|
It is easy to polarise complex issues and to set up a ‘straw man debate’ which characterises one thing as ‘all black’, contrasts an alternative as ‘all white’, and then knocks down the ‘straw man’ which has not been a true representation of Item 1 in the first place. This, in part, is what’s happening in the article by Maggie Dent (December 14, 2010). In part, of course, the author makes a number of valid points and informed readers sympathise with some of her concerns. However, ‘informed’ and ‘balanced’ are important words.
The author uses some emotive language to contrast the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and the forthcoming Australian Curriculum for Schools. She contrasts the EYLF as a ‘completely play-based learning’ approach against the national curriculum which she says has ‘proposed to bring more formalised learning to children the year they turn five’ and ‘stolen our children’s childhoods’.
The truth, as always, is far more complex. The EYLF strongly supports play-based learning, but also strongly supports ‘intentional teaching’ and adult/child interactions through which the educator brings a rich knowledge base to support children to move on to new and higher levels of understanding. The EYLF is not a curriculum that proposes ‘we leave children where they are in their learning and just let them play’.
Nor does the Australian Curriculum ‘advocate formalised learning’. This curriculum is about content, not about how teachers deliver it. What it attempts to do is establish ‘an entitlement’ for every child in the Australian school system, so that wherever they are in Australia, their teachers will introduce them to significant knowledge and skills that will be the foundation for their future learning. Wherever possible, this curriculum, in its Content Elaborations, encourages teachers to be sensitive, caring, creative and flexible in bringing particular concepts and skills to each child. The ‘General Capabilities of the national curriculum—literacy, numeracy, ICT, thinking skills, creativity, teamwork, self-management, social competence, intercultural understanding and ethical behaviour—make it clear that this curriculum is not just about ‘writing sentences and doing grammar’—particularly in the first year at school!
Informed and experienced educators and families will totally agree with Maggie Dent that the first year of school should enable ‘teachers to help strengthen all areas of children’s growth’, especially their emotional and social growth; feelings of self-competence; and dispositions to learn and expectation to succeed. We would also heartily support her suggestion that Australia should have a uniform school starting age, guaranteed access to high quality early childhood education in a variety of settings and similar age-grade pathways through the school system.
Unfortunately, such structural changes are not within the remit of either the EYLF or the Australian Curriculum. They are the further business of politicians and Maggie is quite right to lobby them about such matters.
Those of us with long experience in early childhood and a deep commitment to the wellbeing of young children, sincerely hope that these curriculum changes can be synchronised and operate in the very best, long term interests of Australia’s children. We have a chance and we should make the most of its positive potential.
Jenni Connor
for Early Childhood Australia
|
