ABSTRACT
A great deal has been written and published about schools, education, policies and practice and, in particular, the early years field of study in recent years. However, what actually happens to young children in nurseries and reception classes is extremely variable. The now statutory Early Years Foundation Stage (DCSF 2007) remains contentious, representing, as it does, a ‘state theory of learning’ (Alexander 2010: 307). Such wide-sweeping national policies invariably result in a sometimes very literal translation into practice by conscientious people anxious to be ‘correct’ in their work. However, if we believe that ‘ours is a public system of education which belongs to the people and is not the personal fiefdom of ministers and their unelected advisers’ (ibid.: 2), then it is time for those of us with a stake in education – parents and educators – to reconnect with what we understand by education, to reconsider what we would most like our children to experience in relation to education and care, and to re-establish clear criteria for the selection and education of those professionals involved. This last is of special importance at the earliest stages of education where it is believed that ‘the quality of the outcomes can be directly tied to the quality of the people working with them’ (Owen and Haynes 2010: 206). There is currently enormous pressure on teachers and all those working with children to meet centrally defined and managed targets and yet arguably the single most important target, often overlooked, seems to be to really know and understand the children in their care. One of the central findings of Birth to Three Matters: A Review of Literature
(David et al. 2003), was that people matter to babies and children as they encounter others in their close environments and grow, develop and learn. There is now considerable research evidence which emphasises the social nature of learning (Bruner 1986; Mclean 1991; Dunn 1998, 2004), the importance of attachment to significant adults (David et al. 2003; Nutbrown and Page 2008) and the significance of emotional well-being to children’s learning potential (Immordino-Yang and Damasio 2007). The work of neuro-science indicates the overwhelming contribution that conversation makes to the growth
and shape of children’s brain development (Gopnik et al. 1999; Greenfield 2000). Observations from everyday family lives are supported by research from across the world which points to the significance of human relationships in children’s lives. It seems obvious, then, in attempts to search for qualities in early years education and care, to seek to understand the nature of those people who elect to work with young children, the impetus for that choice and the influences over their practices. In this book I have attempted to disclose the intentions of the adults in
the work they do with young children. From experience of research in education and teaching at different levels it seems that most people find difficulty in articulating their vision, their personal aims, in the work they do every day of their lives. They can often direct you to national directives, school policies or written plans but invariably struggle to voice what they are seeking to achieve in practice. And this is true of people across the professional spectrum. It seems that teachers are unaccustomed to expressing an ideology and instead have become adept at another way of working as they ‘simply ventriloquate the new discourse’, whatever that might be, which enables them, as Hall claims, to ‘masquerade as conforming’ (Hall 2007: 97). My aim in researching the work of professionals working with young
children has been to reach beyond the surface of pedagogy and practice in the early years of education and to understand some of the aims, motivations and influences in evidence, through the lenses of two teachers who have shared their stories, their narratives of experience. In this research there was no necessity for masquerade as the research discourse employed had already claimed their excellence. The teachers’ job then was simply to deconstruct their work from the inside out, without reference to outcomes of practice or targets, representative of a contemporary discourse of accountability. It is not my intention to focus too heavily in this work on policy; there are
other texts which serve that purpose well (see, for example, Ball 2008; Alexander 2010; Pugh and Duffy 2010). But, before beginning to delve into the research literature and the intricacies of the teachers’ narratives, it is important in this chapter to attempt a broad sweep of the view from above, presenting the policy and context in which their work exists, in order to gather a contemporary perspective on the field of early years education and the care of young children in England. These teachers are different, their practice stands out, and their principles of practice are very strongly held and articulated. It is because of this that they need to be viewed against the backdrop of a range of, at times, contrasting but always intense and politically driven national initiatives.
