Advertisement

The Australian Early Years Learning Framework: Becoming and Children in Their First 1000 Days

Chapter
  • 801 Downloads
Part of the Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations book series (POPED, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter examines the becoming motif in Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (the EYLF) and how it is being interpreted, theorised and taken up with respect to infants and toddlers in early childhood education and care settings. This examination is double-layered. Influenced by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s ontology of continual change, the argument is made that although the EYLF is a product of a particular time, politics and circumstances, it is not inert or static. On the contrary, it is itself in an ongoing process of becoming through the ideas, expectations, responses, decisions and practices it continually generates and the interconnections that it continually establishes. Within this fluid context of the EYLF’s continual becoming, the chapter begins to map how the becoming of infants and toddlers is being understood and articulated in contemporary Australian early childhood education research. This mapping-in-progress highlights that becoming cannot be reduced to a fixed ensemble of propositions or measurable constructs. It also suggests that possibilities for diverse ways of conceptualising becoming will continue to emerge.

References

  1. Adair, J. K., Phillips, L., Ritchie, J., & Sachdeva, S. (2017). Civic action and play: Examples from Māori, Aboriginal Australian and Latino communities. Early Child Development and Care, 187(5–6), 798–811.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1237049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2010). Educators belonging, being and becoming: Educators’ guide to the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Author. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/educators-guide-early-yearslearning-framework-australia
  4. Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2014). Childcare and early childhood learning: Overview and recommendations, Inquiry Report No. 73. Canberra, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childcare/report/childcare-overview.pdf.
  5. Australian Government Senate Select Committee on Red Tape. (2018). Effect of red tape on child care: Interim report. Canberra, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Red_Tape/Childcare/Interim_report.
  6. Barblett, L., Knaus, M., & Barratt-Pugh, C. (2016). The pushes and pulls of pedagogy in the early years: Competing knowledges and the erosion of play-based learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 36–43.Google Scholar
  7. Basford, J., & Wood, E. (2017). Assessment in early childhood education: Two readings, many lenses. In J. Roopnarine, J. Johnson, S. Quinn, & M. Patte (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 350–364). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Biehl, J., & Locke, P. (2010). Deleuze and the anthropology of becoming. Current Anthropology, 51(3), 317–351.  https://doi.org/10.1086/651466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowlby, J. (1988). A seure base. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Cheeseman, S. (2017). Narratives of infants’ encounters with curriculum: Beyond the curriculum of care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(1), 55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949117692243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheeseman, S., & Sumsion, J. (2016). Narratives of infants’ encounters with curriculum: The benediction as invitation to participate. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
  12. Cheeseman, S., Sumsion, J., & Press, F. (2014). Infants of the knowledge economy: The ambition of the Australian Government’s early years learning framework. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 22(3), 405–424.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.914967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheeseman, S., Sumsion, J., & Press, F. (2015). Infants of the productivity agenda: Learning from birth or waiting to learn? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(3), 38–45.Google Scholar
  14. Colebrook, C. (2012). Actuality. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary. (Revised ed. (pp. 9–11). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., & Marvin, R. (2009). Circe of security parenting (COS-P©): A relationship-based parenting program. Retrieved from https://www.circleofsecurityinternational.com/.
  16. Davis, B., & Dunn, R. (2018). Making the personal visible: Emotion in the nursery. Early Child Development and Care, 188(7), 905–923.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1439487Google Scholar
  17. Davis, B., Torr, J., & Degotardi, S. (2015). Infants and toddlers: How visible are they in the Early Years Learning Framework? International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9(12).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-015-0014-y
  18. Degotardi, S. (2011). From greetings to meetings: How infant peers welcome and accommodate a newcomer into their group. The First Years Ngā Tau Tuatahi: New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 13(2), 29–33.Google Scholar
  19. Degotardi, S. (2015). Mind-mindedness: Forms, features and implications for infant–toddler pedagogy. In R. S & S. F. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge International handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding (pp. 179–188). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Degotardi, S. (2017). Joint attention in infant-toddler early childhood programs: Its dynamics and potential for collaborative learning. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 409–421.Google Scholar
  21. Degotardi, S., Page, J., & White, J. (2017). (Re)conceptualising relationships in infant-toddler pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 355–361.Google Scholar
  22. Deleuze, G. (1993a). The fold: Leibniz and the baroque (T. Conley, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Deleuze, G. (1993b). What is an event? In C. V. Boundas (Ed.), The Deleuze reader (pp. 42–53). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations 1972–1990 (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Deleuze, G. (2004). The logic of sense (2nd ed.) (M. Lester & C. Stivale, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). Anti-Oedipus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Dolby, R., Hughes, E., & Friezer, B. (2014). Playspaces: Educators, parents and toddlers. In L. J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research and practice (pp. 89–102). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Duhn, I. (2015). Making agency matter: Rethinking infant and toddler agency in educational discourse. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 36(6), 920–931.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.918535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elwick, S., & Green, B. (2019). Merleau-Ponty’s body and beyond? Early childhood studies, philosophical–empirical inquiry, and educational research. Qualitative Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419836702
  32. Fleet, A., & Farrell, L. (2014). The place of infants in the evolving Australian policy context. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 81–88.Google Scholar
  33. Gane, N. (2009). Concepts and the ‘new’ empiricism. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431008099645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garvis, S., Lemon, N., Pendergast, D., & Yim, B. (2013). A content analysis of early childhood teachers’ theoretical and practical experiences with infants and toddlers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(9), 25–35.Google Scholar
  35. Garvis, S., & Manning, M. (2015). Do master early childhood teacher education programs provide adequate coverage of infants and toddlers? A review of content. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 164–175.Google Scholar
  36. Giugni, M. (2011). ‘Becoming worldly with’: An encounter with the early years learning framework. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
  37. Goodfellow, J. (2014). Infants initiating encounters with peers in group care environments. In L. J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research and practice (pp. 201–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Green, B. (2018). Engaging curriculum: Bridging the curriculum theory and English education divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Grieshaber, S. (2018). Developments in curriculum and assessment in the early years in Australia. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (Vol. 2, pp. 1211–1226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Grieshaber, S., & Graham, L. J. (2017). Equity and educators enacting the Australian early years learning framework. Critical Studies in Education, 58(1), 89–103.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.1126328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  42. Harrison, L. J., Sumsion, J., Bradley, B., Letsch, K., & Salamon, A. (2017). Flourishing on the margins: A study of babies and belonging in an Australian Aboriginal community childcare centre. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(2), 189–205.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1288015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heckman, J. J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(3), 446–493.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00359.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hunkin, E. (2016). Deploying Foucauldian genealogy: Critiquing ‘quality’ reform in early childhood policy in Australia. Power and Education, 8(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
  45. Martin, K. (2007). Ma(r)king tracks and reconceptualising Aboriginal early childhood education: An Aboriginal Australian perspective. Childrenz Issues, 11(1), 15–20.Google Scholar
  46. May, T. (2003). When is a Deleuzian becoming ? Continental Philosophy Review, 36(2), 139–153.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026036516963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mentha, S. A. (2016). Being, becoming and potential: Thinking coproduction and coexistence in early childhood education. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/115916/MENTHA_Being%20Becoming%20Potential%20CORRECT%20COPY.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  48. Millei, Z., & Jones, A. (2014). The Australian early childhood curriculum and a cosmopolitan imaginary. International Journal of Early Childhood, 46(1), 63–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-014-0100-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Millei, Z., & Sumsion, J. (2011). The place of ‘community’ in belonging, being and becoming: An early years learning framework for Australia. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
  50. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopuna o Aotearoa/early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  51. Moss, P., & Urban, M. (2017). The organisation for economic co-operation and development’s international early learning study: What happened next. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(2), 250–258.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949117714086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mulhearn, G. (2016). Value guided practice: The ethics of care and justice in early childhood education and care. Unpublished Doctor of Education thesis, University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  53. Olsson, L. M. (2009). Movement and experimentation in young children’s learning: Deleuze and Guattari in early childhood education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2010a). Curriculum’s flows, rthyms and intensities: A beginning. In V. Pacini-Ketchabaw (Ed.), Flows, rhythms and intensities: Early childhood education curriculum (pp. xi–xviii). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (Ed.). (2010b). Flows, rhythms and intensities. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Peers, C., & Fleer, M. (2014). The theory of ‘belonging’: Defining concepts used within belonging, being and becoming—The Australian early years learning framework. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(8), 914–928.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.781495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Phillips, L. G., & Moroney, K. (2017). Civic action and learning with a community of Aboriginal Australian young children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(4), 87–96.  https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salamon, A. (2011). How the early years learning framework can help shift pervasive beliefs of the social and emotional capabilities of infants and toddlers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(1), 4–10.Google Scholar
  59. Salamon, A. (2016). Conceptions of infants’ capabilities: The nexus between conceptions, practices, and infants’ lived experiences. (Unpublished PhD), Charles Sturt University, Retrieved from https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/9317726
  60. Salamon, A. (2017). Infants’ practices: Shaping (and shaped by) the arrangements of early childhood education. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring education and professional practice: Though the lens of practice architectures (pp. 83–99). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Salamon, A., Sumsion, J., & Harrison, L. (2017). Infants draw on ‘emotional capital’ in early childhood education contexts: A new paradigm. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 362–374.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949117742771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC). (2011). Growing up our way: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child rearing pratice matrix. North Fitzroy, Victoria: SNAICC. Retrieved from https://www.snaicc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/02802.pdf
  63. Sellers, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum: Deleuze, TeWhāriki and curricular understandings. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Semetsky, I. (2008). (Pre)facing deleuze. In I. Semetsky (Ed.), Nomadic education (pp. vii–xxi). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  65. Sims, M. (2014). Is the care-education dichotomy behind us? Should it be? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39, 4–11.Google Scholar
  66. Sims, M., Sumsion, J., Mulhearn, G., & Grieshaber, S. (2017). Regulating for quality in Australian early childhood. In N. Klinkhammer, B. Schafer, D. Harring, & A. Gwinner (Eds.), Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care: Approaches and experiences from selected countries (pp. 23–40). Munich, Germany: German Youth Institute, International Centre Early Childhood Education and Care. Retrieved from https://www.dji.de/fileadmin/user_upload/bibs2017/Monitoring_Sammelband_E_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
  67. Sotirin, P. (2005). Becoming-woman. In C. J. Stivale (Ed.), Gilles Deleuze: Key concepts (pp. 98–109). Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.Google Scholar
  68. Spyrou, S. (2018). Disclosing childhoods: Research and knowledge production for a critical childhood studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Stagoll, C. (2005). Event. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (pp. 87–88). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  70. State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, & Department of Health and Social Services. (2007). State of Alaska early learning guidelines. Juneau, AK: State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, & Department of Health and Social Services. Retrieved from https://education.alaska.gov/publications/EarlyLearningGuidelines.pdfGoogle Scholar
  71. Stratigos, T., Bradley, B., & Sumsion, J. (2014). Infants, family day care and the politics of belonging. International Journal of Early Childhood, 46(2), 171–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-014-0110-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sumsion, J. (2017). Provision for ‘under 3s’ in Australian early childhood education and care policy commitments: A metaphorical canary in the coal mine. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three year olds in policy and practice (pp. 2005–2006). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Sumsion, J., Barnes, S., Cheeseman, S., Harrison, L., Kennedy, A., & Stonehouse, A. (2009). Insider perspectives on developing belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 4–13.Google Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. Sumsion, J., Harrison, L. J., Letsch, K., Bradley, B., & Stapleton, M. J. (2018a). ‘Belonging’ in Australian early childhood education and care curriculum and quality assessment: Opportunities and risks. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0), 1463949118796239.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118796239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sumsion, J., Harrison, L. J., & Stapleton, M. (2018b). Spatial perspectives on babies’ ways of belonging in infant early childhood education and care. Journal of Pedagogy, 1, 109–131.Google Scholar
  77. Sumsion, J., & Wong, S. (2011). Interrogating ‘belonging’ in belonging, being and becoming: An early years learning framework for Australia. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(1), 28–45.Google Scholar
  78. Tillett, V., & Wong, S. (2018). An investigative case study into early childhood educators’ understanding about ‘belonging’. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(1), 37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1412016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of the child. general comment no7: Implementing child rights in early childhood. Geneva. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm
  80. Wood, E. (2014). The play-pedagogy interface in contemporary debates. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), SAGE handbook on play and learning in early childhood (pp. 145–156). London/New York: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityAlburyAustralia

Personalised recommendations