Suchergebnisse

In this paper I argue that early childhood professionals have a key role in providing learning opportunities that aim to prevent children placing their feet on the beginning of the slippery slope of racism. At the bottom of this slippery slope of racism, as we have seen in recent world events, are acts of extremist terrorism. This responsibility is increasingly important given that in many countries political rhetoric is leaning further towards far right extremism accompanied by forms of nationalism where those who are different (for example Muslims and refugee groups) are being portrayed as threatening standards of living of citizens in their host countries. As professionals we have a responsibility to identify early (often, on the surface, benign) acts, reflect on the value position underpinning such acts, and provide opportunities for children to learn to value and respect the differences they see every day in the people around them. In this paper I provide suggestions as to the kinds of behaviours (and the value positions underpinning them) that we see in young children and the ways we might address these.

This book captures the essence of how communities that better support healthy child development can be built. It includes a look at key elements of the Australian Communities for Children initiative, using a collaborative approach that takes into account community, government and family. How can the voices of children be heard in decision-making processes that impact their futures? How can the avalanche of electronic games, the information superhighway, and social media be negotiated to support, educate and protect children living in an online world? What does it mean to use a whole of community approach to supporting families? How can government departments and non-government agencies work together with communities to provide the kind of support that effectively engages families, so that the quality of parenting improves and results in healthy child development? What strategies can be developed in early childhood and school settings to improve family functioning? How can the integration of fragmented services be improved? While these are undoubtedly diverse questions, this kind of holistic viewpoint is necessary if we are to redesign inadequate, siloed approaches and build family friendly urban villages that deliver improved outcomes for children.Complex early childhood trauma often leads to recurring problems for generations with significant economic cost if there is no effective intervention. The current 'merry go round' of services risks the re-traumatisation and escalation of symptoms of those seeking help. If significant change is to be witnessed, relevant stakeholders need to make a concerted attempt to, first of all, listen to what children and families are saying, and then to implement the kinds of practices and policies that will adequately address their needs and aspirations. To do this, a well-trained workforce that understands the

In this article, we propose to critique the way in which a hegemonic understanding of quality in early childhood settings is imposed upon practitioners, families and children through legislated quality assurance processes. The reality of neoliberalism is played out in the establishment and maintenance of the Australian early childhood quality assurance processes as they operate up to 2015, and the definition of approved qualifications for those working in early childhood. In both cases a tightly defined, top-down approach is used to assure quality. This has the effect of limiting flexibility and de-professionalising the work of early childhood professionals. It is our contention that in this neoliberal climate, early childhood practitioners have failed to construct their arguments in ways that could be better understood by outsiders to the profession; instead they are focusing on how best to be compliant. Challenging these hegemonic positions may even be perceived as being 'anti-quality' and not in the best interests of the early childhood sector. We analyse the current context in Australia (which reflects international trends) and explore possible strategies to re-empower the early childhood profession.

There is international recognition of the importance of high quality services for young children with a consensus that three pillars contribute to quality improvement: adult: child ratios, staff qualifications and group size. In Australia over the past 5 years, early childhood policy has attempted to drive improvements in early childhood service quality through national regulations for both adult: child ratios and qualifications. However, a review of early childhood history demonstrates that service quality in the past tended to depend more on the dedication of staff who were expected to be emotionally rewarded through their caring roles rather than from the pay and status associated with their work. The current political direction in Australia is now tending again towards this latter position. We review the literature associated with both positions in relation to quality improvement and flag our concerns for the future.

We use Weick's sense-making and Lipsky's street-level bureaucracy to tease out understandings and perspectives about youth night patrol services in New South Wales, Australia. We examine synergies, tensions, and contradictions in the different ways participants make sense of the purpose of youth night patrols and their role in service delivery. Although all the service were based on the same model, used the same program logic, and reported against the same measureable outcomes, they all looked different on the ground. We explore these differences in the light of participants' sense-making efforts, demonstrating that a unitary policy does not necessarily result in similarity of program delivery.

This paper holds to account the ideas legitimising staff management practices currently experienced in my workplace, a university, as bullying. Making these practices visible, and locating them in theories allows movement beyond current understandings of reality and points "to new ways of thinking and action about freedom, civic courage, social responsibility, and justice" [1]. Whilst this is titled a story of frustration I aim at a position of hope using auto-ethnography to reflect on my experiences as a volunteer case worker for the staff union (National Tertiary Education Union - NTEU). I have supported staff complaining of bullying in the workplace and have struggled to achieve fair and equitable outcomes. I have witnessed hard working, valued colleagues becoming disenchanted, disengaged, and resigning. Accepting this without attempting to drive change is unacceptable, thus this study was born. I locate this work in literature related to workplace bullying and the Australian higher education context. I explore my reflections, examining how these link to, and extend understandings of theory. Finally I explain why I think workplace bullying needs redefinition in order for us to enliven democracy as a way of life for those of us working in the university context.

In this paper I argue that early childhood professionals have a key role in providing learning opportunities that aim to prevent children placing their feet on the beginning of the slippery slope of racism. At the bottom of this slippery slope of racism, as we have seen in recent world events, are acts of extremist terrorism. This responsibility is increasingly important given that in many countries political rhetoric is leaning further towards far right extremism accompanied by forms of nationalism where those who are different (for example Muslims and refugee groups) are being portrayed as threatening standards of living of citizens in their host countries. As professionals we have a responsibility to identify early (often, on the surface, benign) acts, reflect on the value position underpinning such acts, and provide opportunities for children to learn to value and respect the differences they see every day in the people around them. In this paper I provide suggestions as to the kinds of behaviours (and the value positions underpinning them) that we see in young children and the ways we might address these.

We explore the way dominant political discourses are perceived to influence developing professionalisation of early childhood in three contexts. The UK is strongly influenced by the neoliberal agenda which positions managerialism, bureaucracy, accountability and control as necessary to drive quality improvement. Bhutan has been exposed to western ideologies for a short time (as time counts in human history) and is attempting to manage tensions between western ideologies and the philosophy underpinning Gross National Happiness. Fiji has a history of colonisation. With a growing commitment across Pacific nations to postcolonialism, Fiji professionals are struggling to manage the intersection between their neoliberal western history and their own postcolonial ambitions. We argue a better understanding of the ways in which dominant ideologies impact on the development of early childhood professionalisation will uncover unintended, taken-for-granted assumptions and illuminate potential risks, thus better positioning readers to make informed choices about their work and the development of their profession.

The current Australian government is proposing an agenda focused around social inclusion in an attempt to address the complex issues associated with inequality evident in this country. Despite valiant attempts, many agencies struggle to offer inclusive services, particularly to families who have migrated to Australia from culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) backgrounds. In this study, we surveyed a range of programs identified by key informants as offering inclusive service delivery with the aim of identifying those aspects of their practice they believed facilitated successful inclusion. We then attempt to position our findings within recently emerging critiques of the concept of social inclusion, of which our participants appeared unaware. This critique addresses the fundamental purpose of social inclusion, and the strategies commonly used to achieve it, arguing that these are based on a deficit approach that positions those who are excluded as "other." In identifying those who are excluded as "other" and attempting to include them into a hegemonic idea of civil society as functioning citizens, are agencies actually being racist?

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.