|
Editorial
SOMETIMES I REFLECT ON how vulnerable we are to changes in policies and changes in government. I remember the frenzy in the Australian early childhood community at the time of the latest federal election as we all tried to create space on the political agenda for young children and their families. I reflect on elections in the past and the cycles of policy changes I have experienced over my time in early childhood. I remember restructuring degree courses based on my expectations of outcomes from government policy changes. McLachlan summarises this for us in the New Zealand context and points out the shifts in early childhood policy arising from the new government, their stronger focus on targeted services rather than universal, and their withdrawal of funds from a number of early childhood initiatives that had garnered New Zealand a leading reputation in early childhood over past years. And in reading this article, I wonder what this might presage for the rest of us in Australasia. Will we see similar moves?
Part of the political arena is the space we create (or don’t create) for children to participate in the decisions that impact upon them. Theobald, Danby and Ailwood review policy and research in Australia and identify a growing commitment for children’s participation coupled with an ongoing challenge to translate this into daily practice. Greenfield proposes one way this can be addressed in research, using a mosaic approach to facilitate children’s voice.
Irrespective of the political agenda, we want to focus on excellence in service delivery and the remainder of our articles in this issue do just that. A number of researchers report work they are doing in specific areas of the early childhood curriculum. Stagnitti, Kenna, Malakellis, Kershaw, Hoare and de Silva-Sanigorski discuss their intervention focusing on fundamental movement skills for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Blaiklock undertakes a comparison of the UK Early Years Foundation Stage and Te Wha-riki in New Zealand, focusing particularly on how these documents promote early literacy, and the implications for this on local practice. McDonough and Sullivan address learning to measure length in the first three years at school, using data from the 70 schools in the Victorian Early Numeracy Research Project. Howitt, Lewis and Upson take us on a forensic science experience with young children, demonstrating young children’s competency in an area we often think as being associated with older children. They argue that such experiences not only impact on children’s science thinking but on imagination and oral language as well. Mills also makes the point that experiences have multiple outcomes. She addresses transmediation, the process of transferring information from one sign-system to another and argues that such experiences support generative thinking. Sajaniemi, Suhonen and myself investigate some of the biological underpinnings impacting on children’s learning and propose a model linking children’s regulation of arousal, the synchronicity of the underpinning biology and children’s learning outcomes.
In following the curriculum focus, the next two articles address issues related to pre-service teacher education. Yim and Ebbeck discuss pre-service teachers and music education, comparing experiences and perceptions of music between students in South Australia and those in Hong Kong. Garvis focuses on arts education and demonstrate links between experiences on placement related to arts and students’ self-efficacy in arts education. Nolan and Sim focus on reflection, a key skill in improving practice and one used in many teacher education programs. They argue that reflection needs a structure or framework in order to be effective.
Many of the papers in this issue focus on young children in the context of early childhood programs—children in classes or groups. Millar looks at the transition of Korean children from the home environment into classes in junior primary and identifies the importance of language and relationships in facilitating successful transitions. Jackiewicz, Saggers and Frances discuss issues of access and barriers to participation for Indigenous children participating in early childhood programs. They identify four key issues: accessibility, affordability, acceptability and appropriateness.
Finally we offer two papers that address issues outside of the classroom; issues relating to young children and their families. Ford offers an evaluation of a program designed to support parents who experience difficulties related to their infants’ sleep. George, Vickers, Wilkes and Barton analyse the cost of caring for a child with chronic illness for parents who are working full time. These parents are often not eligible to receive additional supports because they are working, but are faced with the prospect of lower-paid jobs (in a trade-off for flexibility) and higher costs associated with their child’s needs.
As we progress through 2011 and the world changes around us, we also reflect on the changes in the early childhood landscape. Every day we learn more about quality early childhood service provision, and every day we strive to deliver the best we can to our children, their families and our students. Enjoy reading these articles and reflecting on what they mean for your practice.
Margaret Sims
University of New England
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood – Volume 36 No 3 September 2011
Don't forget, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood is tax deductible for early childhood professionals
You can purchase this issue of the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood now.
|
