood education policy development in China. International Journal of Child Care and Education 5(1): 29–39.