04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Doing Diversity in Early Childhood Education and Care: pedagogical practices that promote knowledge about racial and social diversity
Osa Lundberg
Malmö University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Lundberg, Osa
Social and racial diversity in Swedish cities is currently in proportion to that of London and other European places characterized by super-diversity (Lundström & Hübinette, 2022). The diversity of the population is also reflected in the segregation and inequities in the Swedish school system (Kuusisto & Garvis, 2020; Skolverket, 2022/2021-09-14). Preschool can be seen as the first step into the educational system and one of the first meeting spaces for newly arrived children and families (Johannes, 2013; Leseman, 2007). However, despite affordability, access and attendance of young children, Swedish cities and preschools remain highly segregated (Andersson, Bråmå, & Hogdal, 2009; Righard, 2022). Segregation along the lines of race and class creates a pedagogical dilemma for reciprocal and mutual integration across socio-economic, racial, and spatial divides. Preschool teachers in privileged and disadvantage areas both need to compensate for and counteract the combined effects of increased diversity, racial divides, and social inequalities between social groups. My research aims are to highlight preschool teachers’ pedagogic skills in constructing educational content and practices for young children that bring awareness of racial and social diversity (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2020; Ramsey, 2004).
The analysis of data examines preschool teaching and pedagogic practices that promote knowledge about social diversity, respect for social variations, and contribute to a collective understanding that can create a sense of belonging and inclusion. The theoretical impetus comes from Basil Bernstein’s pedagogic theory on the sociology of knowledge, the pedagogical discourse and symbolic control. Within this frame the Bernstein’s two pedagogic models: the competence model and the performance model have helped guide the research design and data analysis (Bernstein, 2000).
Bernstein’s theoretical concepts have been applied in previous studies to critique pedagogic practices that tend to reinstate the status quo and reproduce social inequalities. Previous research that utilizes Bernstein’s pedagogic theory has to a large extent focused on the negative effects of dominant norms underlying pedagogic policy and practice (Neaum, 2016). Assumptions about the type of child and what kind of childhood is considered desirable are not openly stated but constructed and conveyed in the pedagogic practices and communication with children and families (Brooker, 2003; Emilson & Johansson, 2009; Smith, 2019). These expectations of children are unstated but have been shown to have disadvantaging effects (Brooker, 2003). Research shows that assumptions and norms about the ideal child and appropriate pedagogic practice exacerbates social inequalities and deficit perspectives of working-class and minoritized children and families (Brooker, 2003; Palludan, 2007; Smith, 2019).
Bernstein’s pedagogic models of competence and performance (Bernstein, 2000) can both have advantaging and disadvantaging effects (Brooker, 2003). The competence model foregrounds child-centered pedagogy, exploratory play, social relations, and self-regulation. Performance models on the other hand foreground acquisition of official knowledge through imitation, copying, memorization and repetition in relation to pre-set learning criteria (Brooker, 2003; Neaum, 2016). Children who are familiar with the competence models have an advantage in that they can recognize and can manifest their own learning and development through self-regulated activities. Previous studies show that the competence model has to a large extent benefitted middle-class children and families who are already familiar with the ideas of children as leading and constructing their own knowledge (Catucci, 2021; Smith, 2019).
The primary research questions guiding the research design and analysis are:
- What are the preferred pedagogic models at work in early childhood education and care (ECEC)?
- How do early childhood educators construct knowledge about social and racial diversity in the pedagogical practice?
- And how do the pedagogic practices contribute to collective understandings of social diversity and inclusion in a broader societal perspective?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis is an ethnographic study of early childhood education and care (ECEC). The data production includes multi-sited critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996; Falzon, 2009) carried out in strategically chosen pre-schools in three different municipalities in urban areas located near Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö. The preschool within the municipality of Stockholm can be characterized as predominantly white, upper middle-class, majoritized population. The preschools within the municipalities of Gothenburg and Malmö were in areas with high populations of minoritized people with immigrant/migrant backgrounds, low-income, racially and linguistically diverse (Andersson et al., 2009; Righard, 2022). This is important to data production and analyses concerning the way different pedagogic practices are adapted to different socio-economic groups (Bernstein, 2000). The sites were strategically chosen based on the pedagogical philosophy and experience with intercultural and or norm critical pedagogical practice (Dolk, 2020; Sparks et al., 2020).
Participant observations were carried out at three different sites. Observations were conducted for a total of 70 hours of observations at each site. The data production consists of field notes and teacher interviews. The data has been analyzed with a theoretically driven thematic and reiterative analysis of ethnographic fieldnotes beginning with the research design to data production and writing-up processes. The theoretical framework provides an overarching research subject about pedagogic modalities. The themes identify and describe the ways these pedagogic modalities work to construct and convey knowledge about social diversity.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results indicate a predominance of instructional strategies within competence models and modes in ECEC. Performance models and modes do exist but are much more infrequent and sparsely inserted into an overall tendency towards the competence model and liberal/progressive mode. Both models promote social diversity and social integration in the instructional discourse but do so in two distinct and separate ways. Competence models and modes utilize social difference as a knowledge source and as a means of learning about different kinds of learning objectives. In the competence model diversity is apparent in both the learning objective and in the transmission of knowledge. Performance models on the other hand downplay or underutilize difference and variations of the acquirers. Difference and diversity of acquirers’ comprehension is not utilized as a resource. Performance models can include knowledge about diversity by this is relayed to the acquirer with more explicit control, uniform, and restricted transmission. Competence models promote social integration by way of knowledge and experiential learning of diversity as a social practice. Performance models tend to convey knowledge about social diversity, but without diversification of the transmission and acquisition of the knowledge process. Hopefully, these results can help inform policy, employment and instructional practices with increased focus anti-bias and inclusionary practices for young children that can bridge social inequalities and differences constructed by racial, social, and spatial divides.
ReferencesAndersson, R., Bråmå, A., & Hogdal, J. (2009). Fattiga och rika - segregationen ökar. Flyttningsmönster och boendesegregation i Göteborg 1990-2006 .
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brooker, L. (2003). Learning How to Learn: Parental ethnotheories and young children's preparation for school. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(2), 117-128.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research : a theoretical and practical guide: Routledge.
Catucci, E. (2021). Undervisningsuppdraget i förskolan ur ett didaktiskt perspektiv. In. Västerås: Mälardalen University.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Olsen Edwards, J. (2020). Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves, Second Edition 2nd Edition: The National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Dolk, K. (2020). Normkritiska utmaningar i en nyliberal tid: En utblick över ett pedagogiskt landskap. lambda nordica, 25(3-4), 157-161.
Emilson, A., & Johansson, E. (2009). The desirable toddler in preschool: Values communicated in teacher and child interactions. In D. Bethelsen, J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory Learning in the Early Years: Research and Pedagogy (pp. 77-93). Routledge.
Falzon, M.-A. (2009). Multi-Sited Ethnography : Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research (1st ed.): Taylor & Francis Group.
Johannes, L. (2013). Tid till att bli svensk: En studie av mottagandet av nyanlända barn och familjer i den svenska förskolan. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 6. doi:10.7577/nbf.339
Kuusisto, A., & Garvis, S. (2020). Editorial: Superdiversity and the Nordic Model in ECEC. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(4).
Leseman, P. (2007). Early Education for Immigrant Children. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/early-education-immigrant-children
Lundström, C., & Hübinette, T. (2022). Den färgblinda skolan : Ras och vithet i svensk utbildning. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Neaum, S. (2016). School readiness and pedagogies of Competence and Performance: theorising the troubled relationship between early years and early years policy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3).
Palludan, C. (2007). Two tones: The core of inequality in kindergarten? International Journal of Early Childhood, 39(1), 75.
Ramsey, P. G. (2004). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for young children (Vol. 93): Teachers College Press.
Righard, E. (2022). Integration i städer med en omfattande diversitet i befolkningen : Teoretiska perspektiv, empirisk forskning och en diskussion om implikationer för politik och praktik i Malmö.
Skolverket. (2022/2021-09-14). Statsbidrag för stärkt likvärdighet och kunskapsutveckling 2022.
Smith, H. V. (2019). Inequitable interventions and paradoxical pedagogies: how mothers are 'taught' to support their children's literacy development in early childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(5).
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Untangling a Complex Relationship; Early Intervention for Inclusive Education
Ilektra Spandagou
The University of Sydney, Australia
Presenting Author: Spandagou, Ilektra
From its inception, the inclusive education project recognised the importance of early intervention. This was reaffirmed in the statement produced in 2022 on the rights of children with disabilities by the joint working group on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This statement states that “early intervention, accessible learning environments, and individual support must be provided in all phases of education process for ensuring inclusive education” (UN, 2022, p. 3).
Despite this longstanding recognition of its crucial role, early intervention has been peripheral in the inclusive education literature, which has focused its critical attention predominantly on schooling and formal education. There are inherent complexities in capturing the remit of early intervention, what early intervention is, and where is located across different fields, with education being one of them. Often the early part of early intervention is seen as prior to education, or the intervention part is located outside of education. As the boundaries of education have expanded to a from birth, lifelong endeavour, this paper argues that understanding the foundational role of early intervention is imperative. What is inclusive about early intervention and how it relates to inclusive education are questions explored in this paper.
Early intervention is a specialised, multidisciplinary, loosely delineated field that provides targeted and individualised support to groups of young children and their families. It originated in the 1960s and is concerned with children whose development is perceived as at risk because of environmental or biological factors, including disability. Early childhood education, maternal and child health services, special education, and child development research contributed to the development of early intervention as an applied field (Meisels and Shonkoff, 2000). Different models of how to organise and provide early intervention have been proposed (Dunst, 1985). These models identify core principles, such as family-centred, culturally responsive, strengths-based practice in inclusive and authentic environments, with a recognition that existing practice often doesn’t exhibit these principles (Dunst, 1985) and that early intervention is a diverse enterprise (Dunst, 1996). The premise of at risk that is foundational to early intervention has been critiqued from a Disability Studies in Education perspective by interrogating its role in reproducing ableist, classist and racist constructions of normalcy (Ferri & Bacon, 2011; Love & Beneke, 2021; Mutua, 2001).
This conceptual paper starts from the notion that the provision of early intervention intends to shape the lifelong experience of disability and in doing this it gives new expressions to it. In doing so, early intervention and its transformative potential raise questions about inclusion and exclusion with implications for inclusive education. The paper explores and presents the divergent relationships between early intervention and inclusive education: a) early intervention independent from education, b) early intervention in education and c) early intervention for inclusive education. The latter is related to General Comment 4 on the Rights to Inclusive Education (United Nations, 2016) as a whole-person approach with the ‘provision of support and reasonable accommodation and early intervention’ aiming to end segregation stating that “all such interventions must guarantee respect for the dignity and autonomy of the child” (p. 21). The paper discusses the characteristics of early intervention for inclusive education and discusses the challenges surrounding its implementation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper systematically approaches the relationship between early intervention and inclusive education to present a conceptual framework that captures the complexity of this relationship. It aims to answer the questions:
• What is early intervention?
• How does it relate to inclusive education?
• What kind of early intervention can promote inclusive education?
According to Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009) conceptual papers “define the concept, map the research terrain or conceptual scope, systematize relations among concepts, and identify gaps in literature” (p. 128). As a conceptual paper, it doesn’t include a distinct empirical component. It engages however with a range of sources to develop its argument. These include in-depth engagement with relevant international treaties and General Comments, existing models of early intervention implementation and existing literature.
This paper starts from the premise that there is limited research that critically examines early intervention and inclusive education. Most literature on early intervention focuses on particular approaches or types of interventions instead of early intervention's function in reinforcing ways of normality (Payne, Proctor, & Spandagou, 2022). The first part of the paper focuses on defining the concept of early intervention in the context of inclusive education in terms of a) existing literature, b) international policy and c) models of implementation. The paper then proposes a model of a) early intervention independent from education, b) early intervention in education and c) early intervention for inclusive education. The third part of the presentation focuses on early intervention for inclusive education and discusses its characteristics, potential and challenges, and implications for research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis conceptual paper presents a model for understanding the relationship between early intervention and inclusive education. This model allows us to explore an area of great interest but of limited research. In proposing the necessity to challenge deeply entrenched individualistic, deficit-oriented responses to disability, the paper identifies a series of tensions: a) the loci of early intervention (health, education, social), b) the focus of support as universal, targeted, and individual, c) the focus on the individual, family, environment, and system, d) the context and process of decision making and e) the models of fundings and resourcing. The paper concludes that early intervention is not sufficient for inclusive education reform but it has the potential to be a powerful driver. However, this requires constructing early intervention as a systemic reform tool which is far from its current state.
ReferencesDunst, C. J. (1996). Early intervention in the USA: Programs, models, and practices, Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and adolescence, 11-52.
Dunst, C. J. (1985). Rethinking early intervention. Analysis and intervention in developmental disabilities, 5(1-2), 165-201.
Ferri, B. A., & Bacon, J. (2011). Beyond inclusion: Disability studies in early childhood teacher education. Promoting social justice for young children, 137-146.
Love, H. R., & Beneke, M. R. (2021). Pursuing justice-driven inclusive education research: Disability critical race theory (DisCrit) in early childhood. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(1), 31-44.
Meisels, S. J., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). Early childhood intervention: A continuing evolution. In S, j Meisels, & J. P. Shonkoff (eds.). Handbook of early childhood intervention. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mutua, K. (2001). Policied identities: children with disabilities, Educational Studies, Vol. 32, 289-300.
Payne, A., Proctor, H., & Spandagou, I. (2022). The hope and burden of early intervention: Parents' educational planning for their deaf children in post-1960s Australia. History of Education Review, (ahead-of-print).
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and Committee on the Rights of Children with Disabilities. (2022). Joint Statement. The rights of children with disabilities. United Nations: Author.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General comment No 4 -Article 24 the right to inclusive education. Available from: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEU_enAU820AU820&ei=WaxIXIv_JZGy9QP7tIKwBg
|
