Commentary to Part II: Internationalising Early Childhood Education, or Embedding International Children into Local Contexts?

  • Ingela K. Naumann


In this conclusion to the section on early years and primary education, Ingela Naumann emphasises that factors promoting internationalisation practices have emerged historically in quite different ways for the early years sector, when compared to the higher education field. She also highlights the critical point that early years education is often governed and funded by different state actors than other education phases, and that the purpose of the former can be quite different. All this affects how the drive for internationalisation is interpreted and implemented by early years providers. Ingela Naumann also stresses that increasing processes of marketisation may alter the ways internationalisation practices are manifested within the early years sector and the impact this has.


  1. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Grek, S. (2014). OECD as a site of coproduction: European education governance and the new politics of “policy mobilization”. Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hayden, M. (2013). A review of curriculum in the UK: internationalising in a changing context. The Curriculum Journal, 24(1), 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lim, S. (2017). Marketization and corporation of early child care and education in Singapore. In M. Li et al. (Eds.), Contemporary issues and challenges in early childhood education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 17–32). Singapore: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mahon, R. (2006). The OECD and the work/family reconciliation agenda: Competing frames. In J. Lewis (Ed.), Children, changing families and welfare states (pp. 173–200). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Mahon, R. (2010). After neoliberalism? The OECD, the World Bank and the child. Global Social Policy, 10, 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martens, K., & Wolf, K. D. (2009). Boomerangs and Trojan horses: The unintended consequences of internationalising education policy through the EU and the OECD. In A. Amaral et al. (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 81–108). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, and New York: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Naumann, I. (in press, 2018). Childhood education and care policy: Beyond quantity and quality, for human development. In C. Trevarthen et al. (Eds.), The child’s curriculum: Working with the natural values of young children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Sumsion, J. (2012). ABC Learning and Australian early education and care: A retrospective ethical audit of a radical experiment. In E. Lloyd et al. (Eds.), Child care markets: Can they deliver an equitable service? (pp. 209–226). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  10. van Lancker, W. (2013). Putting the child-centred investment strategy to the test: Evidence for the EU27. European Journal of Social Security, 15(1), 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. White, L. A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingela K. Naumann
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations