Advertisement

International Journal of Early Childhood

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 63–79 | Cite as

The Australian Early Childhood Curriculum and a Cosmopolitan Imaginary

  • Zsuzsa Millei
  • Alexandra Jones
Original Article

Abstract

In our interconnected and interdependent world, national early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies can no longer be made or read independently from their global contexts. Policy statements often display a global awareness that construct notions about ‘the child’ as a ‘global citizen’, particular relations to others and certain prospects about the world. In this paper, we analyse the Australian Early Years Learning Framework: Belonging, Being and Becoming (EYLF) and associated documents to make explicit the particular child subjects, forms of belonging and prospects they produce. The multivocality and multiperspectivity of the EYLF enable parallel interpretations, which we utilise here and focus on two possible readings: first, an educational prospect that furthers neoliberal globalisation and modernist notions by fashioning ECEC as part of national and mostly economic projects, while the second reading identifies aspects of the EYLF that prefigure a new mode of learning that engages alternatively with our interdependent world through a ‘cosmopolitan ethics’ and ‘cosmopolitan solidarity’. Based upon our second reading, we utilise our ‘radical imagination’ to extend the cosmopolitan imaginary of the EYLF for pedagogical use.

Keywords

Early childhood policy Curriculum and pedagogy Neo-liberal globalisation Imaginaries Modernity 

Résumé

Dans notre monde interconnecté et interdépendant, les politiques nationales d’éducation et d’accueil de la petite enfance (EAPE) ne peuvent plus être conçues ni appréhendées sans tenir compte de leur contexte global. Les déclarations de politique font souvent montre d’une conscience globale qui construit certaines notions relatives à «l’enfant, citoyen du monde», certaines relations avec l’autre et certaines prospectives sur le monde. Dans cet article, nous analysons l’énoncé de politique australien Early Years Learning Framework: Belonging, Being and Becoming (EYLF) et d’autres documents associés afin de rendre explicites les types particulier de sujets, formes d’appartenance et prospectives de l’enfant que produisent ces textes. Le caractère multi vocal et pluri perspectif de l’EYLF permet des interprétations parallèles, ce dont nous profitons ici pour présenter deux lectures possibles. La première est une prospective éducationnelle qui met de l’avant des notions néolibérales globales et modernistes en concevant l’EAPE comme partie intégrante de projets nationaux, principalement économiques. La deuxième lecture identifie des aspects de l’EYLF qui préfigurent un nouveau mode d’apprentissage qui implique autrement notre monde interdépendant à travers une éthique et une solidarité «cosmopolites». Sur la base de cette deuxième lecture, nous aurons recours à notre «imagination radicale» pour élargir l’imaginaire cosmopolite de l’EYLF à des fins pédagogiques.

Resúmen

Las políticas nacionales de educación (inicial) y preescolar (ECE) ya no se pueden realizar o interpretar independientemente de su contexto global en nuestro mundo interrelacionado y altamente interdependiente. Dichas políticas suelen mostrar un conocimiento global que construye la noción del “niño” como un “ciudadano global”, las relaciones con los demás y sus perspectivas sobre el mundo. En este trabajo, analizamos el Marco Australiano de “Aprendizaje de Educación (inicial) y preescolar: perteneciendo, siendo y llegando a ser” (EYLF). Junto al Marco, revisamos igualmente, otros documentos relacionados con el mismo que hacen explícitas las singularidades del niño, formas de pertenencia y las perspectivas que producen. La multiplicidad de voces y perspectivas del Marco Australiano (EYLF) permite interpretaciones paralelas las cuales utilizaremos aquí mientras centraremos la atención en dos puntos: en primer lugar, la perspectiva educativa que promueve la globalización neoliberal y las nociones de concepción modernista que modela la educación (inicial) y preescolar como una parte de los planes nacionales y los proyectos económicos. La segunda lectura señala los otros aspectos del Marco Australiano (EYLF) que prefiguran una nueva modalidad de aprendizaje conectados alternativamente con nuestro mundo interdependiente a través de la “ética cosmopolita “y” solidaridad cosmopolita”. Basado en esta segunda lectura hacemos uso de nuestra ‘imaginación radical’ para ampliar el imaginario cosmopolita del Marco Australiano (EYLF) para su uso pedagógico.

References

  1. Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning, 34, 385–399. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from www.environment-and-planning.com/epa/fulltext/a34/a3439.pdf.
  2. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Revised and extended edition). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Ansell, N. (2009). Childhood and the politics of scale: Descaling children’s geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appadurai, A. (2001). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), globalization (pp. 1–21). Durham NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Documents/Final%20EYLF%20Framework%20Report%20-%20WEB.pdf.
  6. Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 1–55). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Blok, A. (2010). Mapping the super-whale: Towards a mobile ethnography of situated globalities. Mobilities, 5(4), 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castoriadis, C. (1997). The discovery of the imagination. In D. A. Curtis (Ed.), World in fragments: Writings on politics, society, psychoanalysis, and the imagination (pp. 213–245). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Investing in the Early Years—A National Early Childhood Development Strategy. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://acecqa.gov.au/storage/national_ECD_strategy.pdf.
  13. Dockett, S., Kearney, E., & Perry, B. (2012). Recognising young children’s understandings and experiences of community. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dockett, S., Perry, B., Campbell, H., Hard, L., Kearney, E., & Taffe, R. (2007). Early years learning and curriculum, Reconceptualising Reception: Continuity of learning. Adelaide, SA: Office of Early Childhood and Statewide Services, Department of Education and Children’s Services.Google Scholar
  15. Duhn, I. (2006). The making of global citizens: Traces of cosmopolitanism in the New Zealand early childhood curriculum Te Whāriki. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(3), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott, A., & Lemert, C. (2009). The new individualism: The emotional costs of globalization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (S. A. M. Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  18. Gaonkar, D. (2002). Toward new imaginaries: An introduction. Public Culture, 14(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heckman, J. J. (1999). Policies to foster human capital, Aaron Wildavsky Forum. Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley: Chicago: Ounce of Prevention Fund.Google Scholar
  20. Held, D. (2003). Cosmopolitanism: Globalisation tamed? Review of International Studies, 29(4), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horsley, M., & Bauer, K. (2010). Preparing early childhood educators for global education: The implications of prior learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenks, C. (1996). Childhood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Johansson, E. (2009). The preschool child of today: The world: Citizen of tomorrow. International Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linkater, A. (2005). Dialogic politics and the civilizing process. Review of International Studies, 31(1), 141–154.Google Scholar
  25. Linkater, A. (2012). The global civilizing role of cosmopolitanism. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cosmopolitanism studies (pp. 60–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Mahon, R. (2006). The OECD and the work/family reconciliation agenda: Competing frames. In J. Lewis (Ed.), Children, changing families and welfare states. Chelteham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Mahon, R. (2008). Babies and bosses: Gendering the OECD’s social policy discourse. In R. Mahon & S. McBride (Eds.), The OECD and transnational governance. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mignolo, W. D. (2012). De-colonial cosmopolitanism and dialogues among civilisations. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cosmopolitanism studies (pp. 85–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Millei, Z. (2012). ‘Community’ and ‘Democratic Practice’ in early childhood education and care: A critique and possibility through the optic of Roberto Esposito. Global Studies of Childhood, 2(4), 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA]. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, December 2008. Retrieved February 6, 2013, from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
  31. Morabito, C., Vandenbroeck, M., & Roose, R. (2013). ‘The Greatest of Equalisers’: A critical review of international organisations’ views on early childhood care and education. Journal of Social Policy, 42(3), 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ojala, M. (2012). Mediating the political imaginary of governance: Global elites and the Financial Times. Paper presented at the Finnish Conference of Communication Research, pp. 30–31 August 2012.Google Scholar
  33. Penn, H. (2002). The World Bank’s view of early childhood. Childhood, 9(1), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinar, W., & Reynolds, W. (1992). Introduction: Curriculum as text. In W. Pinar & W. Reynolds (Eds.), Understanding curriculum as a phenomenological and deconstructed text (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rizvi, F. (2006). Imagination and the globalization of educational policy research. Globalization, Societies and Education, 4(2), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 253–268.Google Scholar
  37. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain—New insights into early development. New York: Families and Work Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Steger, M. (2009). Political ideologies and social imaginaries in the global age. Global Justice: Theory and Practice, 2(April), 1–17.Google Scholar
  41. Sumsion, J., Barnes, S., Cheeseman, S., Harrison, L., Kennedy, A. M., & Stonehouse, A. (2010). Insider perspectives on developing belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 4–13.Google Scholar
  42. Sumsion, J., & Grieshaber, S. (2012). Pursuing Better Childhoods and Futures through Curriculum: Utopian visions in the development of Australia’s early years learning framework. Global Studies of Childhood, 2(3), 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, A., & Giugni, M. (2012). Common worlds: Reconceptualising inclusion in early childhood communities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  45. White, L. (2011). The internationalization of early childhood education and care issues: Framing gender justice and child well-being. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(2), 285–309.Google Scholar
  46. Wilks, A., Nyland, B., Chancellor, B., & Elliot, S. (2008). An analysis of curriculum/learning frameworks for the early years (birth to age 8). East Melbourne: State Government Department of Victoria, Department of Education and Early Child Development, and the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/earlyyears/analysiscurriclearnfwlitreview.pdf.
  47. Woodhead, M. (2006). Changing perspectives on early childhood: Theory, research and policy. International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, 4(2), 1–43.Google Scholar
  48. Woodrow, C., & Press, F. (2007). (Re)positioning the child in the policy/politics of early childhood. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(3), 312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations