This paper takes early school-based literacy achievement as a particular example of the need to reconceptualise early childhood practices. By drawing on literacy results for identifiable groups of students, the paper argues the importance of moving beyond developmental continua and individual performance indicators in explaining and reviewing school-based literacy achievement. The particular example illustrates how early childhood educators can avoid ‘critique-paralysis’ by examining research data that yield substantial insights related to sociocultural and gender dimensions of literacy learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Australian Council for Education Research (1997) Mapping Literacy Achievement.Canberra: DEETYA.
2.
AllowayN. (1995) Foundation Stones: The Construction of Gender in Early Childhood.Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation.
3.
AllowayN. & GilbertP. (1997a) Boys and literacy: Lessons from Australia. Gender and Education, 9 (1), 49–58.
4.
AllowayN. & GilbertP. (eds) (1997b) Boys and Literacy: Professional Development Units.Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation.
5.
AllowayN. & GilbertP. (eds) (1997c) Boys and Literacy: Teaching Units.Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation.
6.
ClarkM. (1989) Anastasia is a normal developer because she is unique. Oxford Review of Education, 15, (3), 243–255.
7.
DavyV. (1995) Reaching for consensus on gender equity: The NSW experience. Proceedings of the Promoting Gender Equity Conference.Canberra: Department of Education, pp. 57–80.
8.
FleerM. (ed.) (1995) DAP Centrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practice.Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.
9.
FreebodyP. (1998) Findings from the literacy scandal: The same disconcert and tremulousness and meditation. English in Australia, 122, 10–14.
10.
GeeJ. (1990) Social Linguistics and Literacies.London: Falmer Press.
11.
HillS., ComberB., LoudenW., RivallandJ. & ReidJ. (1998) 100 Children Go To School: Connections and Disconnections in Literacy Development in the Year Prior to School and the First Year of School. Volumes 1–3. Canberra: DEETYA.
12.
KesslerS. & SwadenerB. (1992) Reconceptualizing the Early Childhood Curriculum: Beginning the Dialogue.New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
LankshearC. & McLarenP. (eds) (1993) Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis, and the Postmodern.New York: State University of New York Press.
14.
LukeA. (1994) The Social Construction of Literacy in the Primary School.Melbourne: MacMillan.
15.
MartinoW. (1995) Gendered learning practices. Exploring the costs of hegemonic masculinity for girls and boys in school. Proceedings of the Promoting Gender Equity Conference.Canberra: Department of Education, pp. 343–364.
16.
MastersG. (1997) Literacy Standards in Australia.Canberra: DEETYA.
17.
NichollsS. (1995) Learning difficulties and gender: Examining some key assumptions. Proceedings of the Promoting Gender Equity Conference.Canberra: Department of Education, pp. 365–380.
18.
Queensland School Curriculum Council (1998) Preschool Curriculum Guidelines.Brisbane: Queensland School Curriculum Council.
19.
Reference Group Overseeing the National Review of Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Peoples (1995) National Review of Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait blander Peoples: Final Report.Canberra: DEETYA.
20.
SharpR. & GreenA. (1975) Education and Social Control: A Study in Progressive Primary Education.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
21.
TobinJ. (ed.) (1997) Making a Place for Pleasure in Early Childhood Curriculum.New Haven: Yale University Press.
22.
WalkerdineV. (1984) Developmental psychology and the child-centred pedagogy: The insertion of Piaget into early education. In HenriquesJ., HollowayW., UrwinC., VennC. & WalkerdineV.Changing the Subject.London: Methuen, pp. 153–202.
23.
YunupinguM. (1994) National Review of Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: A Discussion Paper.Canberra: AGPS.
