Early Childhood Pedagogy

Valerie Desirotte – June 2013
1 | P a g e
Deconstructing and Reconstructing Early Childhood
Pedagogy: Developing Criticality and Reflexivity
“Childhood is the most intensively governed sector of human existence. In
different ways, at different times, and by many different routes varying from one
section of society to another, the health, welfare, and rearing of children have
been linked in thought and practice to the destiny of the nation and the
responsibilities of the state.” (Rose 1989; 124)
Using Foucault and other theoretical lenses, discuss this statement with reference to
contemporary discourse regarding childhood, the structure of the early childhood institution
and the child’s agency. It is essential that you refer to key national and international Early
Childhood Care and Education policy documents in your discussion.

2 | P a g e
Introduction
Childhood is a concept which has been defined and redefined throughout our social
history. Its evolution from the Middle Ages to the present times is a reflection of the cultural,
scientific, economic and political changes that have occurred in Western civilisation and of
the various discourses which have shaped our educational practices (Oswell 2013). The social
conditioning of children by the nation-state, through education, established a national popular
culture resulting in people’s attachment to their nation, or as Bourdieu calls it, ‘habitus’
(Farrell 2010). In this essay, I will also refer to the theories of Michel Foucault, who linked
the institutionalisation of the notion of childhood, and of its education, to the concept of
governmentality, or how the newly emerging modern state controlled its ‘subjects’ in order to
govern them, and encourage them to govern themselves, with a view to produce ‘docile
bodies’ endorsed by normalising discourses and disciplinary technologies (Smith 2012).
Regardless of the time or the discourse, children are seen as the perfect starting point in order
to cure all the ills of society, e.g. poverty, delinquency, and to meet the economic needs of
tomorrow’s world. Ranging from religious or scientific to democratic ideals, children have
been subjected to different pedagogical approaches, all structured and designed by ‘experts’
in their own field, but rarely by children themselves. Gidden’s theory of structure vs. agency
will be discussed in relation to children and how the recognition of their rights to express
their views and opinions and their active participation into society has now become a priority
for international, European and Irish policymakers. However, this new educational approach
might be just a novel way of achieving the objectives of advanced liberal government, that is
to ‘invest in the future’ but ‘with the twist that children are offered an active role in the
development of individual human capital’ (Smith 2012, p. 33). As Foucault said, ‘everything
is dangerous’ because nothing happens outside of power relations; everything we do is the
manifestation of the power we have over somebody else or that somebody else has over us
(Clark et al 2005, p.9).
Definitions of Childhood
Prior to the analysis of the political, psychological, scientific and cultural forces
governing childhood and more specifically early childhood, it is worth starting by looking at
the historical and social definitions of childhood. Oswell (2013) differentiates between a
‘concept’ of childhood and a ‘conception’ of childhood. Referring to Archard (1993), he
states that ‘whereas the former identifies an object or a being which is as yet undefined or
which lacks concrete attributes, the latter refers to the actual definitions or attributes of
childhood’ (p.12). In other words, the conception of what a child is or should be differs from
one society and one century to the next as it is historically and socially constructed. Philippe
Ariès (1962) argues that medieval times did not have a clear conception of childhood and as a
result its separation from ‘adulthood’ did not exist (in Oswell 2013, p.10). The creation of a
new status given to ‘children’ happened over a long period of time through iconographies and

3 | P a g e
the ‘accumulation of descriptions’ based on the evolution of society, which finally resulted in
a distinct classification and labelling of the youngest section of the population in the 19th
century (p14). However, these classifications mainly varied based on social class and gender
until Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s educational treaty ‘Emile ou de l’Education’ dating from 1762,
in which Rousseau grants a special ‘nature’ to children ‘where he urges that children be
treated as children’, giving childhood a more universal definition and extends it ‘to the
masses’ (Smith 2012, p.29). At the end of the 19th
C., Emile Durkheim sees the child as not
yet formed, constantly growing and in a state of incompleteness, which requires ‘a wonderful
environment of careful attention, of consideration, of favourable circumstances and protective
influences’ in order to go from weak to strong physically, intellectually and morally (Oswell
2013, p.39). This process of ‘becoming’ is a process of socialisation for Durkheim whereas
for the social psychologist Jean Piaget in the 1960s, it is a cognitive developmental process
structured in stages. The child is now distinct from the adult and seen as the ‘other’,
‘immature’ and for whom decisions must be taken (Cannella 1999, p.37). Furthermore, the
ancient Christian concept of the innocent or evil child which needs to be educated in order to
remain, or to become, innocent, linked to the idea of obedience enforced by discipline,
introduces the concept of ‘malleability’, allowing religious orders, and later the modern state,
to ‘manipulate the future’ through the ‘reconceptualisation’ of childhood as ‘a ‘blank slate’,
upon which the future can be written’ (Smith, 2012, p.28).
Governmentality and the institutionalisation of childhood; from the family to the
‘modern school’
Before the industrial revolution and the creation of the ‘modern’ school, the
socialisation of children, through education, was entrusted to the (extended) family, seen at
the time as the centre of social and economic life, resting on strong moral values laid out by
religion. Michel Foucault, French philosopher of the 20th
century, argues that by the 19th
century ‘the system of noble estates and family alliances of the 18th
century’ is no longer
reliable as a form of political and economic structure and that the family is now ‘located at
the interchange of a system of alliance and a new regime of power and knowledge’ (in
Oswell 2013, p. 95). The power residing in the family structure now moves towards a
centralised system of governance, which subordinates the family to its power, whilst making
it an instrument and object of power and knowledge, serving the new political structure of the
modern State (Oswell 2013, p.98). In his lectures in 1978/79, Foucault introduces the term
‘governmentality’ to analyse the genealogy of the modern state. Resulting from the semantic
link of ‘govern’ and ‘mentality’, governmentality refers to the tactics of government in order
to govern and influence its subjects. However, up until the 18th
century, the art of government
was not just political in nature:
Government was a term discussed not only in political tracts, but also in philosophical,
religious, medical and pedagogic texts. In addition to the management by the state or the
administration, "government" also signified problems of self-control, guidance for the
family and for children, management of the household, directing the soul, etc. For this

4 | P a g e
reason, Foucault defines government as conduct, or, more precisely, as "the conduct of
conduct" and thus as a term which ranges from "governing the self" to "governing others"
(Lemke, 2010, p. 50-51)
Indeed, the 19th
century sees the emergence of several measures and techniques as means of
control of the populations whilst providing what Oswell (2013) refers to as ‘supervised
freedom’ (p.98). Foucault believes that the use of statistical knowledge is key in the new
system of governance; generating an overview of the total population in terms of birth or
death rates and of ‘cycles of growth’ relegates the family unit to a subaltern position and the
terms ‘public’ and ‘private’ are redefined (Oswell 2013, p.96-97). Furthermore, this new
approach allows a better appreciation by central government of the economic potential of its
masses through the monitoring of labour and wealth. The ‘population’ becomes an entity in
its own right, ‘subject to its own laws and processes’ (Smith 2012, p.27). Within this
‘population’ is the individual, who needs to be managed, governed but also made responsible.
The rise of science and of the humanities during the Enlightenment period also generates a
new body of knowledge which in turn creates ‘experts’ in various fields, devaluating the
authority of the family and its subordination to this new wealth of knowledge as Lasch (1979)
explains:
The history of modern society [...] is the assertion of social control over activities once
left to individuals and families. During the first stage of the industrial revolution,
capitalists took production out of the household and collectivized it [...]. Then, they
proceeded to appropriate the workers’ skills and technical knowledge by means of
‘scientific management’ [...]. Finally they extended their control over the worker’s private
life as well, as doctors, psychiatrists, teachers, child guidance experts, officers of the
juvenile courts and other specialists began to supervise child-rearing [..].
(Lasch, 1979: xiv-xv in Oswell, 2013, p.94)
The most efficient way to establish new sets of knowledge and to form new subjects is
through the education of the ‘malleable child’, referred above as the ‘blank slate’ on which
the future can be written. Oswell (2013) writes that ‘the child becomes a central means
through which individuals and populations can be governed’ (p.97). Children have become
objects of disciplinary knowledge and power by the state. While this objectification rests on
families in the middle social classes under ‘supervised freedom’ and the direction of
‘experts’, sole holders of knowledge , the working classes are targeted in a more aggressive
manner and placed under ‘constant surveillance and reform’ (p. 98). Although the first
schools of the 19th
C were religious and aimed at educating middle class boys (Smith 2011,
p.28), the institutionalised education of the masses by the State is well under way towards the
beginning of the 20th
century. Furthermore, educating all children regardless of their social
backgrounds allowed the new modern nation-state to forge its identity and unity through a
harmonised popular culture, serving the nationalistic agenda. Pierre Bourdieu, a French
sociologist, explains that schools are the ideal site for this ‘social conditioning’ producing
what Bourdieu calls the concept of ‘habitus’, which can be defined as ‘people’s attachment to

5 | P a g e
a nation as learned and habituated but open to modification and reconstruction through
reflexive agency and educational practices’ (Farrell 2010, p. 108). In England, Oswell (2013)
explains that the curriculum helped shape a hegemonic control of both social order and
national identity at the expense of ‘sub’cultures and practices (p.134-135). From an economic
and social perspective, the division of schools served the purpose of the state in reproducing
social class and their labour skills, i.e. mental or physical.
Ariès argues that the school played a central role ‘in shaping modern ideas of
childhood, and the school as constituting a disciplinary system’ (in Oswell 2013, p.10). He
goes even further by stating that the development of the modern school is a history of
imprisonment in the ‘claustration of the boarding school’ where ‘the solicitude of the family,
Church, moralists and administrators deprived the child of the freedom he had hitherto
enjoyed among adults’ (p. 28). Foucault talks about the idea of discipline, central to
governmentality, through the institutionalisation of the notion of childhood, which limits
freedom to ‘purified and enclosed spaces’, i.e. the classroom (Oswell 2013, p.29). Space is
only one of the disciplinary technologies that Foucault refers to in order to produce ‘docile
bodies’, the ‘formal techniques and operations that create human bodies as objects to be
moulded’ (Cannella 1999, p.40). Other disciplinary technologies in education include
curriculum development, teaching management methods and evaluation. However, the
control and production of docile bodies requires standards of normality, which rest on the
dominant discourse of the time. Discourses (i.e. ways of thinking and producing meaning) are
‘normalising’; in other words, when a discourse is seen as ‘truth’ by a majority of the
population, it becomes the norm. Against this norm, we then determine what is ‘abnormal’, or
as Foucault also calls it, ‘reason’ vs ‘folly’. Paradoxically, we are victims and perpetrators at
the same time of what is seen as the norm, which dominates and subjugates us.
Scientific developments and a new discourse in the second half of the 20th
century: the child-centred approach in education
Following the religiously driven paradox of ‘morality vs immorality’ on which our
conception of childhood education was based in the 19th
and early 20th
century, the second
half of the 20th
century sees the emergence of the ‘adjustment vs maladjustment’ paradox,
which gives rise to a new educational discourse based on the psychological and physical
development of children (Smith, 2012, p. 35). As Cannella (1999) explains it:
The ‘individual’ ‘child’ is tested, examined, categorized, and appropriate experiences
prescribed. A discourse of education has emerged that legitimizes the belief that science
has revealed what younger human beings are like, what we can expect from them at various
ages, and how we should differentiate our treatment of them in educational settings. The
scientific notion of the child has been fully accepted and continues to dominate current
practice, as evidenced in the belief in educational knowledge bases that represent ‘the most
current knowledge of teaching and learning, as derived from theory, research, and practice.
(Cannella 1999, p.37)

6 | P a g e
Indeed, developmental theories became very popular and shaped educational practice of the
last few decades. This new discourse, centred on the child, owes a great deal to Jean Piaget
(1896- 1990) and his cognitive developmental stage theory established in the 1960s. Piaget
divided children’s cognitive development into four stages each corresponding to a specific type
of cognitive development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal
operational. Other eminent psychologists include Erik Erickson (1902 – 1994) and his theory
of human development (in eight stages, e.g. trust v. mistrust) and the three modes of cognitive
development theory by Jerome Bruner , i.e. Enactive: action-based, Iconic: image-based, and
Symbolic: language based. The adoption of a child-centred pedagogy shifts the focus from
teaching to learning ‘through doing’ (Oswell 2013, p. 122). The term ‘active learning’ becomes
very fashionable; desks are rearranged into groups, textbooks are put aside and the child
becomes the central focus of the classroom. The theory is that the teacher is no longer there to
teach and discipline children, but to ‘manage learning as a supervised freedom’ (p.122).
‘Supervised freedom’ is a recurrent theme throughout the history of education; it is indeed quite
difficult to create some sort of common structure and expect the participants to enjoy total
individual freedom as the latter can only happen within the boundaries of the former.
Cannella (1999) argues that educational discourse has fully accepted the ‘scientific
notion of a child’ and as a result, one is not ‘free to speak [one’s] mind’; rules and practices
have been set and some ideas are excluded if they differ from the beliefs held as ‘truth’ in the
educational world today, such as the notion of developmental change (p 38). Consequently,
this new discourse resulting from new knowledge, establishes a new ‘truth’, a new ‘normal’
and ‘abnormal’ on which to found educational practice and a new educational structure on
which institutions rely to educate children; but what about the disciplinary system, have
technologies evolved based on this new ‘child-centred approach’? Not according to Devine,
who in 1998 conducted research into children’s experience of schools in three Irish primary
schools representing children with different social backgrounds (Devine 2002, p. 308). She
focused on adult-child relations in two particular areas: the control of children’s time and space
in school and the control of their interaction (p. 309). Surveillance and control by adults still
occurred through the time and space dimensions; the separation of worktime and playtime, and
the division of subjects ruled by the almighty timetable, causes an unconscious understanding
in children of what is ‘valued in education (mathematical and linguistic skills) as well as the
primacy of work over play’ (p. 309). The older children had a clear understanding of why they
were in school that is to contribute one day to the economy by being educated and qualified.
She also pointed out the inadequate furniture facilitating the ‘implementation of ‘analytical
pedagogy (Foucault, 1979), by controlling and limiting children’s movement to maximise
discipline and learning’ (p. 311). Control of the self and self-discipline (i.e. personal and
behavioural habits) was also a major focus in the children’s daily lives in school. Deacon (2002)
quotes Foucault in relation to ‘procedures of identity-constitution or self-discipline’: ‘For
example, if we take educational institutions, we realise that one is managing others and
teaching them to manage themselves’ (p.435). Teaching children to govern themselves and the
supremacy of school subjects over others, which transforms them into marketable assets, is at
the heart of Western governmentality. Devine (2002) explains that this control over time and
space was decided by the adults, without any input from the children, hence reducing their
power, i.e. their agency, over the decisions being made.
In the 1980s, Anthony Giddens, British sociologist, looked at the interaction of structure
and agency. Although his theory did not relate to children in particular, many sociologists
researching childhood applied it to this context (Oswell, 2013, p. 44). Social structures are

7 | P a g e
constructed by social agents (i.e every one of us is a social agent). In other words, we create
social structures through our interaction with each other and those same structures will,
subsequently, limit our own individual power. However, structures are not static and can
change through new interaction, resulting in power shifts. This is known as the duality of
structure:
Power is exercised in this process both in terms of transformation (empowerment) as well
as domination, the extent of empowerment or domination experienced dependent upon the
particular structural configurations operating within the social setting.
(Devine 1999, p. 307)
Therefore, the key is to find the balance between domination and empowerment; between the
weight of the structure on social agents (in this case the children) and their ability to act on it,
to shape it. Oswell (2013) says that Giddens understands ‘agency’ ‘in terms of knowledge and
reflexivity (i.e. the ability to know the world, but also to change it as a result of that knowing)’
(p. 47). Can children understand their world i.e. the school structure, and consciously change
it? In the current educational setting, can children be the agents of change? Are they empowered
enough by adults to do so? Not according to Devine who sees in our conception of childhood
as immature and ‘vulnerable’ a potential constraint to ‘their capacity for independent action’
and their socialisation process being carried out ‘in line with adult-defined goals and
expectations’. These concerns with children’s agency and rights (not just in school but in
general) were about to open the way to a new definition of childhood and a new dominant
discourse: one of voice and participation (Clark et al. 2005, p.2).
21st century: Children’s rights and agency - a new discourse within the context of
early childhood care and services in Ireland
Alison Clark (2005) identifies three main drivers giving rise to this new discourse. The
‘modern children’s rights movement’, which focuses on active participation and citizenship of
children and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of Children which provide children with
the right to express their views and opinions freely (Article 12 and 13) and gives them freedom
of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14).
Secondly, sociologists of childhood redefining children as ‘beings’, not ‘becomings’ as it was
previously conceptualised (i.e. state of ‘incompleteness’ by Durkheim, or the developmental
process by Piaget), ‘whose ideas, approaches to life, choices and relationships are of interest in
their own right’ (p. 3), and thirdly, the emergence of consumerism, individualism and
‘customer satisfaction’, mainly through mediatisation of products, which gives rise to this
image of children seen as ‘customers and consumers’ (p. 3), exercising their power to choose
(e.g. clothes, toys, food). This new discourse encourages adults to listen to children and change
their perception of children as innocent, immature, in need of discipline and a sense of
direction. Our conception of childhood for the last 200 years is being challenged; if Ariès was
still alive, he might say that we are trying to turn back the time and erase this divide we created
between childhood and adulthood. However, habits die hard. Is this new discourse really
reflected in new governmental policies? Are we really dedicated in giving children a voice and
allow them to participate in decisions that affect their lives or does it simply hide a recurring
political agenda of economic growth and self-governance? Can we cater for the rights of the
child and the future of the nation equally or does one need to be subservient to the other?

8 | P a g e
International context to Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)
The Organisation for Economic co-operation and Development (OECD) and the
European Union (EU) have been promoting the development of ECCE throughout Europe for
the last two decades. Numerous documents were published by the two organisations and
Member States were encouraged to draft legislation and implement policies. At the 2002
Barcelona European Council, EU Member States agreed to provide ‘full day places in formal
childcare arrangements to at least 90% of children between 3 and compulsory school age and
at least to 33% of children under 3’ by 2010 (COM/2011/66Final, p. 2). The EU’s motives for
the development of ECCE provision are clear; in 2011 a Communication from the Commission
outlines their goals: promoting education from an early age with a view to reduce the number
of low-skilled workers, and to integrate minorities and people with low-income backgrounds
as ECCE can ‘help lift children out of poverty and family dysfunction’ while ‘reducing the
costs for society in terms of lost talent and of public spending on social, health and even justice
systems’(COM/2011/66Final, p.1). Furthermore they are aiming to ‘create a more skilled
workforce capable of contributing and adjusting to technological change’ (p. 1). Once more,
education is seen as the best medium to control the ‘problematic’ lower classes through the
education of youth and to produce ‘docile bodies’ out of these ‘blank slates’ (even more so at
3 years of age than at 6 or 8). As stated above, educating all children regardless of their social
backgrounds allows the new modern nation-state, in this case the EU, to forge its identity and
unity through a harmonised popular culture serving the European political agenda for social
and economic integration. The Tindeman Report in 1970 declared that ‘education should be
used as a means to create a ‘Europe of the people’’, hence modifying children’s habitus to
include an attachment to the European ideal (Farrell 2010, p. 109). However, the new discourse
on children’s voice and participation is filtering through as it is recommended that the
curriculum meets ‘children’s full range of needs, cognitive, emotional, social and physical’,
supported by qualified staff able to reflect on pedagogical practice (p. 6). Once more, is it really
possible to put the child’s needs first whilst ensuring the economic future of the Union?
Children’s rights and the institutionalisation of ECCE in Ireland
The regulation by the Irish State of early childhood services came as the result of both
external (European and international focus on ECCE) and internal forces such as socio-
economic growth and cultural changes (e.g. increased women’s participation in the workforce,
the legalisation of divorce, increased number of single-parent families and immigration) and,
of course, the dissemination of knowledge based on research advocating the benefits of an early
start into the world of education (NESF Report, 2005, pp.10-11). In other words, ECCE
became a necessary investment for the future well-being and economic strength of the nation.
Despite two decades of prosperity, children living in poverty, a lack of academic achievement
and juvenile delinquency is still an issue in Ireland, as well as the increasing number of political
and economic refugees whose children need to be integrated to the Irish nation. All of these
factors forced the Irish Government to legislate on ECCE services as a matter of urgency and
in 1996, The ‘Child Care Regulations’ focused on the practicalities of childcare: the setting,
the health and safety provisions, food and nutrition, the provision of toys, etc. (refer to lecture
slides). However, it was not until the year 2000 that the government laid out the structural
foundations of this new institution by publishing their approach to children’s rights in Ireland
in line with the UN Convention and the EU’s definitions. The ‘National Children’s Strategy’
was to be the cornerstone of the future ‘National Quality Framework for Early Childhood

9 | P a g e
Education’ (Síolta 2006) and of the ‘Early Childhood Curriculum Framework’ (Aistear 2009),
in which the values of the 2000 document would be replicated and built upon.
Ireland embraces fully this new discourse and reinforces the fundamental values
underpinning this new outlook on children’s rights. It advocates dignity and respect for
children, acknowledges their contribution to Irish society as young citizens with rights and
responsibilities and declares that the best ‘interest of the child should be the primary concern
of policy-making’ (National Children’s Strategy 2000, p.4). However, the traditional
typification of children remains strong as they are also seen as being ‘vulnerable’ and in need
of ‘adult protection’ (p. 5), which in itself is commanding insofar as it does not have ‘negative
implications for their construction of themselves as individuals with particular rights and
status’ (Devine 1999, p. 308).
In the last ten years, Ireland published many reports and policy documents surrounding the area
of ECCE (NESF Report, 2005, x, for a non-exhaustive list of policy documents up to 2005).
Drawing on the EU’s and the OECD’s support, a ‘framework of analysis was operationalised’
under headings such as ‘expanding provision’, increase co-operation, raise quality of provision
and staff, and develop pedagogies (NESF Report, 2005, xi). The new structure was slowly put
into place as the government distributed responsibilities among various departments, agencies
and offices and drafted new policies; Foucault’s notion of the apparatus was under
construction:
‘a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble including in some instances ‘discourses,
institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures,
scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions – in short, the
said as much as the unsaid’ [...] the apparatus is not external to power; it is the shape and
organisation of power’
(Oswell, 2013, pp. 73-74)
These policies, regulations, reports, etc. reflect Ireland’s approach to early childhood; its
understanding of what is ‘best’, ‘right’ and ‘ethical’ for children. MacNaughton (2005) warns
against the effects of ‘privileging one form of knowledge of children and of early childhood
over another’ and how knowledge is, according to Foucault, a political construction, serving
the interests of some groups over others (p. 1-2). Furthermore, she explains Foucault’s view
that this new ‘truth’ about how best to educate young children in this case, is nothing but ‘a
fiction created through ‘truth games’ that express the politics of knowledge of the time and
place’ (Foucault 1979 in MacNaughton, 2005, p. 5). However, based on my limited experience
of the subject, I find it hard to fault Ireland’s theoretical approach to childcare: Síolta’s
principles (www.siolta.ie/principles) acknowledges childhood as a ‘significant and distinct
time in life that must be nurtured, respected, valued and supported in its own right’. It promotes
equality, cultural and linguistic diversity and acknowledges the role of the physical
environment in children’s development and learning. The child’s agency is clearly recognised
as central to his/her own development and their competence as a learner from birth is supported.
Furthermore, the child’s ‘individuality, strengths, rights and needs’ are seen as paramount to
‘the provision of quality early childhood experiences’. Who would not want to grow up in
Ireland when the notion of childhood is based on such ‘faultless’ principles..?

10 | P a g e
However, Síolta’s standards (www.siolta.ie/standards) unveils the technical apparatus
(i.e. how to govern) regulating early childhood experiences. For example, the environments
(standard no. 2) must be ‘well maintained, safe, [...] and developmentally appropriate’; who
defines what ‘safe’ is or what is ‘developmentally appropriate’? The safety aspect is the
responsibility of the 2011 HSE Regulations, while the ‘developmentally appropriate’ is still
probably determined by science. Standard no. 5 regulates the ‘interactions’ between children
and between adults and children. In all cases, ‘fostering constructive interactions requires
explicit policies, procedures and practice’. Play (standard 6) and exploration, creativity and
meaning-making must be given ‘well-resourced opportunities’; in other words constructed and
structured by the adults. The whole social setting of the child is organised based on scientific
knowledge and adults’ intervention. Within such setting, children must be encouraged to be as
free as possible! Oswell (2013) argues, and rightly so, that children’s social agency ‘is always
situated and composed of the resources to hand within particular social settings’, in this case a
crèche or a playschool, and that resources available to children are a direct consequence of a
‘particular institutional and discursive setting’ (p. 129) as demonstrated in Síolta. Reflection,
policies, planning, evaluation and procedures control every aspect of ‘curriculum’,
‘organisation’, ‘communication’, ‘professional practice’ (standards 7, 10, 11, 12). Even the
issues of ‘identity and belonging’ and ‘community involvement’ rely on such written
documentation. The child’s physical, cognitive and emotional development is structured in a
particular way through the disciplinary technologies of the institution. Once more, the structure
put into place decides what is ‘good’ or ‘normal’ and what is ‘bad’ or ‘abnormal’. There is no
choice but to be ‘equitable’ ‘respectful’, ‘actively participating’, ‘creative’ and ‘open’ as
defined by the new quality standards.
The 2006 Child Care (pre-school services) Regulations tackle the structure of space and
defines what purpose should the furniture, equipment and materials serve, i.e. help ‘create an
accessible, challenging and stimulating environment’ and that they should also be appropriate
to the children’s ages and stages of development’ (Carswell 2013). Whereas many of the
principles of Síolta can also be found in Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework
(2009), the latter focuses mainly on learning and development, while the former is more
concerned with quality as a whole (NCCA, Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework: Audit: similiarities and differences, 2009, p.4). Aistear defines how children learn
and develop ‘best’ within certain parameters, or themes, which set out the learning goals and
experiences, that should be created for and by the children: well-being, communication,
exploring and thinking, and identity and belonging. Finally, the Health Service Executive
(HSE) is responsible for assessing and controlling the implementation of these measures; it
ensures that the basic needs of the children are met, that the physical and material environment,
as well as the activities, supports the development of the child, as per the agreed standards of
what is ‘best’ and ‘right’ (Carswell, 2013) The learning environment is set, structured, well
documented and reflected upon continuously by adults, but must remain ‘an inviting
environment [for] children to explore and to take advantage of opportunities for fun, choice,
freedom, adventure, and challenge’ (Aistear 2009, p.12) but within the constraints of Health
and Safety Regulations, Síolta’s principles and Standards and the scientific notion of
‘appropriate development’. The term ‘supervised freedom’ in ‘purified and enclosed spaces’
comes back to mind (Oswell 2013, p. 29).
In order to be part of the free pre-school year programme, which was recently
introduced by the government, pre-schools must be ‘Síolta compliant’. Given the success of

11 | P a g e
the programme (97% of eligible children are availing of the scheme – Carswell 2013), this will
ensure that the dissemination of the new dominant discourse establishes a new ‘norm’ in early
childhood education advocating what and how to learn, and how to teach it within the
‘appropriate’ regulated structure. The children’s habitus is being modified and reconstructed;
being a child in Ireland will be a reflection of these new educational practices.
However, drafting policies and guidelines is not sufficient unless they are properly
implemented and this might take another few years. The gap between legislative theory and
professional practice is still an issue. According to Foucault, One important step in the
institutionalisation of childhood is the development of a body of experts, especially of teachers
and carers whom imparts the knowledge based on the new discourse onto the children. The
professional requirements for childcare workers are quite low and as a result the profession is
undervalued and often paid just over the minimum wage, which can lead to a lack of
understanding of children and questionable practices (Primetime 2013).
The new discourse seems to reinforce children’s agency and view them as ‘competent
social actors’ who have the right and the ability to be ‘participants in society’ on a more equal
footing with adults (Smith 2011, p. 30). However, Smith warns that this ‘responsibilisation’ of
children is just another way for advanced liberal governments to control individuals through
regulation of the self and placing the onus on the child to make his/her own decisions, hence
assume the risks:
From the perspective of governmentality it is not just that government operates through
freedom, but that individual freedom is itself a form of control – sovereignty over the self
(Citing Rose, 1999a, in Smith 2011, p. 32)
Kjorholt (2005) expands on the concept of freedom by saying that:
One might argue that young children’s verbal expression of their desires and choices [...]
mirror discourses on extreme forms of individualism in the institutional context. In other
words, the children choose and express wishes and desires from a limited repertoire of
subject positions made available to them within particular discursive practices that are
constructed by the adults in the institutions
(Clark et al 2005, p.167)
Therefore, giving children agency within a certain adult-defined structure (physical and
ideological) is just another way of controlling children. Agency as defined by children might
be very different in its conception to that of adults.
Conclusion
Our conception of childhood and children may have evolved in the last 200 years, from
a religious belief which conceptualised the child as innocent or malevolent, a scientific belief
based on their biological and psychological development, and finally to the recognition of their

12 | P a g e
rights to participate and express their views. However, I agree with Smith (2012) when she
says that our latest view on children’s rights and responsibilities ‘supplements rather than
supplants earlier modes of conceptualizing/regulating childhood’ (p. 34). We still see children
as innocent and ‘vulnerable’ as stated in the 2000 National Children’s Strategy, we still base
our pedagogical practice on what is ‘developmentally appropriate’ and the space in which
education occurs is still ‘purified and enclosed’, even more so today than perhaps a hundred
year ago. Our discourse about children has evolved rather than dramatically change. However,
whatever its form or content, any type of discourse, according to Foucault, is dangerous without
‘continued examination’ (Cannella 1999, p.38). Furthermore, regardless of the ideas conveyed
by discourse, it is impossible for individuals to have ‘neutral and value-free relationships and
practices’ as we cannot ‘stand outside power relations’ and offer ‘disinterested and benign
knowledge and opinions’ (Clark 2005, p. 9). As Foucault said, ‘power is always present: I mean
the relationship in which one wishes to direct the behaviour of another’ (Foucault, 1987, p.11,
in Clark et al 2005, p.9). Children have always been considered as ‘the future’ whether for
religious dissemination purposes or for the economic and cultural survival of the nation-state;
their education is seen as an investment by governments for the well-being of tomorrow’s
society. Although the latest discourse seems to empower children, it may also highlight and
increase inequalities amongst children whom voices will not all be as powerful, thus
‘privileging the voices and meanings of the powerful’ (MacNaughton 2003, in Clark et al 2005,
p.10). In other words, any knowledge, discourse or structure creates unequal human relations
and restricts our freedom of thought and movement. Our agency is therefore limited to our
understanding of what we can or cannot change and to the power exercised upon us by the
institutions. The role of educators is to continuously reflect on those power relationships and
how their decisions may affect children’s ‘true’ voice and participation.
References
Barcelona European Council (2002), Presidency Conclusions [online], available:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/council-eu-30.pdf [14/12/2012].
Cannella, G.S. (1999) ‘The Scientific Discourse of Education: predetermining the lives of
others – Foucault, education, and children’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol. 1,
No.1, pp. 36-44.
Carswell, D. (2013) ‘Towards an ECCE Curriculum’, EN7732: Deconstructing and
Reconstructing Early Childhood Pedagogy: Developing Criticality and Reflexivity, 12-13
Apr, University of Limerick, Unpublished.
Childcare (Pre-School Services) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, Dublin: Stationery Office.
Clark, A., Kjorholt, A., Moss, P. (2005) Beyond Listening: Children’s perspectives on early
childhood perspectives, Bristol: The Policy Press.

13 | P a g e
COM (2011) 66 final: Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing all our children with
the best start for the world of tomorrow.
Deacon, R. (2002) ‘Truth, Power and Pedagogy: Michel Foucault on the rise of disciplines’,
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 34, Issue 4, pp. 435-458.
Devine, D. (2002) ‘Children’s Citizenship and the structuring of adult-child relations in the
primary school’, Childhood, Vol. 9, pp. 303-320.
Farrell, L. (2010) ‘European Identity: Theories of habitus & cultural capital’, available:
http://www.spr.tcdlife.ie/seperatearticles/xxarticles/theoryidentity.pdf [15/05/2013]
Irish Government (2000) National Children’s Strategy, Dublin: Government Publications.
Lemke, T. (2002) ‘Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique, Rethinking Marxism’, A Journal
of Economics, Culture and Society, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 49-64
MacNaughton, G. (2005) Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies: Applying Post-
Structural Ideas, Routledge Falmer.
NCCA (2009) Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework: Audit: similarities and
differences, Dublin: NCCA.
NESF (2005) Early Childhood Care and Education, 31, Dublin: NESF.
Oswell, D. (2013) The Agency of Children: From Family to Global Human Rights, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Primetime (2013) RTE1, 28 May, 21h30.
Síolta: The National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education (2013) [online],
available: www.siolta.ie [accessed 02/05/2013].
Smith, K. (2012) ‘Producing Governable Subjects: Images of Childhood old and new’,
Childhood, Vol. 19, pp. 24-37.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), available:
http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/unrightsofchild/UN_Convention_on_the_rights_of_the_c
hild.pdf [31/05/2013]

Early Childhood Pedagogy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Early Childhood Pedagogy

Similar to Early Childhood Pedagogy (20)

Early Childhood Pedagogy