Advertisement

Conclusion: Discourses and Dreams on Becoming

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

Abstract

The contents in the chapters in this book have shown how ECEC institutions are both globally linked and locally constructed within networks of powers, discourses, philosophies, paradoxes and practices. The kinds of ‘becoming(s)’ that arise for these young children as a consequence are different – in an increasingly globalised world, we think, these are of great significance in thinking about the present and future realities that are posed accordingly. Thus, with this concluding chapter, we seek to address existing and future challenges, dreams and opportunities in contemplation of a future that we can only imagine, in consideration of the practices and discourses that structure becoming(s) of infants and toddlers in the first 1000 days of life across the world. If we are to embrace fuller interpretations of becoming, we must also consider becoming as a human encounter in the present, as well as the implications of these for unimaginable futures.

References

  1. Cahill, D., & Toner, P. (Eds.). (2018). Wrong way: How privatisation and economic reform backfired. Carlton, Australia: La Trobe University Press and Black.Google Scholar
  2. Engel, A., Barnett, W., Anders, & Taguma, M. (2015). Early childhood education and care policy review. Norway. Brussels, Belgium: OECD.Google Scholar
  3. Jolly, R. (2007). Early childhood development: The global challenge. Lancet, 369, 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Karila, K., Kosonen, T., & Järvenkallas, S. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisen tiekartta vuosille 2017–2030. Suuntaviivat varhaiskasvatuksen osallistumisasteen nostamiseen sekä päiväkotien henkilöstön osaamisen, henkilöstörakenteen ja koulutuksen kehittämiseen. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2017:30. Available (in Finnish) at http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/80221/okm30.pdf
  5. Lake, A. (2011). Early childhood development—Global action is overdue. New York: UNICEF.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(11)61450-5. Downloaded 190219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Millei, Z., & Kallio, K. P. (2016). Recognizing politics in the nursery: Early childhood education institutions as sites of mundane politics. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(1), 31–47.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949116677498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Naibauer, A. V. (2016). Itogi perehodnogo perioda vvedenija Federalnogo gosudarstvennogo obrazovatelnogo standarta doshklnogo obrazovaniya: nasychnye problemy i vozmozhnye resheniya. Sovremennoe Doshkolnoe Obrazovanie, 1, 4–19.Google Scholar
  8. Press, F., Woodrow, C., Logan, H., & Mitchell, L. (2018). Can we belong in a neo-liberal world? Neo-liberalism in early childhood education and care policy in Australia and New Zealand. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,19(4), 328–339.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118781909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Steinnes, G. S., & Haug, P. (2013). Consequences of staff composition in Norwegian kindergarten. Nordic Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 6, 1–13.Google Scholar
  10. THL. (2017). Varhaiskasvatus 2016. Tilastoraportti 29/2017. Retrieved from http://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/135183

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Charles Sturt UniversityAlburyAustralia
  4. 4.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  5. 5.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway
  6. 6.University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations