Skip to main content

Abstract

Political interest in early childhood education and care (ECEC) has grown in recent times, with governments and international organisations claiming benefits of ECEC to justify particular policy approaches. But increasingly, a narrow view of the purposes of ECEC is held and conveyed in policy texts as a means to address social problems, to prepare children for later academic success and as an economic investment for the good of the country. Missing in these views is an understanding of childhood as socially constructed and an important phase in its own right and of children as citizens who contribute to society. In parallel, neoliberal commitment to the market has swept countries worldwide, including the UK, the Netherlands, the USA, Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, the African continent and the Asia Pacific region. Marketisation has had a profound effect on education and accountability systems and particularly ECEC where in many of these countries, private owners of ECEC centres have set up to produce profits for themselves and their investors from their business undertaking. Within this model, resources intended for education have been siphoned off for individual business owner and shareholder profits. Competition between ECEC centres for children has led to a highly inequitable distribution of ECEC provision, where economically richer communities and families who can pay more have been best served. A very old idea and at the same time a new idea for contemporary times are the ideas of education for democracy as an alternative and valuable way to reconceptualise ECEC. The purpose of a democratic education is directed to the good of each person and the common good for society; these purposes are mutually connected and reinforcing. Aotearoa New Zealand is offered as an interesting case study, set within these global trends, because of its extreme adoption of neoliberal principles during the 1980s and 1990s and, in contradiction, its early social justice foundations and its renowned early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki. The curriculum is an inspiration worldwide for the centrality of the concept of whakamana (empowerment or agency) and commitment to biculturalism that originates from the 1840 Tiriti o Waitangi, a treaty between Māori (indigenous people) and the British crown. Te Whāriki sets conditions for democracy to flourish. In this book, I provide examples of political advocacy, policy formulation and pedagogical practice in Aotearoa New Zealand that have resisted neoliberalism and progressed democratic ideals. At the same time, I offer examples from other countries, from which Aotearoa New Zealand has much to learn. These examples are offered, not as blueprints for others to follow, for it is not that we can copy policies and practices from one country to our own. But it gives opportunity to think differently and therefore critically, to enable us to see what we take for granted – these things are of mutual benefit in helping push forward thinking and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Whānau is the Māori word for extended family; hapū is a clan or sub-group; and iwi is a tribe.

References

  • Apple, M. (2005). Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47(1–2), 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. (2013). Between traditions: Stephen Ball and the critical sociology of education. London Review of Education, 11(3), 206–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boag-Munroe, G., & Evangelou, M. (2011). From hard to reach to how-to-reach: A systematic review of the literature on hard-to-reach families. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 209–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, D. (2007). The ABC of child care politics. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 212–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brostrom, S. (2013). Understanding Te Whäriki from a Danish perspective. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whäriki. Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice. (2nd ed., pp. 239-257). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1998). Each place has its own spirit and its own aspirations. RE Child, 3(January), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, M., Davis, K., & Cowie, B. (2015). Continuity of early learning: Learning progress and outcomes in the early years. Report on the literature scan. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ECE/continuity-of-early-learning-literature-scan

  • Cleveland, G., & Krashinsky, M. (2004). The quality gap: A study of nonprofit and commercial child care centres in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto at Scarborough.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. Post modern perspectives (1st ed.). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dencik, L. (1989). Growing up in the post-modern age: On the child’s situation in the modern family, and on the position of the family in the modern welfare state. Acta Sociologica, 32(2), 155–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1915). School and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Early Childhood Education Project. (1996). Future directions: Early childhood education in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, M., & Moss, P. (2012). Radical education and the common school. A democratic alternative. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway: World BBC Reith lectures 1999. Retrieved from http://www.looooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Giddens-lectures-in-london.pdf

  • Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings. Cultural workers and the politics of education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A., & Saporiti, A. (1992). Do children count? Childhood as a social phenomenon. A statistical compendium. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153–161). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E., & Penn, H. (Eds.). (2012). Childcare markets: Can they deliver an equitable service. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayall, B. (1996). Children, health and the social order. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, S. (2002). Parental incomes and children’s outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/publications/csre/influence-of-parental-income.pdf

  • McDonald, D. (1978). Children and young persons in New Zealand society. In P. Koopman-Boyden (Ed.), Families in New Zealand society (pp. 44–56). Wellington, New Zealand: Methuen Publications (NZ) Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L. (2007). A new debate about children and childhood. Could it make a difference to early childhood pedagogy and policy? Doctoral thesis. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/347

  • Mitchell, L. (2015). Engaging priority children in ECE, creating opportunities for families. Paper presented at the Coming Together for Australia’s Children Conference, Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Hobart, Tasmania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L., & Davison, C. (2010). Early childhood education as sites for children’s citizenship: Tensions, challenges and possibilities in New Zealand’s policy framing. International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, 8(1), 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L., Meagher-Lundberg, P., Arndt, S., & Kara, H. (2016b). ECE Participation Programme evaluation. Stage 4. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ECE/ece-participation-programme-evaluation-stage-4

  • Mitchell, L., Meagher-Lundberg, P., Caulcutt, T., Taylor, M., Archard, S., Kara, H., et al. (2014). ECE Participation Programme evaluation. Delivery of the ECE participation initiatives: Stage 2. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ECE/148513

  • Mitchell, L., Meagher-Lundberg, P., Mara, D., Cubey, P., & Whitford, M. (2011). Locality-based evaluation of Pathways to the Future – Nga Huarahi Arataki. Integrated report 2004, 2006 and 2009. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ece/locality-based-evaluation-of-pathways-to-the-future-ng-huarahi-arataki

  • Moss, P. (2000). Workforce issues in early childhood education and care staff. For consultative meeting on International Developments in Early Childhood Education and Care. The Institute for Child and Family Policy, Columbia University, New York, May 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, P. (2007). International connections. In Ministry of Education (Ed.), Travelling pathways to the future: Ngä Huarahi Arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.minedu.govt.nz.oss

  • Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (1997). Children’s services: Time for a new approach. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children’s services to children’s spaces. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, K. (2007). Parent choice of early childhood education and care services. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(2), 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noially, J., Visser, S., & Grout, P. (2007). The impact of market forces on the provision of childcare: Insights from the 2005 Childcare Act in the Netherlands (CPB Memorandum 176). The Hague, The Netherlands, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. www.cpb.nl/nl/

  • Oberhuemer, P. (2005). Conceptualising the early childhood pedagogue: Policy approaches and issues of professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberhuemer, P., Schreyer, I., & Neuman, M. J. (2010). Professionals in early childhood education and care systems. Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Starting strong 11: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penn, H. (2009). International perspectives on quality in mixed economies of childcare. National Institute Economic Review 207, 83(7). Retrieved from: http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn, H. (2012). Raw and emerging childcare markets. In E. Lloyd & H. Penn (Eds.), Childcare markets. Can they deliver an equitable service? (pp. 173–187). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Penn, H. (2013). The business of childcare in Europe. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(4), 432–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.7883300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Press, F., & Woodrow, C. (2009). The giant in the playground: Investigating the reach and implications of the corporatisation of child care provision. In D. King & G. Meagher (Eds.), Paid care in Australia: Politics, profits, practice. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prout, A. (2003, September). Children, representation and social change. Paper presented at the European Early Childhood Education Research Association 13th Annual Conference, Glasgow, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prout, A. (2005). The future of childhood. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rush, E. (2006). Child care quality in Australia (Discussion paper Number 84). Victoria, Australia: The Australia Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. B. (2016). Children’s rights. Towards social justice. New York: Momentum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosinsky, L., Lord, H., & Zigler, E. (2007). For-profit/non-profit differences in center-based child care quality: Results from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early child care and youth development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 390–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumsion, J. (2006). The corporatization of Australian childcare: Towards an ethical audit and research agenda. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumsion, J. (2012). ABC Learning and Australian early education and care. In E. Lloyd & H. Penn (Eds.), Childcare markets. Can they deliver an equitable service? (pp. 209–225). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. (2005). Report Card No 6. Child poverty in rich countries 2005. Retrieved Oct 25, 2005 from http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/

  • United Nations. (1990). Convention on the Rights of the Child Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

  • Wells, C. (1999). Future directions: Shaping early childhood policy for the 21st century – a personal perspective. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 8, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). Spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mitchell, L. (2019). Introduction. In: Democratic Policies and Practices in Early Childhood Education. International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development, vol 24. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1793-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1793-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1791-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1793-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics