As I was nervously waiting for gym-based punishment during the week I was able to flick through the latest edition of Melbourne’s Child. Featured was an article justifying play-based curriculum in early childhood services. This surprised me because I thought the early childhood profession has done a stellar job over the years getting most interested parties to understand the benefits of play for early years education. Later that day I was reading a 2007 research paper by Andrew Gibbons who, like Ailwood in 2003, was using poststructural tools to deconstruct play and its dominance in early years curriculum. Specifically he was looking at the privileging of process as children's work in early childhood, rather than product-based outcomes. His central thesis was this:
“The emphasis on the normal child’s true play – their unpaid work –constructs a relationship between play, child and society that is not playful. Theorising play as work is a technique of social control and a means of transmitting assumptions and beliefs regarding the nature and purpose of childhood” (p. 303).
For a large part of this decade the question of play and its role in the curriculum has been troubled at a theoretical level, although still heavily supported at a service level. Play and its link to Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) and consequently Piagetian developmental psychology has been under siege by post-inspired ideas that have challenged the images and ideologies around childhood and children in Western society. Alternative theoretical informants such as sociocultural theory, which has taken the focus off ‘development’ per se and moved the lens to culturally infused pedagogy has solidified itself in research circles.
It seems somewhat ironic that as governments finally start to get the hang of play as children’s work and begin to use it in their rhetoric, the field starts to become disturbed by the assumptions inherent in it. What will be interesting from here on in is how this emerging theoretical complexity will play into the planning for Federal and Victorian state level curriculum frameworks that are currently underway.
Victoria is one of the only states left in Australia without a curriculum document for the early years and it’s long overdue. The field has always been divided over the question of having a formal curriculum with arguments against it driven by a fear of lost autonomy and concerns about a push-down curriculum from schools, which would invade the sacrosanct space for play. The lack of curriculum in Victoria so far has led to breathtaking diversity in early childhood programs, most of which attest to a play-based approach. The 2003 curriculum discussion paper was the last attempt at a field driven conversation about a formalised curriculum and the ideological diversity featured in that document suggests that the field had (has?) a way to go if they want to clearly articulate aims, goals and visions to the government.
If the government take on the theoretical challenges around play, it runs the risk of accusations of reneging on ‘play promises’ from many practitioners fiercely protective of play. However if these contestations around play are ignored how do we ensure that the new curriculum momentum is capitalised on by building documents that are relevant, cutting edge and theoretically rigorous?
“The emphasis on the normal child’s true play – their unpaid work –constructs a relationship between play, child and society that is not playful. Theorising play as work is a technique of social control and a means of transmitting assumptions and beliefs regarding the nature and purpose of childhood” (p. 303).
For a large part of this decade the question of play and its role in the curriculum has been troubled at a theoretical level, although still heavily supported at a service level. Play and its link to Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) and consequently Piagetian developmental psychology has been under siege by post-inspired ideas that have challenged the images and ideologies around childhood and children in Western society. Alternative theoretical informants such as sociocultural theory, which has taken the focus off ‘development’ per se and moved the lens to culturally infused pedagogy has solidified itself in research circles.
It seems somewhat ironic that as governments finally start to get the hang of play as children’s work and begin to use it in their rhetoric, the field starts to become disturbed by the assumptions inherent in it. What will be interesting from here on in is how this emerging theoretical complexity will play into the planning for Federal and Victorian state level curriculum frameworks that are currently underway.
Victoria is one of the only states left in Australia without a curriculum document for the early years and it’s long overdue. The field has always been divided over the question of having a formal curriculum with arguments against it driven by a fear of lost autonomy and concerns about a push-down curriculum from schools, which would invade the sacrosanct space for play. The lack of curriculum in Victoria so far has led to breathtaking diversity in early childhood programs, most of which attest to a play-based approach. The 2003 curriculum discussion paper was the last attempt at a field driven conversation about a formalised curriculum and the ideological diversity featured in that document suggests that the field had (has?) a way to go if they want to clearly articulate aims, goals and visions to the government.
If the government take on the theoretical challenges around play, it runs the risk of accusations of reneging on ‘play promises’ from many practitioners fiercely protective of play. However if these contestations around play are ignored how do we ensure that the new curriculum momentum is capitalised on by building documents that are relevant, cutting edge and theoretically rigorous?
References
Gibbons, A (2007) “The Politics of Processes and Products in Education: an early childhood metanarrative crisis?” Educational Philosophy and Theory, v.39, n.3
Ailwood, J (2003) “Governing Early Childhood Education through Play” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, v.4, n.3
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment