Last week I attended a public lecture hosted at Melbourne University as part of Home, School and Spaces in between: Child friendly cities symposium. The presenter was Tim Gill, a British policy analyst, who spoke to the topic No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk Averse Society (also the title of his book released last year).
This was an architectural and planning focused session so not borne out of early childhood theory. Gill started his session by asking the audience to reflect on their favourite places to play as children and sure enough, they were all outdoor and all largely unsupervised by adults.
He presented an interesting assessment on the over regulation of the lives of children and how this has affected the places and spaces we create for them in our communities. He spoke how 'good parenting' is slowly becoming associated with 'controlling parenting' and spoke to a Daily Mail article that was published last year examining the gradual restrictions placed on children 'roaming' over four generations (featuring a fascinating visual).
Whilst not saying anything particularly new or overly thought provoking, other than a few interesting stats and great shots of highly regulated English playgrounds, I think some interesting partnerships could be developed between early childhood researchers and those more aesthetically inclined in order to continue to push children into the forefront of public policy decisions. Working on projects promoting child friendly communities can integrate all sorts of knowledge and expertise and the key point would be that the focus of everyone's attention is childhoods and children. This opens up space for exploring how we can (re)construct and shape children's lives in our Western societies, which was one of Gill's overriding messages in his presentation.
His website is here.
3 Nov 2008
24 Oct 2008
Oh Mem, what are you doing?
Yes, she's at it again. Only weeks after originally stirring the pot, likening childcare to child abuse, she's taken a second swipe.
Her comments are extraordinarily damaging to the continual battle we have in this country against a pervading motherhood ideology and perceptions about the 'failings' of childcare. Childcare is failing because we have no upward pressure on quality, partly due to this irrational belief that children are always best in the home. How can someone such as Mem Fox get this all so wrong?
Other than the extremely inflammatory and theoretically inconsistent claim that children will suffer brain damage from attending childcare too young, what is most interesting about her comments is the analogies that she draws, which she seems to have just conjured up to support her flawed argument. In this piece she talks about babies being put in childcare at 2 weeks of age for 60 hrs a week. Formal childcare does not accept children under 6 weeks of age and despite a recent report that some children were spending up to 60 hours a week in childcare, it was an extremely small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of children in care across the nation. To boot, that 60 hours of care wasn't necessarily formal care - it was a mix of informal and formal. At the time I commented that it was just another one of those stories feeding into the insecurities of parents needing to put their children in childcare and boosting the 'mummy wars', something that has been also exacerbated by the release of the Productivity Commission interim report around paid maternity leave. Ms Fox is unfortunately doing no favours to a field already misunderstood.
At the end of the article she reveals she's not a fan of young children herself, especially the whiny type. Well Mem, get off your soap box and give people who can tolerate the odd 'whiny' child a chance to advance their profession and do their job instead of reactively receiving body blows because somehow the papers believe that your misinformed celebrity is noteworthy.
Her comments are extraordinarily damaging to the continual battle we have in this country against a pervading motherhood ideology and perceptions about the 'failings' of childcare. Childcare is failing because we have no upward pressure on quality, partly due to this irrational belief that children are always best in the home. How can someone such as Mem Fox get this all so wrong?
Other than the extremely inflammatory and theoretically inconsistent claim that children will suffer brain damage from attending childcare too young, what is most interesting about her comments is the analogies that she draws, which she seems to have just conjured up to support her flawed argument. In this piece she talks about babies being put in childcare at 2 weeks of age for 60 hrs a week. Formal childcare does not accept children under 6 weeks of age and despite a recent report that some children were spending up to 60 hours a week in childcare, it was an extremely small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of children in care across the nation. To boot, that 60 hours of care wasn't necessarily formal care - it was a mix of informal and formal. At the time I commented that it was just another one of those stories feeding into the insecurities of parents needing to put their children in childcare and boosting the 'mummy wars', something that has been also exacerbated by the release of the Productivity Commission interim report around paid maternity leave. Ms Fox is unfortunately doing no favours to a field already misunderstood.
At the end of the article she reveals she's not a fan of young children herself, especially the whiny type. Well Mem, get off your soap box and give people who can tolerate the odd 'whiny' child a chance to advance their profession and do their job instead of reactively receiving body blows because somehow the papers believe that your misinformed celebrity is noteworthy.
17 Oct 2008
The US Presidential hopefuls on early childhood
So I thought with less than 3 weeks out from the US Presidential election it might be worth having a look at who's saying what on early childhood education in the States. Obama has certainly been talking it up and it was his mention of it again in yesterday's Presidential debate that made me jump on the Web to see what the two hopefuls are saying. I AM a supporter of Barack so it shouldn't surprise anyone that I prefer his policy ideas better but I will try to be objective and provide appropriate links so you can assess them yourselves...
Firstly McCain and Palin. McCain seems to be focusing all of his early childhood policy energy on expanding the Head Start program, specifically establishing Centres of Excellence. A centre will be deemed 'excellent' if they have a demonstrated record of preparing children for school. The school readiness theme permeates throughout the rest of the commitment, including how to measure quality and how teachers need to be accountable.
"Standards for quality should be centered on the child and outcome-based. Every federally supported program (including Head Start) must include meaningful, measurable standards designed to determine that students are ready for school by measuring their school readiness skills".
'School readiness' is one of those catch phrases that many in the early childhood field generally loath. Of course children who have the opportunity to experience early childhood programs are usually more equipped to handle formal school entry, however just focusing on readiness narrows funding arguments down to simplistic mechanisms that don't truly recognise the broader possibilities of early childhood education and can additionally have some scary consequences for pedagogy and the way in which early childhood education is perceived in the community.
McCain says nothing about child care. Quite possibly he could say something about it somewhere else in his policy spiels but if he can't figure out that care and education are a combined policy area by now, well he's got much bigger problems than I care to explore.
Obama-Biden. Obama has been talking about early childhood for a few years now. Like any politician he uses the economic evidence to argue for its necessity as a key policy area and also talks about children going to school 'ready to learn' although it doesn't dominate his rhetoric like it does McCain's.
In this speech made late last year he talks of how he was instrumental in establishing an Early Learning Council in his state of Illinois, focused on quality early learning for children birth to five years. Specifically the state of Illinois is committed to universal, voluntary, high quality early year education for 3 year old at risk children and ALL four year olds. He now plans to implement this on a national level if elected President through Early Childhood Challenge grants to states to work on their own 0-5 year old plans but he has also committed to setting up a Presidential Early Years Council. He also indicates a commitment to universal preschool, along with pumping funds into Head Start and Head Start spin off programs. Additionally he is also committed to improving the quality of care in child care centres. Obama has also made promises around financial imperatives in child care aimed at making it easy for low income families to access.
It could be said that Obama clearly sees the economic and the social justice possibilities in investing in early childhood. His references to Heckman infers human capital theory might drive his interest, as it does Kevin Rudd. Obama's promises seem to cover a larger range of areas than McCain's, although he doesn't necessarily make any statements about what he believes 'quality' should look like.
McCain's promises are here, with Obama's here. Don't miss the PDF document at the bottom of Obama's that provides more detail on the plan.
The election is November 4 and one of the most important in American history. While we can't vote as non-American citizens, check out this fun link and have a say!
Firstly McCain and Palin. McCain seems to be focusing all of his early childhood policy energy on expanding the Head Start program, specifically establishing Centres of Excellence. A centre will be deemed 'excellent' if they have a demonstrated record of preparing children for school. The school readiness theme permeates throughout the rest of the commitment, including how to measure quality and how teachers need to be accountable.
"Standards for quality should be centered on the child and outcome-based. Every federally supported program (including Head Start) must include meaningful, measurable standards designed to determine that students are ready for school by measuring their school readiness skills".
'School readiness' is one of those catch phrases that many in the early childhood field generally loath. Of course children who have the opportunity to experience early childhood programs are usually more equipped to handle formal school entry, however just focusing on readiness narrows funding arguments down to simplistic mechanisms that don't truly recognise the broader possibilities of early childhood education and can additionally have some scary consequences for pedagogy and the way in which early childhood education is perceived in the community.
McCain says nothing about child care. Quite possibly he could say something about it somewhere else in his policy spiels but if he can't figure out that care and education are a combined policy area by now, well he's got much bigger problems than I care to explore.
Obama-Biden. Obama has been talking about early childhood for a few years now. Like any politician he uses the economic evidence to argue for its necessity as a key policy area and also talks about children going to school 'ready to learn' although it doesn't dominate his rhetoric like it does McCain's.
In this speech made late last year he talks of how he was instrumental in establishing an Early Learning Council in his state of Illinois, focused on quality early learning for children birth to five years. Specifically the state of Illinois is committed to universal, voluntary, high quality early year education for 3 year old at risk children and ALL four year olds. He now plans to implement this on a national level if elected President through Early Childhood Challenge grants to states to work on their own 0-5 year old plans but he has also committed to setting up a Presidential Early Years Council. He also indicates a commitment to universal preschool, along with pumping funds into Head Start and Head Start spin off programs. Additionally he is also committed to improving the quality of care in child care centres. Obama has also made promises around financial imperatives in child care aimed at making it easy for low income families to access.
It could be said that Obama clearly sees the economic and the social justice possibilities in investing in early childhood. His references to Heckman infers human capital theory might drive his interest, as it does Kevin Rudd. Obama's promises seem to cover a larger range of areas than McCain's, although he doesn't necessarily make any statements about what he believes 'quality' should look like.
McCain's promises are here, with Obama's here. Don't miss the PDF document at the bottom of Obama's that provides more detail on the plan.
The election is November 4 and one of the most important in American history. While we can't vote as non-American citizens, check out this fun link and have a say!
3 Oct 2008
Conferencing
I'm spending this weekend in the nation's capital attending the Early Childhood Australia (ECA) National Conference. So no blog posts during the conference, but no doubt PLENTY to talk about post-conference with a whole strand of the conference devoted to Advocacy and Leadership - yay!
It's a consortium
Here's the official press release and below are the names of all the people selected to develop the new Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) that I alluded to in my first post. After an initial look I have to say the list is pretty impressive - contains progressive, contemporary researchers that are on top of the latest and greatest debates in ECEC. Will aim to provide some more indepth analysis in future posts.
CSU Consortium members
The CSU Consortium comprises the following members:
Professor Jennifer Sumsion – Charles Sturt University (project leader)
Associate Professor Linda Harrison – Charles Sturt University (project leader)
Dr Jo Ailwood – Queensland University of Technology
Dr Leonie Arthur – University of Western Sydney
Sally Barnes – Flinders University
Associate Professor Donna Berthelsen – Queensland University of Technology
Carol Burgess – Charles Sturt University
Sandra Cheeseman – Macquarie University
Kaye Colmer – Lady Gowrie Child Centre, Adelaide
Dr Robyn Dolby – Independent consultant
Associate Professor Lyn Fasoli – Batchelor College
Dr Joy Goodfellow – Independent consultant
Miriam Giugni – Independent consultant
Associate Professor Christine Johnston – University of Western Sydney
Veronica Johns – Batchelor College
Anne Kennedy - Independent consultant
Marie Lewis - Independent consultant
Professor Tom Lowrie – Charles Sturt University
Dr Felicity McArdle – Queensland University of Technology
Dr Michelle Ortlipp – Charles Sturt University
Dr Marina Papic – Macquarie University
Frances Press – Charles Sturt University
Melissa Smith – Charles Sturt University
Anne Stonehouse – Independent consultant
Associate Professor Jane Torr – Macquarie University
Rebecca Watson – SDN Children’s Services
Dr Peter Whiteman – Macquarie University
Associate Professor Christine Woodrow – University of Western Sydney
2 Oct 2008
New higher ed places for EC students
Some news hot off the press - Gillard and McKew have made the formal announcement that 500 new higher education places will be offered for prospective early childhood students. This is part of a broader early childhood package to support professionals in the field.
"The new places are part of the Rudd Government’s $126.6 million package of initiatives to train and retain a high-quality early childhood education and care workforce.
The new places will complement the Government’s commitment to pay up to half the HECS-HELP debts of early childhood teachers working in regional and remote areas, Indigenous communities and areas of high disadvantage.
The university places also complement the Government’s commitment to support around 8000 child care workers to gain a qualification by removing TAFE fees for child care diplomas and advanced diplomas from 2009.
The new places are in a mix of courses that support different education pathways, ranging from two-year courses designed for diploma-qualified child care workers to entry-level four-year courses. This mix will ensure the first graduates from these extra places will be ready to join the workforce in 2011.
A total of 150 of the places are allocated to campuses in regional areas. This will increase the opportunities for students to study in these areas without the need to relocate to a metropolitan campus".
There's a breakdown of places across institutions which I will include as soon as I can find the official link!
"The new places are part of the Rudd Government’s $126.6 million package of initiatives to train and retain a high-quality early childhood education and care workforce.
The new places will complement the Government’s commitment to pay up to half the HECS-HELP debts of early childhood teachers working in regional and remote areas, Indigenous communities and areas of high disadvantage.
The university places also complement the Government’s commitment to support around 8000 child care workers to gain a qualification by removing TAFE fees for child care diplomas and advanced diplomas from 2009.
The new places are in a mix of courses that support different education pathways, ranging from two-year courses designed for diploma-qualified child care workers to entry-level four-year courses. This mix will ensure the first graduates from these extra places will be ready to join the workforce in 2011.
A total of 150 of the places are allocated to campuses in regional areas. This will increase the opportunities for students to study in these areas without the need to relocate to a metropolitan campus".
There's a breakdown of places across institutions which I will include as soon as I can find the official link!
30 Sept 2008
Was it karma?
While the newspaper headlines suggest confusion over whether he quit or whether he was dumped, suffice to say Eddy Groves and his former lady love have been removed from all positions of power at ABC Learning.
It appears after continued destabilisation courtesy of the global credit crunch, which started to have its effects on ABC Learning earlier this year, our favourite helicopter-navigating, cowboot-wearing early childhood 'advocate' has been taken out. Apparently repeated failures to lodge accounts have sealed the deal.
As it happens it was only yesterday I was reading about Dr Le Neve Groves and her various roles in the company, including CEO of Education and Principal of the National Institute of Early Childhood Education, a place where ABC trains their own (always struck me as rather cult like), and with a PhD in early childhood to boot. So as ABC Learning announces its decision to replace Eddie with Rowan Webb, the former CEO of Colorado group (yes the shoes and lifestyle gear) I'm wondering if we shouldn't be getting a little nostalgic for the Groves, who at least had some dedication to early childhood?
Nah!
I am not opposed to privatisation or market principles as a rule. Privatising childcare (read children) was always going to be an ethical minefield, however if the markets had worked it could've been a subdued tone of discontent. However the market has spectacularly failed in childcare. How so? Let me count the ways....!
Despite providing much needed places and critical infrastructure, which is a virtue of privatisation we can't ignore, it has failed to push up quality and meet actual demand. Privately owned for-profit centres have been involved in actively arguing for maintenance of high child:staff ratios in children's services so it doesn't negatively impact their expenditure and consequently need to be passed on to shareholders. Also known is their tendency to hire the cheapest staff, therefore the least qualified staff they can get away with. In addition there's a practice amongst private for-profit centres of keeping places for the under-3's relatively low because the costs are higher. Hence our crisis in places for children under 3, which gets pushed on to other centres. A few weeks ago I popped into Lady Gowrie (now known just as Gowrie) in Melbourne and while waiting for something unrelated, I asked about their waiting list. Over 600, mainly babies and toddlers places needed. I wondered at the time whether I should try and engage in the logistical difficulty of putting a child I've yet to conceive on the waiting list!
Emma Rush and Christian Downie released a report last year into ABC Learning for the Australia Institute and they found that corporate chains provided the lowest quality of care in comparison to community owned non-profit centres and independent private centres. Additionally it has always been rather difficult for undergrad early childhood students to complete practicums in ABC Learning centres with an apparent code of silence around curriculum and general management issues. So much for aiding the professionalisation of the sector, surely an ethical priority for the largest childcare provider in the world...
And I could go on...
Despite the latest developments for Groves and ABC Learning's precarious position this does not mean the end of private childcare as we know it. Buying out ABC Learning and other private, commercial providers would be silly economics for the Federal government in hard financial times globally and locally. However with 260 new centres across the country promised by the Federal government over the next four years (38 in this Budget) and a focus on integration hopefully some balance might be restored to the sector and the positive effects of public and private investments might get closer to realisation.
It appears after continued destabilisation courtesy of the global credit crunch, which started to have its effects on ABC Learning earlier this year, our favourite helicopter-navigating, cowboot-wearing early childhood 'advocate' has been taken out. Apparently repeated failures to lodge accounts have sealed the deal.
As it happens it was only yesterday I was reading about Dr Le Neve Groves and her various roles in the company, including CEO of Education and Principal of the National Institute of Early Childhood Education, a place where ABC trains their own (always struck me as rather cult like), and with a PhD in early childhood to boot. So as ABC Learning announces its decision to replace Eddie with Rowan Webb, the former CEO of Colorado group (yes the shoes and lifestyle gear) I'm wondering if we shouldn't be getting a little nostalgic for the Groves, who at least had some dedication to early childhood?
Nah!
I am not opposed to privatisation or market principles as a rule. Privatising childcare (read children) was always going to be an ethical minefield, however if the markets had worked it could've been a subdued tone of discontent. However the market has spectacularly failed in childcare. How so? Let me count the ways....!
Despite providing much needed places and critical infrastructure, which is a virtue of privatisation we can't ignore, it has failed to push up quality and meet actual demand. Privately owned for-profit centres have been involved in actively arguing for maintenance of high child:staff ratios in children's services so it doesn't negatively impact their expenditure and consequently need to be passed on to shareholders. Also known is their tendency to hire the cheapest staff, therefore the least qualified staff they can get away with. In addition there's a practice amongst private for-profit centres of keeping places for the under-3's relatively low because the costs are higher. Hence our crisis in places for children under 3, which gets pushed on to other centres. A few weeks ago I popped into Lady Gowrie (now known just as Gowrie) in Melbourne and while waiting for something unrelated, I asked about their waiting list. Over 600, mainly babies and toddlers places needed. I wondered at the time whether I should try and engage in the logistical difficulty of putting a child I've yet to conceive on the waiting list!
Emma Rush and Christian Downie released a report last year into ABC Learning for the Australia Institute and they found that corporate chains provided the lowest quality of care in comparison to community owned non-profit centres and independent private centres. Additionally it has always been rather difficult for undergrad early childhood students to complete practicums in ABC Learning centres with an apparent code of silence around curriculum and general management issues. So much for aiding the professionalisation of the sector, surely an ethical priority for the largest childcare provider in the world...
And I could go on...
Despite the latest developments for Groves and ABC Learning's precarious position this does not mean the end of private childcare as we know it. Buying out ABC Learning and other private, commercial providers would be silly economics for the Federal government in hard financial times globally and locally. However with 260 new centres across the country promised by the Federal government over the next four years (38 in this Budget) and a focus on integration hopefully some balance might be restored to the sector and the positive effects of public and private investments might get closer to realisation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
