Suchergebnisse

SUMMARY: This paper explores the implications of the introduction of the new system of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) in Child Care and Education.The historical context of provision and the dual system of training of early childhood workers in Britain, split between care and education, is briefly described to show why pressures for change have come about. The background to the development of the qualifications is examined to see what light this throws on their current implementation.The paper argues that, compared with Europe where most countries are moving towards graduate status for early childhood education workers and many are thinking about an integration between care and education, with the introduction of our new child care NVQs we are moving in the opposite direction. Their introduction is likely to entrench the current split and does nothing to encourage the development of higher level qualifications which integrate care and education.

SUMMARY. This paper sets out an argument for an approach to under fives provision which ignores the boundaries between care and education. It demonstrates an example of training, at South Bank Polytechnic in London, which attempts to overcome barriers to looking at children as whole individuals

Despite the relevance of early childhood services to children, families and nation states, the sector is largely undervalued and under resourced and, is not recognised as an established profession. Using collaborative auto ethnography, researchers from six different countries (Australia, Chile, England, Germany, Ireland and the United States) all members of the EECERA Professionalisation Special Interest Group (P-SIG) share their reflections on the professionalisation of early childhood. While professionalisation is associated with discretionary decision making that is premised upon an accepted body of knowledge, neoliberalism imposes constraints from on top, identifying through various forms of curricula, legislated standards, and policies what is appropriate and desirable practice. As a consequence, early childhood personnel are restricted in their professional agency and, their work is characterised by tension, as they strive to balance external expectations from a neoliberal stance and their own perspectives that prioritise a children's rights perspective. This paper questions how the sector manages the constraints imposed on it in a neoliberal political and social world. It calls upon those in the profession to resist neoliberalism and, to make a stand in terms of what is considered best practice. It further argues that ongoing debate is required as to the boundaries of what would be called the early childhood profession: considerations of ways in which the different sectors (education, health, and welfare) contribute to a holistic approach in working with children balanced against the requirement for a profession to have an identified and discrete body of knowledge. The implications of this for professionalisation of early childhood are widespread and, worthy of debate. While the inclusion of different sectors for example, addresses the holistic nature of early childhood work, it risks creating a broad and diffused knowledge base that might make it difficult to claim professionalisation. We hope that this paper contributes to reenergizing conversations on the professionalisation of the early childhood sector.