What constructions of children and childhood
are shaping contemporary practices and beliefs in an
English early years setting in 2013?
Esther Painter
Dissertation submitted in part requirement for the
MA in Early Childhood Education of the University of Sheffield
August 2013
2
DEDICATION
To the glory of God
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This has been a fascinating journey, but with many bumps along the way. I would
like to thank first the person in my church family who wishes to remain
anonymous, but who believed that doing this Masters was the right road for me,
and who has paid for the course for me, thus enabling me to embark upon it.
Thank you to the course team at Sheffield who have supported me in a range of
ways, with particular thanks to my supervisor, Jools Page, for all her tolerance,
helpful comments and feedback during the process. I would also like to thank the
staff at Butterflies for welcoming me and sharing with me their views and ideas
for this research study. I am indebted too, to my many work and friend
encouragers who have kept me going during the journey; you know who you all
are.
All the members of my family have contributed to this, listening to me on the
phone or in person, completing practical tasks to make it possible for me to work
on it, resolving my IT issues, making endless cups of teas and coffee, offering
advice on ‘just the right word’, reading my drafts and offering their ‘absences’
rather than their presence. Without your encouragement and faith in me I would
never have managed it. Whilst you have not lived to see the end of this journey,
Mum, I still feel your support and belief in me. Thank you Phil, Mary, Ruth,
Mum and Dad, I love you all.
4
ABSTRACT
This exploratory study sets out to describe what constructions of children and
childhood are revealed in a case study PVI setting, through semi-structured
interviews with practitioners, and documentary analysis of key Early Years
Foundation Stage (EYFS) documentation (DfE, 2012; Early Education, 2012).
Located in a view of the world as socially constructed it seeks to engage with the
‘issue of plurality … [with] diverse constructions’ (James et al., 1998, p.27) and
is underpinned by Turenen and Määttä’s (2012) research which identifies that
constructions influence all aspects of curriculum policy. Building a design to fit
the study, which is altered due to issues arising during the process, it uses a reinterpreted version of Vidovich’s (2007) vision of curriculum policy as practice
being created at different levels which is applied in an English context and is
based within the premise that the constructions revealed will be influencing
pedagogy and beliefs (Moyles et al., 2002; Mitchell, 2007) by creating and
reinforcing the images of children and childhood through generating discourses
(Foucault cited in Woodward and Watt, 2004, p.25) in thinking and practice, and
versions of ‘symbolic capital’ (Bourdieu cited in Haralambos and Holborn, 2013,
p.73). It hopes that it might lead to change/development of understanding and
highlight practitioners’ own inherent power in the interpretation and development
of policy. Drawing from a rich base it uses different levels of content analysis to
identify and discuss, in narrative and figure formats, tensions in four key themes,
those of: ‘happy childhoods’; ‘constructs of group’; ‘age constructs’; and ‘child as
active’. The tensions identified reveal further areas for future reflection and
research in both the setting and in the documents analysed.
Key words: Constructions; children; childhood; EYFS; early years settings;
content analysis; policy as practice.
5
CONTENTS
Page
Dedication
2
Acknowledgements
3
Abstract
4
Contents
5
List of figures
7
List of tables
8
Key abbreviations
8
Chapter One: Introduction
9
Background to the study
9
Context of the study
11
Chapter Two: A review of the literature
14
Social constructions
14
Culture
16
Childhood and children
17
Early years culture
20
Curriculum
22
Constructions and practice
25
Chapter Three: Methodology and Methods
27
Motivations and understandings of knowledge
27
Locating the area for study
31
Generating the research question
32
Case study
33
Policy, design and re-design
34
Collection of information in the setting
37
Interview questions and respecting voices
41
6
Chapter Four: Analysis and Findings
45
Analysis
45
Happy childhoods
49
Language of child and children as a societal group
51
Constructs of age
55
Active children
60
Chapter Five: Conclusions
70
References
75
Appendices
85
Appendix One: Ethical approval.
85
Appendix Two: Practitioner interview schedule with
86
accompanying comments as sent on emails.
Appendix Three: Extended version of the process of
91
documentary analysis.
Appendix Four: Breakdown of phrases and category
95
allocations drawn from SFEYFS.
Appendix Five: Breakdown of phrases and category
allocations drawn from DMEYFS.
103
7
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1: Turenen and Määttä’s (2012) representations of child and
childhood as basic and invisible forms of the curricula in preschool education
Page
15
2.2: Aspects of the child as presented in the Bt3M
24
3.1: Vidovich’s hybridized policy cycle model
29
3.2a: Vidovich’s hybridized policy cycle model
34
3.2b My re-interpretation of Vidovich’s hybridized policy
cycle model for this study
34
4.1: Categorical analysis of phrases associated with terms such
as children in SFEYFS
47
4.2: Categorical analysis of phrases associated with terms such
as children in selected pages of DMEYFS
48
4.3: Simple count of descriptive terms used in selected
documents.
52
4.4: Practitioners’ overall use of words
53
4.5: Breakdown of practitioners’ cumulative use of ‘other’
words
54
4.6: Developmental age descriptors DMEYFS
55
4.7: Actions of the ‘Unique Child’ to look for during
observations
62
4.8: Further breakdown of categorical analysis of phrases
associated with practice in DMEYFS
64
4.9: SFEYFS phrases associated with ‘child as co-constructor
of knowledge, identity and culture’
67
4.10: DMEYFS phrases associated with ‘child as coconstructor of knowledge, identity and culture’
68
8
LIST of TABLES
3.1: Introducing the research participants
3.2: Interview themes
page
40
41
KEY ABBREVIATIONS
Bt3M
Department for Education and Skills (2002) Birth to three
matters framework pack.
DMEYFS
Early Education (2012) Development matters in the early
years foundation stage.
EYFS
Early Years Foundation Stage - generic term
Ofsted-Ev.
Ofsted (2012b) Evaluation schedule for inspections of
registered early years provision: guidance and grade
descriptors for inspecting registered early years provision
from September 2012.
SFEYFS
Department for Education (2012) Statutory framework for
the early years foundation stage: setting the standards for
learning, development and care for children from birth to
five.
9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Clough and Nutbrown (2012) suggest that the ‘purpose of much research … is …
to investigate questions, enquire into phenomena and explore issues’ (p.4) with
the intention of ‘bringing about some kind of change’ (p.10). For me, these
understandings were central in selecting my topic of research for it needed to be
something which could be justified because it presented issues for enquiry which
interested me personally and professionally, contributed something of relevance
to my research participants, could be legitimated by its location within research
fields and be something whose goal was ‘not merely to understand situations and
phenomena but to change them’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p.31). The research question
I finally devised and report on here asks ‘What constructions of children and
childhood are shaping contemporary practices and beliefs in an English early
years setting in 2013?’ The focus reflects my personal developing and evolving
interests in the cultural ideas, philosophies, theories and principles which
underpin the policies, approaches, research and practices of the early years field
and their relevance and applications to pedagogy and curriculum (Saracho, 2012;
Nutbrown, Clough and Selbie, 2008, p.1). This is particularly shown in Moyles et
al.’s (2002) conceptualisations of effective pedagogy as being framed within
practice, principles and professional dimensions where attitudes, beliefs and
approaches towards children and childhood are clearly interweaved including, for
example, the declaration that ‘Effective practitioners are reflective and thoughtful
people who … perceive each child holistically, as an individual and as part of a
family and community’ (p.57). Based on a vision of curriculum as policy, created
at different levels, it explores constructions in key early years documents and in
practice. This connects with my understanding that all early years settings are
charged with a process of self-evaluation (Ofsted, 2012a) designed to encourage
improved quality. Thus it also afforded me a unique opportunity to conduct a
research study within a setting which was in the process of self-reflection. My
intentions are to research in the documentation and with the setting to understand
10
an aspect of the setting’s culture and philosophy as opposed to conducting
research on them.
My research question did not emerge directly from one previous specific topic I
have focused on in this Master’s programme, but emerges from provocations
from several which I wished to explore, including a deeper appreciation of the
multiple influences on thinking, practice and policy (Painter, 2011a) and a
recognition of the complexity of ideas and thinking within the first framework
version of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DCSF, 2008a) relating to
creativity (Painter, 2011b; 2011c). It was also ignited by my reflections in
response to reading Tickell’s (2011) comment that ‘the EYFS was deliberately
designed to be an inclusive framework pulling together a number of different
approaches within early years’ (p.3) and my questions about how this might
manifest itself in the culture of practice in one setting . A further factor was my
understandings of policy drawn from Ozga (2000) that rather than policy being
merely ‘the actions of government, aimed at securing particular outcomes’ it is far
more complex and contested, ‘a process rather than a product’ (p.2) located
outside, as well as inside official domains. This was then linked to my
identification of curriculum as a policy as well as a practice document and
Marsh’s (2009 citing Marsh and Willis, 2007) explanation that ‘the enacted
curriculum’ (p.3), is the implementation level by practitioners.
These are areas which resonate with themes I am involved with in my
professional role as an early years lecturer in a higher education setting where I
aim to engage students with integrated and connected understandings of practice
and the relationships between this and the role of the thinking and beliefs which
underpin it. It is also generally located within a research agenda generated from a
series of seminars considering ‘Critical issues for pre-school education’
(Ltscotland, 2007) and later reported on by Stephen (2010) as identifying three
key themes for future research including ‘the rationale for or purposes of the
provision of care and education for children in their early years’ (p.249). This is
supported by one of Mitchell’s (2007) key conclusions, drawn from her research,
11
that ‘constructions of childhood are dominant influences on thinking about early
childhood education pedagogy and policy, and are associated with actions in these
domains’ (p.208).
Context of the study
Baldock et al. (2013) argue that in England, until the 1990s, ‘early years services
… were shaped as much through … neglect as by political intervention’ (p.47).
The development of early education policy in England was the subject of much
campaigning in the 1990s to move it onto the political agenda. The Labour
government (1997-2010) had an increasing focus on childcare issues as part of a
complex ‘joined up solutions’ philosophy to ‘tackle poverty and raise standards
of educational outcomes for children’ (Baldock et al., 2013, pp.48,32), and thus
early childhood emerged as critical to the policy agenda. The ensuing cultural
change aims plunged early years provisions into a maelstrom of structural and
policy changes which led Nurse (2007) to comment that ‘most of us working in
the field are finding it increasingly difficult to keep track of alterations in policy,
new initiatives and changes in roles and responsibilities’ (p.5). This situation is
one which I can personally relate to, having been working in early years since
2001.
A commitment to expand nursery education in 1994, led to the introduction of a
voucher based nursery scheme by which “Every institution seeking to receive
vouchers under the scheme will be required to provide education appropriate to
stated learning outcomes” (Gillie and Allen, 1996, p.9). Thus issues of an early
years ‘national curriculum’, what it might contain, how it should be configured,
and how it might fit between the primary schools and early years provisions
became a strong focus for attention at the same time as government policy also
began to focus on the broader early years agenda. The phase between ages 0-5
years is currently called the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) which is
defined and regulated by the revised 2012 (DfE) ‘Statutory Framework for the
Early Years Foundation Stage’ (SFEYFS) and a non-statutory practice guidance
12
document (Early Education, 2012) ‘Development Matters in the Early Years
Foundation Stage’ (DMEYFS), which ‘supports practitioners in implementing’
the SFEYFS (p.1). This study uses these key documents as expressions of policy
and practice guidance and explores what constructions of children and childhood
they might contain on the basis that these will then be influencing beliefs and
practices within settings which work within them. It has been combined with
research in an early years setting.
In her 1990 report Rumbold found early years provision was shared between:
local authority reception classes; playgroups; private nursery education; local
authority day nurseries; private day nurseries; combined nursery centres; child
minders; family centres; and homes (pp.2-4). Whilst there has been some
evolution and change as part of the policy agenda over the last twenty-three years
multiple types of provision remain. Vandenbroek et al. (2010) suggest that in
terms of societal constructions ‘early childhood provisions are outstanding
examples of “the social arena”’ (p.140) since they are sites where political
objectives including economic, social, immigration and educational ‘not only
meet, but also intersect with the intimacy of the daily life of families’ (p.139).
The setting within which this case study explores constructions which underpin
the practices and beliefs of individual practitioners is located within the privately
owned full day care strand of provision and was established in 2000. For the
purposes of this research the setting will be called by the name ‘Butterflies’ and
describes itself as a Nursery and Pre-school. It is located within a coastal town in
north eastern England and is situated in a mixed private residential/tourist area.
Butterflies is registered for up to 51 children with age ranges from three months
to five years and at the time of the research in June/July had 88 children on the
register who attend in a range of patterns. There are 19 members of staff, all
female, who range in ages from 18 to early sixties, in qualifications from level 2
to level 6 and work on a full and part time basis in various shift patterns. The
setting’s previous Ofsted inspection was early in 2009, a few months after the
2008 EYFS became the compulsory framework, when it was rated ‘good’ and a
further inspection is imminent.
13
My dissertation now goes on to report on the literature which informed the study,
my methodology and methods, my analysis and findings and my conclusions.
Whilst reported here in chapters the dissertation process was not completed in a
linear fashion and involved many loops backwards and forwards between the
various aspects of the study.
14
CHAPTER TWO: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Social Constructions
In its most general form an understanding of social constructions is one which
recognises the socially created nature of knowledge in the social world, identifies
it as different to studies of the natural world, and views knowledge as subjective
(created in the person) rather than objective (coming from outside the person)
(Cohen et al., 2011, pp.5-6). According to Woodward and Watt (2004) Foucault,
a major social constructionist thinker, argues that knowledge ‘is produced through
the languages and practices that are involved in making it meaningful’ (p.23) and
that these in turn generate ‘discourse[s]’ which ‘produce particular forms of
knowledge’ (p.24). Hofstede (2001) suggests that a construct is an ‘intangible
mental program’, ‘a product of our imagination which helps our understanding’
which ‘we define into existence’ (p.2). Thus we carry ‘mental models’ as images
or prototypes or exemplars in forms which can be related to in language and
visual terms and to which we attribute our cultural behaviours and situations.
James et al. (1998) argue that there are many forms of construction and therefore
an ‘issue of plurality …. [with] diverse constructions’ rather than one unitary
view so there is ‘no universal … with which to engage’ (p.27). Blundell (2012)
identifies that ‘it is possible to speak of many childhoods rather than a single
naturally founded and universal childhood’ (p.162). According to Hofstede
(2001), constructions may be held both at individual levels, and within broader
organizational levels from small groups to wider occupational and societal ones
and are ‘partly unique and partly shared with others’ (pp.1-2).
However Foucault would argue (Woodward and Watt, 2004) that some
knowledge is viewed as having a higher status in society (p.8), and becomes seen
as ‘socially sanctioned’ and ‘expert knowledge’ (p.9), thus ‘power and knowledge
are inextricably linked’ (p.25). Burman (2008) maintains that the academic
discipline of psychology with its many ‘text books entitled “child development”’
is one such example (p.29), influences, which Bertram and Pascal (2002) identify
15
in English society as a ‘developmental perspective’ with children ‘developing
psychologically through a Piagetian pre-ordained sequence’ and ‘a Bowlbian
perspective’ with children ‘optimally, maternally attached’ (p.15.) Bacchi (2000)
explains that some scholars view ‘policy as discourse’ (p.45). In their research on
discourses underpinning pre-school education in Finland from 1972-2000
Turenen and Määttä (2012) identified that ‘concepts [constructs] of the child and
childhood were the most important issues influencing the curricula’ and that ‘they
were invisible, underlying and forming the basis of the curricula’ which they
expressed in a diagrammatic form (see figure 2.1) to show its influences
throughout the curricula including on content, understandings of learning and
Figure 2.1
Turenen and Määttä’s (2012) representations of child and
childhood as basic and invisible forms of the curricula in
pre-school education (p.212).
knowledge, aims, and positions of the child and adult (p.212). Stainton Rogers
(2009) identifies ‘three main discourses of concern towards children’ which are
underpinning contemporary policy and practice in England (p.143). One of these
is the needs discourse, which, she argues, arises from developmental psychology
(2009, p.144) and thus fits within Turenen and Määttä’s (2012) ‘aims and targets
of education’ category (p.212). I would suggest that this discourse also has links
to other construct images scholars have identified such as seeing: ‘child as
vulnerable’, which Mills (2000) describes as seeing children as being physically,
emotionally and/or morally powerless and might be related to issues including
bullying, violence, consumerist exploitation and racial harassment (pp.24-26);
‘child as being in need of protection’ (Mills, 2000) which has physical and
16
nurturing aspects but also ‘refers to preservation of a state of ignorance, of
unknowingness … about areas adults feel should be best kept secret’, thus
including constructs of ‘innocence’ (pp.12-17).
Culture
Penn (2008) explains that ‘culture is a very slippery concept’ (p.93). Culture,
according to Cole (1998), ‘is conceived of as human beings “social inheritance”’
(p.291) which ‘is a process occurring over time’ (p.292) whereas Hofstede (2001)
proposes that ‘culture is defined as collective programming of the mind’ (p.1).
For Bourdieu, according to Haralambos and Holborn (2013), culture can shape
opportunities for social mobility since it is embodied in different types of capital
(p.73). Nsamenang (2009) suggests that cultures can refer to the variances of
‘values and practices that define childhood’ and influence and enlighten the
‘cultural curricula and services’ which nurture children ‘into competent
citizenship’ in the many differing contexts they are in throughout the world (p.23)
and on this basis may be studied on many levels. The aim of seeking
understanding of meanings of actions and provisions ‘to find out what they are
meant to do and to be’, was identified as the purpose of Tobin et al.’s research in
pre-schools (1989, p.4), with similar research revisited again in 2009 (Tobin et
al.). Amongst the questions that Tobin et al. (1989) asked to seek to identify
ideas was ‘what kind of child are you trying to produce in your preschool?’ and in
Japan the most frequent answer was ‘a childlike child’ (p.30), a phrase they
subsequently explored, indicating the existence and strength of underlying child
constructs in the society. Mitchell (2007) used the concept of constructions to
explore a merged examination of policy makers and teachers’ views in New
Zealand. She identified two main constructions of teachers in early years
pedagogy although ‘they were not held consistently or revealed … in all
situations’ (2007, p.104). She (2007) also explored the constructions of identified
relevant policy makers and here found ‘favoured arguments’ which revealed three
constructions specifically linked to ‘the institutional affiliation of participants’
and different to those of the teachers (p.213). This illustrates the ways that
constructs might be held differently in different organisational cultures.
17
Whiteman et al. (2012) suggest that the inclusion of family and culture together
with understandings of the role of context, drawn from theorists such as
‘Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner and Malaguzzi’ and informed by the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) has led to the construct of ‘the
cultural child’ (p.8). They describe this construct as one in which the child is
‘imbued with critical tools, able to critically question and engage with the power
structures in society’ (p.8) and suggest, using a research report on a community
project in Sydney as illustrative evidence (pp.10-12), that this construct is
currently informing early years pedagogy. However, evidence from one small
scale project does not make it possible to generalise this claim.
Penn (2008) comments that culture, as a term, is so complex that anthropologists
may, instead, choose to use narrower concepts, ‘such as identity or beliefs or
meanings.’ (p.102). For Hofstede (2001, p.10) and Nsamenang (2009, p.239) both
values and practices are key elements in understanding culture. In terms of early
years, a study by Powell (2010), sought to explore the ‘qualities and values
expected of’ those working in English early years settings, together with an
exploration of ‘the values that they are encouraged and required to promote’, an
area which she identifies as an under-researched one (p.213). For this purpose she
explored two key policy documents (DCSF, 2008b and 2008c) on the basis that
these constitute the lawful requirements for those working within early years
provision in England and so their ‘influential position cannot be ignored’ (2012,
p.213). The research identifies values such as ‘respect’, ‘responsiveness’,
‘individualist’ and ‘collectivist’ (pp.220,222) and the ‘prominent status of
diversity and individuality, equality and inclusion, child protection and
safeguarding’ (p.225) but does not appear to extend from or focus specifically on
values and constructions of the child or childhood per se.
Childhood and children
Understanding the terms child, children and childhood are, as Qvortrup (1994)
explains not themselves straightforward (pp.5-7). Mills (2000) suggests that a
18
common construct is one which ‘views children as members of a distinct group’
(p.22), within a period of ‘childhood’. Qvortrup (1994) explains that a focus on
‘age’ can be problematic and asks whether ‘age …[can] legitimately justify
differential treatment of children and adults’ commenting that whilst ‘age’ is a
‘convenient tool’ it is often correlated with ‘immaturity, irresponsibility,
incompetence, incapacity’ when used as a comparison to adults (p.4). Amongst
Bourdieu’s types of capital (Haralambos and Holborn, 2013), is ‘symbolic
capital’ which relates to the concept of status including ‘a reputation for
competence’ (p.73) which can be conveyed in the use of words. The use of the
term ‘infant’ deriving, according to Davis (2010) from the Latin word whose
translation is ‘inability to speak’ is often particularly associated with deficit
correlations (p.286) and does not, from my perspective, take into account
contemporary understandings of multimodal communication. Originally used to
describe the time before ‘the onset of the old scholastic “age of reason”’ its most
common English usage, according to Davis (2010) now ‘refers to the stage from
birth until around three’ (pp.285-286). One alternative term, also in usage in the
early years field is drawn from an influential book entitled ‘People under three’
(Goldschmied and Jackson, 1994) which acknowledges young children as very
much part of society in their own right.
Goldson (1997) suggests that these understandings are often viewed structurally
in society ‘characterized by the institutional dependence of the children on the
adults in society’ and carrying with it issues of ‘rights, power and participation’
(p.17) and Prout and James (1997) maintain that
The immaturity of children is a biological fact of life but the ways in
which this immaturity is understood and made meaningful is a fact of
culture (p.7).
An example of this institutional dependence might be seen in what Hendrick
(1997) identifies as the ‘schooled child’ construct, when the state became
involved in the parent–child relationship and established universal education as a
compulsory requirement for children five and over and thus the child was placed
into an institution for learning which was ‘separate from society’ (p.45). Blundell
(2012) explains compulsory schooling led to the construction of ‘public
19
childhoods’ (p.96) rather than ones which were just within the family. A strong
relationship between state policy and children under five has only developed
substantially since the 1990s and is currently, in terms of education an enabling
one, rather than a compulsory one. However, the focus includes a strand which
aims to ensure ‘that parents, particularly mothers, can work and progress in their
careers’ (HMT, 2004, p.2) through the availability of provision of good quality
childcare and thus the relationship between family and the state and responsibility
for children creates evolving constructs of the ‘pre-schooled child’.
James identifies that it was Ariès’s (1962) ‘provocative suggestion’ (1998, p.45),
that the Western invention of the idea of ‘childhood’ is a construction, which
‘unleashed a stream of questions about the nature and universality of childhood’
(1998, p.46). Prout and James (1997, p.7) maintain that this debate generated a
new and emerging paradigm (philosophical frame) for the study of childhood.
James et al. (1998) argue that the old paradigm of thinking about childhood might
be considered as derived from a range of approaches influenced by ‘classical
philosophy, the highly influential discipline of developmental psychology and the
equally important and pervasive field of psychoanalysis’ which they categorise as
‘the presociological child’, since these view the child as either ‘outside of, or
uninformed by, the social context within which the child resides’ (pp.9-10).
Influences drawn from philosophy are still apparent in society including Bertram
and Pascal’s (2002) identifying ‘a Romantic perspective: as an immature
biological being to be protected in an enriched environment’ (p.15) as a
contemporary construct. Such approaches, should, James et al. (1998) maintain,
become assigned to ‘the dustbin of history’ (p.9).
James et al. (1998) identify the emerging paradigm as the ‘sociological child’
which, they argue, focuses on the ‘agency [human action] of children, and their
present social, political and economic status as contemporary subjects’ (p.26).
Dahlberg et al. (2007) suggest that these new understandings might be described
as ‘the child as co-constructor of knowledge, identity and culture’ and include
clear understandings of the child as a social actor with agency in a range of fields
20
(p.49). The emerging paradigm is a far from uncontested concept itself (for
example, Morss, 2002; Ryan, 2008) which it is outside of this literature review to
explore in detail. However, Uprichard’s (2008) discussion on elements is an
important contribution to the debate. She argues that in moving the debate from a
focus on views of the child as ‘becoming’, ‘an adult in the making’ who moves
from incompetent to competent (p.304), to a view of the child as a ‘being’ who is
seen ‘as a social actor in his or her own right’ which is ‘the core’ of the new
paradigm (p.305) binary constructs have been created. She maintains that there is
a need for a multi-disciplinary construction of the child which captures children’s
real lives since those working with children ‘by virtue of their role in decisionmaking processes … are concerned with improving young people’s present and
future lives’, as are policy makers, and she therefore proposes the construct of
‘being and becoming’ (p.311). Moylett and Stewart (2012), who are credited ‘for
their work’ in producing in the DMEYFS (p.48), have generated an interpretive
document for the revised EYFS, in which they make clear that ‘being and
becoming’ is, in their view, at the heart of the EYFS (p.5).
Early years culture
Stephen (2012) describes how, as a result of its historical roots ‘on the margins of
educational provision’ English pre-school has ‘developed an ethos and set of
practices’ which are set apart from mainstream school settings (p.228). However,
the situation is more complex than a school/before school dichotomy, since early
years provision itself comes from very diverse origins and writing in 1996a Pugh
suggested that obstacles to a national system would include
… different priorities between service providers, different ideologies,
different boundaries – territorial and geographic, different training,
different management and accounting systems, and even different
vocabulary (p.11).
Traditional practice and ideas may be traced to a prominent source of views of
children and childhood drawn from a group of activists and thinkers often thought
of as the early childhood pioneers tradition. Whilst, as I have recognised
21
elsewhere (Painter, 2011a), views of pioneers consisting only of ‘the giants’ such
as Froebel, Owen etc, is no longer seen as a legitimately moral approach, their
influences are, nonetheless, substantial in early years approaches and pedagogy.
Davis, for example, maintains the ‘impact of the [Froebelian] movement in
creating an infant education culture was immense’ (p.292). Drawing from her
own interpretation of Froebel’s principles and those of Montessori and Steiner,
Bruce (1987) articulated a set of ‘Ten Common Principles of the Pioneers – the
bedrock of the early childhood tradition’ (p.8-9) which she later placed into a
more modern context (Bruce, 2005). Bruce’s (2005) reasons for selection include
that each had concerns ‘with world citizenship, respect for individual needs,
poverty and the concept of community’ (p.11) which she obviously saw as
underpinning constructions. These initial principles are re-articulated in an Early
Years Curriculum Group document (1989) where they ‘express the traditions of
the curriculum for education in the early years’ (p.2). Whilst a possible subject for
future research, I suggest that these principles might be traced, in varying forms
and increasingly as expressions of practice rather than principle, through a range
of emerging curriculum documents in early years (eg. SCAA, 1996, p.6; QCA,
2000, pp.11-12; DfES, 2002, pp.4-5; DCSF, 2007, card; and DfE, 2012, p.3).
Stephen (2012) argues, however, that ‘the search for a universal set of principles
to shape expectations of practice’ may well be a faulty undertaking and that a
local formulation ‘drawing on the explicit and implicit understandings of
practitioners, providers and policymakers’ may be more appropriate (p.236).
Whilst these principles and constructions have been influential there have also
been other factors at work in early years culture including further Western images
such as the Reggio Emilia school, which views the child as a social constructivist
with their ‘image of the child as “rich in potential, strong, powerful, competent,
and most of all, connected to adults and other children” (Malaguzzi, 1993, p.10)’
(New, 1998, pp.274-275). As part of her work on considering theories in
preschool education, Stephen (2012) states that Piaget and Vygotsky’s main
theories ‘have remained as a significant presence in thinking and practice
development’ in contemporary UK early years field (p.230). A view that
empirically in my role as an early years lecturer I can concur with. As part of this
22
emphasis, Stephen maintains, Piaget’s pedagogical construction of the child as a
staged learner, unable to learn things until they have progressed in an age specific
and invariable way, continues to contribute to the ‘deficit model of childhood’,
thus part of James et al.’s (1998) ‘presociological child’ (p.9). This said, Piaget is
also credited for positioning children as ‘active learners’ and Zhao (2011)
suggests that he and Dewey are main contributors to the contemporary construct
of ‘childhood as a period of active growth’ (p.252). However, Zhao also argues
that this positive construct of children ‘still seeks to manipulate and dominate
them’ since it does not include elements of children’s own agency or power in
situations (p.254).
Curriculum
A fundamental influence on contemporary early years culture has been the
development of the early years curriculum which we now turn to. A key dilemma
which Pugh identifies relates to what she describes as positioning the ‘horizontal
versus vertical co-ordination’ (1996b, p.4) pull of early years across services, and
the upwards pull with compulsory educational provision, which she later calls the
‘L-shaped dilemma’ (Pugh, 2010, p.17). This view is reflected by an OECD
report (2011) which comments that curricula are often ‘categorised into academic
and more comprehensive models’ (p.84) with the former focused on ‘cognitive
aims for school preparation’ and the latter ‘centres on the child and seeks to
broaden the scope for holistic development and well-being’ (p.85). In the context
of the developing provision for young children in England, in the late 1990s,
Eisenstadt (2011) relates that there were clearly competing policy goals and
tensions such as those envisaging the importance of early education for the underfives to promote educationally better outcomes, whilst others had a strong
emphasis on the need for parental support and yet others focused on the need for
childcare for working parents (p.78).
Bearing in mind the differences in provision, influential research (Sylva et al.,
2004) which subsequently underpinned early years curricula, set out to consider
23
the ‘impact of pre-school … on children’s development aged 3-7’ and to consider
whether, and if so why, some pre-schools were more effective in promoting
children’s development (p.i). The resulting conclusions included that where
‘educational and social development [are viewed] as complementary and equal in
importance children make better all-round progress’ (p.ii). Thus the construct of
the ‘EPPE child’ came into being which viewed childhood as a progression
forward into school and which defined this progress in terms of both cognitive
and social aspects. This was in contrast to some pre-existing provisions such as
playgroups which had focused on social and emotional development with
underpinning beliefs such as those of Crowe (1983) (the playgroup association’s
first National Advisor) that ‘play is a feeling’ (p.1) or school reception classes
which focused on cognitive aspects of learning in line with National Curriculum
goals.
Curriculum development moved through a range of phases from 1994 up to
present and with these changes, it could be argued, the constructs on the child and
childhood also evolved. For example, the state’s involvement with, responsibility
for, and acceptance of the importance of young children, commences with a focus
on 4-5 year olds in 1996 and has moved to 0-5 years old by 2008. This has been
supported by an evolving funding scheme which provides for all children over
three an increasing number of state funded hours and the introduction of funding
for selected two-year olds. The funding of two-year olds is due to increase in
September 2013 (Ofsted 2012c). One key influence on the view of the child in
curriculum documents appears to have been the development of the Birth to three
matters framework, (Bt3M) (DfES, 2002) which Langston and Abbott (2005)
explain was both ‘a landmark victory’ for the acknowledgement of birth to three
years children and a precipice moment in how this might be framed for future
attitudes and practices (p.8). They identified five uncertainties in the process
including ways to define ‘the child’ which would allow them to be presented as
… whole beings … powerful … sentient … active … and a person in their own
right’ (p.9). This the authors attempted to encapsulate by introducing four aspects
of the child (see figure 2.2) and not focusing on curriculum goals or subjects.
24
Barron and Holmes explain that these aspects ‘are the essence of the way [the
framework] … characterizes children’ (2005, p.15).
Figure 2.2
Aspects of the child as presented in the
Bt3M framework (DfES, 2002, p.5)
Elements of this framework structure and characterisation were used (DfES,
2005b) to develop the following EYFS (2008) including a clear emphasis on the
principle of ‘The Unique Child’ (DCSF, 2008a). Nevertheless, large elements
were also reconfigured to accommodate adapted previous Foundation Stage Early
Learning Goals (QCA, 2000) attempting to characterise constructions which
focused on both specified ‘school’ learning and the informal wider learning from
the Bt3M, thus creating some further cultural tensions within the field. The most
recent revision of the DMEYFS (2012), amongst other things, has further adjusted
outcomes and provides a dual focus approach relating to the characteristics of
effective learning and the now seven areas of learning and development (p.5). The
seven areas themselves are now presented as either prime or specific areas with
the understanding that the specific areas of learning ‘grow out of the prime areas,
and provide important contexts for learning’ (p.4).
The broader early years policy agenda, initially under the Labour Government’s
flagship theme ‘Every Child Matters’ (DfES, 2003, 2004) and now incorporated
in the coalition government’s ‘Supporting Families in the Foundation Years’
(DfE, 2011a) has a focus on multi-agency working which requires early years
provision to pay attention to issues such as safeguarding and health as part of the
underpinning aim of providing the child’s rights to a ‘secure, safe and happy
childhood’ (SFEYFS, p.2) and is incorporated in a ‘well-being’ construct. In
25
terms of early years provision this must be provided for and is part of the
regulatory system of inspections by the Office for Standards in Education,
Children’s Services and Skills whose current evaluation schedule for inspections
(Ofsted-Ev) have three key descriptors which it uses to judge quality which are
defined as:
… how well the early years provision meets the needs of the range of
children who attend; the contribution of the early years provision to
children’s well-being ; and the leadership and management of the
early years provision (Ofsted-Ev p.4).
Constructions and practice
My literature search did not reveal much research on constructions of childhood
in practice. This could be because as yet not much has been researched on in this
area, or because the focus has been specific to particular constructs rather than my
generalised approach, or they have been identified through a focus on
practitioners, an aspect not well explored, and a limitation on the literature
review. This said, elicited from a research study which focused on exploring the
professional identities of a range of nursery practitioners in London, using an
autobiographical methodology, Osgood (2012) identifies narratives of ‘the
imagined childhood: romanticised constructions’ within practitioners’ accounts of
their own childhoods with discussions of freedom and playing outdoors, which,
she then goes on to highlight was at odds with the reality of the practitioners’
actual experiences (pp.1,62-76). This hegemonic (dominant) discourse of
childhood as ‘innocent’ and ‘protected’ from the world, she suggests from a
feminist viewpoint, is then reflected in practitioners’ practices within the
nurseries, thus, she maintains, they are actively reinforcing them and ‘denying
the significance of issues such as sexuality and racism’ which are realities in
children’s lives (2012, p.85).
Researching with nursery and primary head teachers a year after its initial
implementation Roberts-Holmes (2012) used a grounded theory interview
structure and analysis approach which explored experiences of its enactment and
26
identified that the participants felt the principles and EYFS ‘justified our early
years approach’ (p.35). One participant described them as ‘the bread and butter of
our practice’ and another that the principles ‘are more important than the practice
guidance’ (Roberts-Holmes, 2012, p.35). The research also identified a view that
implementation was divided ‘between the PVI and the maintained sectors’
because of lack of training and understanding (p.39). This attitude reflects the
difficulties of the documentation bridging the school/pre-school provisions. In
recent research work in the baby room, Goouch and Powell (2013) found
practitioners ‘had a limited working knowledge of policy requirements that were
delivered “second hand”’ (p.21), and that ‘the EYFS felt remote (and sometimes
incomprehensible) to them’ (p.89). Powell (2010) argues elsewhere that
practitioners’ lack of other sources of knowledge means that they may have ‘few
alternatives to resorting to national policy documentation to inform and underpin
their practice’ (p.216) thus emphasising the importance of the EYFS framework
to practice to the PVI sector in contrast to Roberts-Holmes findings (2012, p.35).
27
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
Motivations and understandings of ‘knowledge’
Clough and Nutbrown (2012) maintain that research methodology involves asking
four types of questions including ‘personal questions … about what drives their
research and the location of themselves in their research’ (p.29). I have written in
the first person, not only because this follows university guidance requirements,
but also because it shows my own responsibility and subjective positionality
within it including my feminist intent for, as Letherby (2003) explains using the
personal pronoun challenges ‘traditional academic “authority”’ (p.7). These
approaches I identify as ‘relativist’ which Letherby et al. (2013) explain argues
that there is no single true knowledge but many ‘truths’ with ‘different, but
equally legitimate ways of seeing the world’ (p.14). This understanding underpins
this research study since it seeks to look for different construction or ways of
seeing ‘children and childhood’. An appreciation that there is no one truth
challenges certain historically powerful criteria about how research design should
be justified and re-interprets them so that, as Denscombe (2010) proposes,
validity becomes credibility, reliability becomes dependability, generalisability is
reconceptualised as transferability and objectivity becomes conformability
(pp.299-301). As a result of my beliefs, a key factor in research justification,
which I try throughout this research study to make transparent, is my subjective
role and motivations as the ‘researcher’s self’ and my understandings of my
reflexive subjective impact on the research process (Denscombe, 2010, pp.302303). For this reason I have tried below and elsewhere to illuminate my
understandings and motivations for the elements in this study as well as reveal
aspects of myself which will be constructing the credibility of study.
My understandings are conceptually located within what Whiteman et al. (2012)
identify as the ‘cultural child’ construct (p.8) where sociocultural/
socioconstructivist approaches to learning and development recognise that these
occur within a complex system over time which includes individuals, social
28
groups and environmental interactions so for this research question, ‘culture [is]
at the center of its concern’ (Cole, 1998, p.291). However, this process does not
lead to fixed, but fluid and changing understandings of culture which are
constructed and reconstructed. The theoretical roots of the concept of social
constructions (shortened in my question to ‘constructions’) are complex for Lock
and Strong (2010) argue there is ‘no one school of social constructionism … it is
a broad church’ (p.6) which they go on to demonstrate by exploring a diverse
range of theorists and schools of thought (2010, pp.vii-xi). However, they
suggest that there are some five ‘key expansive tenets’ (2010, p.6) which can be
seen throughout, and it is these tenets, rather than the diverse nuances which
inform this dissertation. These tenets position social constructionism as viewing
‘meaning and understanding’ as the principal element of hominoid actions and
that this has its ‘beginnings in social interactions’ which includes developing
communal accords about the ‘symbolic forms’ they use (2010, p.7). For the
purposes of this dissertation this relates to the understandings and meanings of the
concept of the terms ‘child’, ‘children’ and ‘childhood’. Lock and Strong’s third
tenet proposes that these symbolic forms (in this case child/children/childhood)
are implanted in the social and cultural activities of both the precise period and
the actual location in which they occur (2010, p.7). Relating these ideas to this
dissertation, therefore, my design was devised to explore, within a case study of
one contemporary early years setting and the curriculum framework of early years
policy in England, a thread of culturally constructed policy thinking and practices
based around the meanings and understandings of the concept of
child/children/childhoods and what documentation, this setting, and its
practitioners are using.
Lock and Strong’s fourth tenet of social constructionism is that those who make
these meanings and understandings, actually further define and build them by
living within the structures of the meanings and understandings (discourses) that
they have created (2010, p.7). Here, my grasp of Foucault’s concept of discourse,
drawn partly from previous study (Painter, 2011b), is that this combination of
ideas construct a form of knowledge which is (Woodward and Watt, 2004)
‘socially sanctioned’ and ‘expert knowledge’ (p.9), thus ‘power and knowledge
29
are inextricably linked’ (p.25). In line with Bacchi (2000) I seek to use this from
the perspective of seeing policy-as-discourse. Cohen et al. (2011) explain
discourse as being ‘the meanings that are given to texts which create and shape
knowledge and behaviour’ (p.574) and for me this is a central explanation and
justification for this research question since in providing an opportunity for the
setting and participants to consider, I determined one of my purposes to be to
offer my interpretation of aspects of the setting’s culture for the setting to reflect
upon which might lead to deeper understanding and/or change within the setting.
Beyond this I also wanted to highlight another aspect since whilst policy might be
conceived of at national level and enshrined into legislation, as considered in
detail by Levin (1997) and Hill (2013), its interpretations and implementations in
practice take place at the local setting and practitioner levels. Hill draws
comparisons between policy dissemination and a game in which ‘a message is
whispered from one end of the line to the other’ in which communication and
interpretation of the message ‘influenced by roles and interests’ takes place (2013,
p.271). In the case of contemporary English early years provision, due to its
specific evolution in England, this message is being received by a diversely
structured range of settings and practitioners and in this research question I
wanted to consider which messages might be being reflected in the setting at the
centre of this case study. Vidovich (2007) envisages policy as a cycle (see figure
3.1) with the policy power (large arrows) emanating from the macro policy elite
who exert greatest influence on the policy and the least powerful that of the
micro-level practitioners’ agency, with
localised integration of contextual
influences at each level. However, she also
identifies feedback loops from practice
‘with some cycling back to become
influence factors’ (p.291).
Part of the policy agenda in recent years
involved a focus on workforce training
which I have been immersed in first as a
Figure 3.1 Vidovich’s
hybridized policy cycle model
(2007, p.291)
30
student, and now as an early years lecturer in a higher education institution. The
agenda included the establishment of Early Years Professional Status (EYPS).
Whilst now on the cusp of further changes to name and qualifications (DfE, 2013;
Nutbrown, 2012; Nutbrown, 2013) practitioners achieving this status need to
‘understand the implications of relevant legislation, statutory frameworks,
including the EYFS, and policy for early years settings and apply in practice’
(Teaching Agency, 2012, pp.2,4). This wording implies understanding and
implementation but, from my reading, does not emphasise the inherent power
through interpretation and enactment I believe that all practitioners have, not just
those with EYPS, expressed by Baldock et al. since ‘among the sources of policy
are what practitioners themselves have to say and they can have a considerable
impact on the way that policies are implemented’ (2013, p.2). I believe that the
interpretations and influences do, as Vidovich’s model shows, have a reflective
influence on aspects of further policy implementation as well as having wider
implications for the perspectives that society hold of children and childhood.
Finally, Lock and Strong’s fifth tenet, argues that a social constructivist approach
involves adopting a critical perspective which aims to not only seek to understand
and explain these processes, but also to change them (2010, p.8). Here, this
connects with Clough and Nutbrown’s (2012) and Cohen et al.’s (2011)
comments on the goals of research to include the purpose of change. As far as this
piece of research is concerned, therefore, one of my purposes relates to my desire
to challenge/change my own understandings, and to achieve my goal of
completing my Masters qualification. Further purposes were to offer my
interpretation of aspects of the setting’s culture for the setting to reflect upon
which might in a small way both promote their empowerment through
recognising the importance of their roles and agency and lead to deeper
understanding and/or change within the setting including stimulating reflections
for their on-going self-evaluation cycle. From my experiential perspective a
combination of the policy challenges including to the culture of practice
(McGillivray, 2008, p.245) and the historical influences which have meant many
practitioners remain low paid, undertrained and female identify my research
participants as potentially within a socially structural ‘marginalized’ group
31
(Cohen et al., 2011, p.175) which needs addressing by including those voices, a
position which Burns and Chantler (2011) suggest relates to feminist ‘standpoint
theory’ (p.71). Another purpose is to offer a case study for possible wider study
since De Vaus (2001) suggests that descriptive research ‘has added immeasurably
to our knowledge of the shape and nature of our society’ (p.1) which might lead
to change/development of understanding. This might include highlighting to
practitioners their own enactive roles in policy making.
Locating the area for study
With hindsight I am able to report on the key influences which informed the
articulation of the study, although the process was itself not at all straightforward.
Seeking to identify a particular thread for research I followed File’s (2012) advice
on curriculum and research to ‘mind … the gaps’ with the hope of ‘finding a
way… to fill them’ (p.25) and Stephen’s (2010) writings about the ‘interface
between research, policy and practice’ (p.248) which reporting on findings from a
series of research seminars (Ltscotland, 2007), identified ‘the rationale for or
purposes of the provision of care and education for children in their early years’
(p.249) as a key research area. My initial proposal, from which the question
evolved, was an appreciation that the EYFS framework is designed to carry
within it a range of perspectives which are not necessarily immediately
compatible with each other and this can mean that practice, even within one
setting, may be shaped by multiple perspectives and interpretations of the
curriculum framework; thus children/parents may be receiving ‘multiple
messages’. Whether this form of multiplicity is desirable or not and its impact is
outside the scope of the small scale research project. Recognising that this was
still too large an undertaking I drew on my own experiences of constructions of
children and childhood, together with Turenen and Määttä’s (2012) findings
which revealed from their analysis of curricula in Finland that ‘the concepts of
child and childhood were the most important issues influencing the curricula’
(p.212); and one of Mitchell’s (2007) key research conclusions that ‘constructions
of childhood are dominant influences on thinking about early childhood education
pedagogy and policy, and are associated with actions in these domains’ (p.208);
32
which suggested that this was an appropriate focus of study since it clearly
informs and influences practice. I also used understandings of curriculum drawn
from Marsh (2009, citing Marsh and Willis, 2007) as operating on three levels
‘the planned curriculum’, ‘the enacted curriculum’ and the ‘experienced
curriculum’ (p.3), and chose to focus on the enacted or implementation level by
practitioners in the setting and the ‘planned curriculum’ policy documentation
rather than the curriculum as actually received or experienced by those attending
the setting. Finally I identified links with curriculum as policy and policy as
discourse which are explored elsewhere in the study. My literature review did not
identify research projects which looked at constructions of childhood and children
within settings or specific contemporary English curricula documentations and
thus I felt I may have identified a gap.
Generating the research question
My question evolved with words, size and clarity of focus tested through fourteen
drafts using Clough and Nutbrown’s (2012) Goldilocks and Russian dolls
framework (p.45) commencing with ‘What explicit/implicit perspectives
(constructions?) of childhood and education can be identified in contemporary
early years practice and key EYFS curriculum documents in England?’ where I
felt that this implied I was seeking only those which appeared in both; through to
a version which I used as a temporary working question: ‘What constructions of
childhoods and early education can be drawn from both interpretations of key
English EYFS documents, and the interpretations of them by current early years
practitioners located in one early years setting in a North Yorkshire coastal town
in 2013?’; to a final question, with my articulation influenced by reading of Mac
Naughton (2003), which asked ‘What constructions of children and childhood are
shaping contemporary practices and beliefs in an English early years setting in
2013?’ which I felt was worded in such a way that I could explore both
documents and practitioners’ approaches.
33
Whilst presented separately here the research question, as it evolved was
iteratively influenced by elements of the research design process, in particular by
the methodological decision to use a case study approach and my
conceptualisation of policy. Throughout the generation process, I struggled to
make the question smaller since, from my previous experience (Painter, 2011c), I
was aware that this was an issue for me. However I finally accepted that because
this was an exploratory study in an area new to me, over narrowing the focus was
not appropriate, as some breadth is an inherent feature of exploration, so on this
basis I left the question broad. As anticipated, this broadness did lead to issues
when it came to developing and analysing the study, and was a limitation of the
study.
Case study
Clough and Nutbrown (2012) argue that ‘research is, by definition, a search for
form quite as much and at the same time as it has any content to report’ (p.20),
and Denzin and Lincoln (2011) claim that for some a researcher may be seen as a
‘bricoleur, as a maker of quilts’ (p.4) and this is very much true of the research
study I designed as much reading and thinking went into finding a form which
might justify my broad but increasingly articulated research idea and the
connections which I felt existed. Knowing that my question was located in a very
complex field I determined that it needed a small arena within which it should be
explored and concluded that a case study, seen as a ‘specific instance’ (Cohen et
al., 2011, p.289) which can be used in a ‘discovery led’ approach to ‘describe
what is happening’ (Denscombe, 2010, p.55) seemed an appropriate fit and could
be defined in this instance as located within one early years setting. The final
purposive case study location, known here as “Butterflies”, a name chosen by the
owner/manager, was based on three criteria: it was a credible representative
setting being a full day care provision working within the EYFS framework; by
virtue of distance from my home and my previous personal involvement with it, it
was both physically and relationally accessible to me; and Butterflies’ owners
welcomed and consented to my researching with them having read my proposals,
particularly since they were engaged with their own self-evaluation cycle. A
34
possible limitation of a case study is the issue of transferability of findings to a
wider arena; however, my intent is to promote the empowerment of the
practitioner participants whom I am working with, and thus transferability of
findings is not an issue. Nevertheless, I hope that the development and design of
the study may be built upon in other work, and for this reason it has a potential
role in wider dissemination.
Policy, design and redesign
Reflecting Ozga’s (2000) views of educational policy research as occurring ‘in
policy settings’ (p.1) my research design was finally developed in line with
‘Supporting Families in the
Foundation Years’ (DfE 2011)
SFEYFS and DMEYFS
Case study setting policies and
procedures
Figure 3.2a Vidovich’s
hybridized policy cycle model
(2007, p.291)
Figure 3.2b My re-interpretation of
Vidovich’s hybridized policy cycle
model for this study(2007, p.291).
Vidovich’s (2007) global model of a ‘hybridized policy cycle’ (p.291) (see figure
3.2a) which presents policy influences as interconnected and occurring at macro,
intermediate, micro and practice levels, thus giving form to my own developing
understandings of the connections between them. My contextualised reinterpretation of this (see figure 3.2b) is placed within an English rather than a
global setting, but similarly identified four levels of policy influences, starting
with the political policy within which the EYFS is framed, then EYFS itself, the
setting policies and procedures which are interpretations of the EYFS, and the
practice within the setting. All of these might be said to carry constructions of
children and childhood within them (Turenen and Määttä, 2012, p.213; Hofstede,
2001, pp.1-2).
35
I decided to include elements of documentary analysis within the design and I
discovered that I had stepped into an area which McCulloch (2004) describes as
‘a lacuna’, or void, with a dearth of methodology for educational researchers
although not for historians (p.11). My own previous involvement in historical
studies, I reflected, may have unconsciously influenced my decision here. Ozga
(2000) argues that when researching policy texts the key focus might be to
consider: ‘the source of the policy; the scope of the policy; and the pattern of the
policy’ (p.95); however, none of these seemed to quite fit with my own approach.
A further approach, which she also suggests could be ‘useful’ would be to handle
them as narrative texts, considering ‘their portrayal of character … [and] their use
of particular forms of language to produce impressions’ (p.95). This suggestion,
together with Powell’s (2010) research use of policy texts, and Bacchi’s views of
discourse-as-policy (2000) seems to fit better with my own aim to focus on the
constructions of children and childhood.
Moving back to the design detail, I determined that I would exclude from it the
macro layer, and focus on the other three in my design because of the small-scale
nature of this project and my aim to focus on practice. I identified the revised
2012 SFEYFS and the companion DMEYFS for the research as these are two key
overall documents influencing provisions and current practice and these became
the focus of the intermediate element of the study. A third document, the OfstedEv., emerged during the process, since I determined it could also be influencing
the setting as it describes the regulatory process for setting inspections (which the
case study setting was anticipating at any time). This was analysed in less detail
since it emerged some way into the research process. For the purposes of this
study I regard all three as primary documents since, to me, they are what
McCulloch (2011) would call ‘direct record[s] … of a process…by a subject
involved in it’ (p.249), which in this example are government and its nominated
agents, the early years providers. In terms of consent to use them, I determined
that all three documents are clearly in the public domain and that, provided I
acknowledged their use appropriately, using established referencing guidelines,
there appeared to be no ethical or legal factors which would prevent me from
analysing them for this study.
36
Butterflies’ local policies and procedures, based on the same policy model, were
identified as the policy micro level for the study since their role, as local authority
guidance explains is as
… an integral part of your daily routine. They should form an accurate
reflection of your practice and the ethos within your setting. Anyone
reading your policies therefore should be able to gain a strong
impression of your setting. (NYCC, 2011, p.4)
Despite the key role these appear to hold in bridging policy and practice between
the intermediate and practice levels, particularly as these show how the EYFS is
interpreted in this setting, these documents were not actually used by me during
the project. I received written permission to use them in line with procedural
ethics and the documents were supplied to me by Butterflies thus, as McCulloch
(2011) advises I paid attention to the ethical issue of consent (p.254), but my
initial analysis clearly identified that they were not in line with current regulations
and this presented me with ‘situated ethical’ dilemmas relating to respect, power,
‘non-maleficence’ and responsibility (Cohen et al., 2011, pp.87,85). Coady
(2001) states that ‘risks in research on professionals include damage to workplace
relations, loss of jobs, loss of reputation and legal risks following from these’
(p.69) and whilst these are true, and need consideration, my intent was also to
research with, and not on, professionals. Important elements of ethics, going far
beyond the ethical permission process which I completed within the university to
conduct the project (see appendix 1), relate to my own positionality on power and
oppression as a researcher (Cannella and Lincoln, 2011, p.81). Josselson (2007)
explains, research is ‘inherently a relational endeavour’ (p.537) which is based on
trust and thus I reflected on whether I had the right to continue without
consultation. Equally Vandenbroek et al. (2012) argue that ‘as researchers, we
have the crucial ethical and political duty to reflect on who is entitled …’ in this
instance to make decisions about its inclusion or exclusion (p.549). Having
reflected on these, and consulted with my research supervisor, I approached the
setting manager and explained that I was concerned about the issue: as a matter of
research and how it might affect the way the setting was portrayed within it; from
the position of my awareness of the imminence of the Ofsted inspection; and,
most importantly its relationship to aspects of practice within the setting which
37
might be affecting the children which I felt I had a strong obligation to represent.
She explained that an updated document was currently being produced and could
be available for my use in about two weeks’ time.
As a result of our discussions the original document was withdrawn from the
study by the manager, and I chose not to take up the offer of the new document,
since I determined this one would not be influencing practice at the time of my
scheduled interviews in the setting and would therefore not fit within the study. In
taking these steps, even though it altered the research design since it seriously
limited my understanding of constructions in the organisational culture of the
setting, thus altering one of the purposes of the study I feel that I had addressed
the issues in a trustworthy manner, which felt ethically appropriate to me and as
such was within the spirit of BERA’s (2011) and the University of Sheffield’s
(n/d) principles for high quality research where ‘self-reflective researchers tak[e]
responsibility for operationalising the principles’ (p.3). As a result of this change
material on organisational culture was removed from my literature review as I
deemed it as no longer necessary for the study. Whilst it changed a purpose, I felt
that the enquiry could still be justified on the basis that it might still be relevant to
the setting to understand individual perspectives within the setting and
considerations of the potential influences of constructions drawn from the
intermediate level was still credible, since some of the documentation,
particularly the DMEYFS, is used directly by practitioners.
Collection of information in the setting
Returning to the design, a range of ways was considered to address how
information on the practice element may be collected. Initially I considered using
three elements: a questionnaire, which Denscombe (2010) explains can be used to
collect ‘opinions, attitudes, views, [and] beliefs’ (p.157), and which I could use
inclusively to approach all staff in the setting (approximately 20); a series of
audio recorded reflective dialogue/semi-structured interviews with a small
selection of practitioner volunteers focused on discussions of practitioner-selected
38
practice episodes (narrated by the practitioners to the researcher – not captured by
the researcher) based on Moyles and Paterson’s approach (2001) since, using a
partnership approach this ‘research tool …[may] draw out from practitioners their
knowledge and informed perceptions of their daily practice’ (p.161) from which
constructions might be visible; and a semi-structured interview with the setting
manager/owner, a tool which Denscombe (2010) explains is appropriate when
researchers wish to gain insight into ‘people’s opinions, feelings, emotions and
experiences’ (p.173). When these were considered in concert with the intent to
analyse documents as well it became apparent that in terms of time required, both
from myself as researcher and from the setting practitioners, and the amount of
data which would be generated from the use of all three elements, this would not
be practical for the small-scale study. The design was therefore amended to
include an individual semi-structured interview with the manager and two semistructured group interviews, which was more realistic. This change influenced the
type of information which might be collected for the study since constructions
from direct practice and an overview of contribution from the whole setting were
no longer feasible. Nevertheless, these adjustments did not detract from the
overall intention of the study; rather they helped me to be clear about my choices,
thereby justifying my decision making.
Having no experience of either group or focus group interviews it was not easy
for me to identify which would be appropriate, but I eventually concluded that
since my aim was to consider individual constructions drawn from each
participant rather than considering shared views which might come from a focus
group approach with its emphasis on ‘interaction within the group’ (Denscombe,
2010, p.177) then group semi-structured interviews seemed more suitable. In
reality, whilst, to the best of my knowledge, I felt I conducted both groups in the
same way, asking questions of each individual in turn and ensuring responses to
each question from every individual, Group A seemed to veer more towards a
focus group at times where ‘group interaction’ became the ‘means of eliciting
information’ (Denscombe, 2010, p.177), whereas Group B was a group semistructured one where ‘the interviewer remains the focal point of the interaction’
(Denscombe, 2010, p.176). Other factors in this may have been due to the
39
varying numbers in the groups – Group A having four people, and Group B three
people, or to the different personalities and working relationships of participants.
Another factor which may influenced things was the specific time limited nature
of group B’s interview due to an upcoming shift change.
Participants for group interviews as designed were sought within the setting on a
volunteer basis which saw all setting employees as purposively representative on
a typical case sampling basis by virtue of their employment in Butterflies, an
approach which Cohen et al. (2011) explains is used in ‘order to access
“knowledgeable people”’ (p.157). All employees were given a letter inviting them
to take part, explaining the purposes of the study, outlining what their
commitments might be and explaining they had a right to leave the study at any
time, in line with University of Sheffield’s ethical procedures (see appendix one).
When I arrived at the setting to hand out the invitations personally to most
employees I was disturbed to find that the manager had already spoken to her
room managers to encourage them to be part of the study, since she feared there
might be a low uptake of interest, thus challenging the ‘voluntarism’ principle of
informed consent and making me aware of Seedhouse’s ‘different layers of
ethical decisions’ since it was important to ensure ‘that participants are not
“railroaded” into participating’ (Cohen et al., 2011, pp.77,80). I addressed this by
stressing to the likely participants the voluntary nature of the study when handing
out project information letters, particularly to room managers and by reflecting on
whether and what I might have said to the manager which might have contributed
to its occurrence. In the event, no room managers chose to take part and I had
sufficient volunteers which dispensed with the need to leave anyone out who
wanted to be involved. The groupings of participants into A and B was based
entirely on their availability to be released in the workplace for interview, since,
as suggested by the manager, the interviews took place during the normal setting
day. Table 3.1 introduces my research participants, including their self-chosen
research names and information supplied by them at the beginning of the
interviews. To me it feels an important matter of respect, that each participant
should be seen as an individual and space be given to each voice where possible,
40
Table 3.1
Introducing
the research
study
participants
Group A:
Alex
Layla
Sienna
Group B:
Abby
Tina
Group C:
Liz
Abby: started working at Butterflies in 2012 as an early years
practitioners and key person. She works mainly in the 2-3's
room. Born in 1990, she started working with children in
2006, holds a Level 3 National Diploma and is currently
working towards a Level 4 Foundation degree.
Alex: started working at Butterflies in 2001 where all her
practitioner experience is based. Born in 1982 she is a parent
herself and her children attend the setting. As deputy manager
she works across all the age ranges and holds a Level 5
Foundation degree in Early Childhood Care and Practice.
Layla: started work at Butterflies in 2008 where her
practitioner experience is based. She works mainly in the preschool room. Born in 1989, Layla is not a parent. She holds a
Level 2 qualification and is currently working towards her
NVQ Level 3.
Liz: started working with children in 1984 and has a wide
range of experience with children of various ages but 'my heart
lies with the under-fives'. Born in 1960 she is a parent and
shared owner/manager of Butterflies which she established in
2000. She holds a range of qualifications, most recently her
Level 5 Foundation degree, and aims to start a management
training programme later in 2013.
Sienna: started work at Butterflies in 2008 where her
practitioner experience is based. She works in the 1-2 years
old and transitions into the 2-3 year old room - which is where
she is currently based. Born in 1990, she is not a parent. She
holds an NVQ Level 2 and is working towards her Level 3
NVQ. She recently attended a county training day on 2-3 year
olds.
Tina: started work with children in 2009 and joined Butterflies
in 2010. She works as an early years practitioner and key
person mainly in the pre-school. Born in 1991 Tina is not a
parent. She holds an NVQ Level 3 Childcare certificate.
41
even though my research topic relates to concepts rather than people. The
participant sample covers a range of setting rooms, experiences and training
levels.
Interview questions and respecting voices
Topics for the interview questions were made alone and drawn from a mixture of
sources, including the EYFS documents, reading and general practices within the
overarching research question and I hoped that they would draw out both implicit
and explicit constructions of the child and childhood. They centred on the
following themes:
Table 3.2 Interview themes for practitioners
The Setting
• Main aims and goals
• Names and descriptions
Practice
• Important roles of the practitioner
• How decisions are made in base rooms
• Discussion based on an observation and possible practitioner
involvement
EYFS
•
•
•
•
Views of principles
Unique Child principle
Aims
Common phrases of practice
• Full schedule available in appendix two
Liz’s questions were generally similar with some adaptations relating to
managerial perspectives. The question topics I adopted and adapted from Tobin et
al. (1989 p.30) asked ‘What kind of child does this setting aim to produce?’ and
as such was deliberately provocative since the word ‘produce’ can carry both
societal and neo-liberal outcomes based meanings (Vandenbroeck, 2006, pp.6-7).
A further question included another frequently used contemporary policy
42
construct ‘school readiness’ (SFEYFS, p.2) with similar intent to provoke. Others
asked about how the setting may be conceptualised by the practitioners with
questions about new names, and setting descriptions, and one sought to look at the
tricky issue of risk and challenge in practice. The broad nature of my research
question was a limitation when it came to designing the question topics, for I had
to try and find a broad focus for my questions. Whilst I believed I had attempted
to explore a fairly wide range of constructs, during the analysis stage, as I drew
from the data, I realised that these had often unconsciously, contained some
common themes which helped me to surface some of my own foci. I now more
greatly appreciate my impact as a researcher on the way that question topics
underpin the shape of a study, and the importance of having a more articulated
focus area, an important goal which I thought I had achieved using Clough and
Nutbrown’s (2012) ‘Russian doll tool’, but now recognise I did not have a really
‘tiny doll at the centre’ (p.41).
At the end her interview Liz identified another topic she felt should have been
covered suggesting ‘what I foresee as an appropriate childhood … what do you
think of childhood … what does childhood mean?’ as appropriate questions. With
hindsight I realised this response revealed some limitations of my intent to work
with the setting and my aim for them to participate, since I had not consulted on
questions prior to the schedule. However, opportunities to add to the topics were
made available in line with Drever’s (2003) advice (p.27). I was also concerned
that I might not have made clear the real focus of my research intent in my
documentation and considered that this may be so since it did become better
articulated as the study carried on. As a novice researcher I am hopeful that these
reflections will inform any future research study designs. In terms of this
research, I determined that some views of childhood as sought by Liz were
revealed during the study and I would complete some additional analysis on them
and include it with my research summary to Butterflies at the end of the project
for her information. In doing this I noted that it was not part of the original
guidance on topic areas which I included in my research guidance, but felt that
since the information had been freely offered during the interviews it could
legitimately be used in this way.
43
When designing the actual structure of the questions I aimed to: make them open
to encourage discussion and prevent leading as advised by Drever (2003, p.30); to
use accessible language for my audience to prevent misconceptions and to avoid
any researcher ‘power’ issues with academic or complex terms; to avoid what
Foddy (1993) presents as Belson’s ‘sixteen categories of difficult questions’
including presenting two questions as one (p.51); and to make them interesting to
encourage engagement with them, by preparing some contexts within which to
‘trigger’ them (Drever, 2003, p.28). One type of question, which should be
avoided according to Arksey and Knight (cited in Cohen et al., 2011, p.416) are
‘hypothetical' questions, but it was actually deliberately used in the schedule
when participants were asked what they would re-name the setting, and in this
instance it was, in my view, an appropriate one which revealed considerable
information about how participants viewed children’s provisions. The questions
themselves, the order in which they were to be asked in the interview schedule,
and the digital audio recording approach was piloted twice with different
volunteer practitioners of varying experiences and training levels from another
setting, and amendments were made as a result of their feedback and my own
experiences and analysis of the process as recommended by Drever (2003, p.56).
This included my heightened awareness of various emphases which I had
unconsciously put on elements of questions when listening to the practice audio.
Whilst a decision was made to capture the voices by using two audio devices,
alternative methods considered included note taking and audio-visual recording.
Note taking was quickly identified as too incomplete and unreliable for the
purpose. I was concerned that audio only recording might make it difficult to
distinguish who was speaking, but my practice trials, and the actual use of the
method, did not find this to be as much of an issue as feared. Audio-visual
recording would have identified who was speaking, but might also mean that I
would need to consider ways of transcribing non-verbal as well as verbal
communication; however this was judged by me to be unnecessary for the
purpose, too time consuming and too costly to have a back-up system available.
Interview schedules were emailed to Butterflies several days before the
interviews, both to give participants time to think about the questions and as a
44
matter of respect to participants. When consenting to become involved one
participant in particular explained that she was concerned that, like an NVQ
assessor, I would be asking a question and then immediately thrusting a recorder
under her nose for the answer. I felt that it was essential that this was not how the
interviews should feel. In reality participants commented that they had found it
helpful to have the questions in advance, some had written and read out preprepared answers and others has made notes to help them. I received positive
feedback on the experience from several, including Layla who commented ‘I was
really surprised, … I actually enjoyed it and I was dreading it! ...I was worried
about what I had let myself in for’ and Tina who explained that ‘it has given me
things to think about’. Once captured, I transcribed the voices using some simple
transcription codes including underlining for emphasis and [ ] to show pauses, and
prepared them for analysis. In doing this, as Hammersley (2010) describes I made
a range of methodological decisions including about what to select, how and
which elements of talk, intonations and silence to include and how to lay all this
out for analysis, as well as additional decisions about which parts of extracts to
include in the final report and how they should be contextualised (pp.556-557)
which themselves generated constructions of my participants and myself.
Through this process my aim was to represent this as faithfully as possible to the
best of my knowledge in the time frames I had available.
45
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Analysis
Decisions about methodological and methods frameworks to use to make sense of
the voices I was hearing and the constructions within them exercised me
throughout the process. I had already determined the study to be within a social
constructionist frame with an appreciation of multiple perspectives and discourse,
but was not sure which theoretical lens to use bearing in mind my intent to
explore rather than present value judgements on the constructions identified.
Approaches which I explored included an appreciation of critical theories such as
Deleuze and Guattari’s (2004) rhizome theory which as Semetsky (2003)
describes ‘thinks differently’ (p.17) offering opportunities to go in diverse
directions including, as Blaise and Ryan (2012) explain, different ways of
addressing Western logic fixed binaries such as adult/child (p.86) which fitted
with ideas of the child as both being and becoming. Honan (2004) maintains that
it can be used to disrupt understandings through ‘rhizo-textual analysis of policy
texts’ (p.267). Whilst this might have been appropriate I recognised that it was not
feasible for me to consider this in depth and develop sufficient understanding of it
to apply to this study in my available timescales and so I chose not to explore this
further. I came to a similar conclusion, when I briefly explored Bakhtin’s (cited in
Holquist, 1990) concept of polyphony rather than dissonances and harmony.
After reflection, I knew that I wished to respect the voices of the participants in
the study but also, because I was familiar with the SFEYFS and DMEYFS for this
research, I wanted to find a way to make these less familiar. I therefore
determined I would use some different forms of textual content analysis, a process
which can, according to Denscombe (2010), ‘disclose many “hidden” aspects of
what is being communicated’ including ‘values’ and what is ‘relevant’, which
would contribute to understandings of constructions (p.282). Denscombe (2010)
explains that this can involve units as small as a word up to complete sentences,
paragraphs and visual images (p.281). I decided to use textual content analysis
46
based on certain key words and I determined I would also use extracts from the
whole sense of the conversations of written sentences. Using the SFEYFS as an
example my initial unit of analysis was a manual search and single terms
children/child/infant/baby/pupil/childhood (including plural and ‘s versions) were
highlighted. This generated numeric figures which allowed for very limited
analysis. The process was repeated with the addition of a second word which
prefixed the single unit. The two numerically largest two-word units, children
and child, were then sorted separately into initial categories to see what this might
reveal. It became apparent that the two-word unit did not appear to be sufficiently
descriptive in many cases and so a further extraction of up to a four-word unit was
carried out, including the development of a set of rules for handling, for example,
where it may be the first word in the sentence, and these were then sorted and resorted several times into emerging categories. Eventually the numerically large
number of up-to-four-word units for children and child were merged together to
generate some final categories. The categories are shown in figures 4.1 and 4.2.
In both word and sentence forms I endeavoured to draw the themes deductively
from the text rather than impose pre-existing categories upon it. It was during the
process of this that I became particularly aware of some of my underlying
subjective interests since the themes which emerged were, of course, strongly
influenced by the questions I had asked. My unfamiliarity with both approaches
was a weakness of the study in terms of the time it took, the methods used and the
ways it might be presented. As far as the documentary analysis was concerned
there were a range of incompatibilities in my approaches to different documents.
I also recognised that I could only use single level analysis during categorisation
rather than using the phrases in multiple contexts. My decisions were influenced,
in places, by the numerical number of times words and phrases appeared, but in
doing this I also recognised that there was no clear correlation between this and
any impact of these words on readers. In the interests of transparency, appendices
three, four and five show the detailed process. Many constructions emerged from
47
Focus of provision (29)
Agency (3)
Home (1)
Statutory
Framework
(DfE, 2012)
Baby* (6)
Children* (218)
Child* (85)
Infant* (4)
Pupil* (1)
Illustrations (26)
Documentation (16)
Journey (10)
Focus on child (11)
Not categorised (4)
Others (9)
Practice (137)
Health & safety
(19)
Imperatives (19)
Responsibility (7)
Joint focus (18)
Space/place/time (30)
Statements (51)
Units - Descriptive (44)
Figure 4.1
Categorical analysis of phrases associated with terms such as
children in SFEYFS
48
Environment/Provision
(49)
Groups (20)
Development
Matters - analysis
of selected pages
(Early Education,
2012)
Baby* (54)
Children* (324)
Child* (63)
Infant* (0)
Pupil* (0)
Toddler* (1)
Places (5)
Resources (34)
Illustrations (19)
Imperatives (12)
Time (10)
Journey (49)
Location (1)
Not Categorised (18)
Principles(39)
Practice (226)
See breakdown
figure 4.8 for 51
categories
Relationship (3)
Figure 4.2
Categorical analysis of phrases associated with terms such as children in
selected pages of DMEYFS
49
the data and accepting that it would not be possible to consider all these I
eventually focused on four overall themes which appeared to be drawn very
clearly from the data and as such would help me to answer the research question:
those of ‘happy childhoods’; ‘constructs of group’; ‘age constructs’; and ‘child as
active’ which I located within Turenen and Määttä’s (2012) ‘subject positions of
child and adult’ and ‘aims and targets of education’ foci in the curriculum (p.212).
I also determined that the material should be presented as merged where possible
with documentary and participant analysis and the literature review to reveal the
overall themes more clearly. However, a weakness of the study has been my
knowing how best to present aspects of the word level analysis and what levels of
details to offer in the report. I have chosen to use figures to explain these in an
effort to give clarity. Where used, participant voices are presented in italics to
distinguish them from other referencing and discussion as a matter of respect.
Happy childhoods
Only one reference to ‘childhood’ is included in the SFEYFS and DMEYFS and
this maintains that ‘A secure, safe and happy childhood is important in its own
right’ (SFEYFS, p.3). Its near absence might mean that childhood is not truly the
focus of policy, but might also be seen as an effort to reflect Uprichard’s (2008)
‘being and becoming’ construct (p.311) which Moylett and Stewart (2012)
maintain underpins the EYFS. The reference identifies childhood as a specific
phase which is ‘valid in its own right’ (Blundell, 2012, p.28), and sees ‘children
as members of a distinct group’ (Mills, 2000, p.22). It suggests that a ‘child is a
rights-bearing citizen’ (Mac Naughton and Smith, 2008, p.165) since this is
something children should have as a right, but also that ‘children are vulnerable’
and ‘child as being in need of protection’ (Mills, 2000, pp.12,24) because
achieving this requires interventions formulated by state policy. The phrase
carries within it a view of childhood as a universal ideal experience with one
acknowledged goal rather than one which recognises the ‘plurality’ of
‘childhoods’ as would be the case if a social constructionist approach was evident
(James et al., 1998, p.27; Blundell, 2012, p.28). This suggests that it is a policy
construct image of childhood which is offered, with an apparently clear and
50
socially attractive aim in view and relates directly to Bertram and Pascal’s (2002)
‘Romantic perspective: as an immature biological being to be protected in an
enriched environment’ (p.15). Powell’s (2010) analysis of 2008 EYFS
documentation found it ‘explicitly clear’ on values (p.225), which could be said to
address elements which might lead to happiness, but she does not make reference
to ‘happiness’ in the construction of practice values identified within the
documentation and this reflects my less detailed analysis where aspects of health
and safety, safeguarding and diversity were also apparent (see appendices 3-5).
The images of children which are used within the DMEYFS however do portray
smiling ‘happy’ children (pp.10-11) and thus carry an implicit construct.
Reference to the provision’s ‘ensur[ing] children are happy’ is included in OfstedEv’s schedule under the ‘children’s well-being’ criteria (p.10) and thus the
inspection regime does regard this of value. Butterflies’ focus on childhood in the
setting as a time of happiness was very prevalent in conversations. For Liz the
main aim of the setting is ‘first and foremost to keep children happy and safe…
they don’t want to leave because it’s so nice … that they actually do enjoy it…
I’m a big advocate of … having fun’. This also reveals a commercial setting
influence. When proposing new names for the setting Alex explained that it must
be ‘bright and bubbly and child-friendly’. Sienna and Layla suggested ‘Jungle
Tree House’ and ‘Little Monkeys’ respectively for, as Sienna explained, ‘that’s
what you think of nursery don’t yer – you think of fun’. Using Osgood’s (2012)
approach here, the goal of happiness and fun might be seen as a ‘romanticised
construct’ of a ‘normalised’ construct of childhood within the setting and
documentation which often does not address the reality of children’s lives (p.62).
Abby offered a different perspective of happiness, safety and security with a more
emotion-based emphasis in her proposal for the setting name suggesting ‘ “Home
from Home” … because I feel that this is the atmosphere the nursery gives off,
and that the children feel this is their home away from home’. She offers links to
family in line with a tradition of McMillan’s (1919, p.29) construct of the nursery
within childhood and the community , a ‘cultural child’ construct (Whiteman et
51
al., 2012, p.1) rather than the ‘schooled child’ construct Hendricks identifies as
being one in which the child is separated from the rest of society (1997, p.45).
Links to home/parents are an important construction of the nursery childhood in
this setting and in the Ofsted-Ev, SFEYFS and DMEYFS. The enabling
environment’s principle stresses the need for ‘a strong partnership between
practitioners and parents and carers’ (p.2). Tina, for example explains that
communication should ‘constantly let parents know how their child is getting on
and they don’t feel they’ve missed out on something’. Alex feels that ‘getting to
know them … it’s the families you need to know as well’ is very important. Liz
sees the relationship as a shared endeavour where ‘we build on what’s been taught
at home’ and explains ‘I always say to the girls – we don’t just take on the child,
we take on the family’ including being sensitive and supportive in a wide range of
ways. Thus Butterflies is constructing the setting as part of the social fabric of
childhood since it has a nurturing/safeguarding role within the happiness, safety
and security construct. This approach reflects connections to the horizontal pull
across childhood services and society rather than the vertical pull upwards
towards school (Pugh, 1996, p.4) and towards the ‘cultural child’ construct
(Whiteman et al., 2012, p.1).
Language of child and children as a societal group
Moving on from ‘childhood’ I next turn to an analysis of descriptive words used
in documents and discussions to explore, amongst other things, how Bourdieu’s
‘symbolic capital’ is present in the use of the words (Haralambos and Holborn,
2013, p.73). Figure 4.3 shows findings for the documentation which is mainly at
the single word level. Figure 4.4 shows an analysis of terms and frequency used
in practitioner discussion groups, with the category ‘other’ further analysed and
shown in figure 4.5. Due to differences in analysis there are some discrepancies
between the terms searched for. It is apparent that the most commonly used terms
throughout are ‘children’ and ‘child’ which indicate constructions of the
child/children as ‘members of a distinct group’ who share commonalities (Mills,
52
360
340
320
300
Figure 4.3
280
Simple count of
descriptive terms
used in selected
documents.
260
240
220
200
180
160
Development Matters (Partial Early Education 2012)
140
Statutory Framework (Whole DfE 2012)
120
Evaluation schedule (WholeOfsted 2012b)
100
80
60
40
20
0
53
Figure 4.4 Practitioners overall use of words
Others (91)
See figure 4.5
for further
breakdown
Child (85)
Key:
Numbers relate
to number of
cumulative
occurrences of
words in 3
practitioner
interviews
Children (139)
2000, p.22). The use of the term ‘infancy’ with its presociological implications of
‘inability’ (Davis, 2010, p.286) is used in documentation to refer to schools’
‘infant’ classes, indicating a potential tension of constructs between the two
provisions. Whilst there is some limited use of ‘young/younger children’ the use
of the term ‘baby’ as a distinctive description is apparent only in the DMEYFS. A
further analysis here revealed that generally the term baby is used in the birth - 11
months and 8-20 months commentary, thus providing a partial ‘baby’ construct.
Sometimes ‘children’ is used in the ‘baby’ section where items appear to have
been copied from elsewhere. References to babies are not made in the
characteristics of effective learning sections however (pp.5-7). This absence and
lack of qualifying text may be a cause for confusion for ‘baby’ practitioners since
it is not clear in the document if this is part of the ‘babies’ construct or not, thus
hinting at some of the confusion which Goouch and Powell (2013) have found.
DMEYFS has been prepared for practitioner guidance which might indicate that
in other documentation babies are seen as an integral part of the ‘children’ group,
or may mean that they are being ignored entirely, in line with what McDowall
Figure 4.5 Breakdown from figure
54 4.4 of practitioners' cumulative
use of 'other' words
1 year olds
2 - 3's
2 year olds
3 - 5's
3 mths on
3 or 4 year old
3 year olds
4 year olds
5 year olds
aged up to 3
ages of 3 up
babies
big boys and girls
bigger girls and boys
each and every little person
good girl
happy little whole round people
important little people
individual
kids
little 2 year olds
little boy
little girl
little little people
little ones
older ones
poor little 2 year olds
pre - schoolers
school leavers
tiny tots
toddlers
tremendous toddlers
tweenies
Under 12 mths
under 3's
younger ones/children
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
55
Clark and Baylis (2012) refer to as ‘the historical remnant of undervaluing babies
themselves’ (p.231). It is only in the practitioner discussions, with all such
phrases attributable to Liz, that babies/children are described as people/persons
(see figure 4.5) using phrases like ‘happy little whole round people’, reflecting
Goldschmied and Jackson’s (1994) sociological ‘people under three’ construct,
indicating a view of babies as part of, rather apart from, society with all the rights
for respect as real ‘beings’ which this positive ‘symbolic capital’ (Haralambos
and Holborn, 2013, p.73) phrase entails.
Constructs of age
A frequent method used for referring to children is to distinguish them by forms
of age descriptors, an approach which Qvortrup (1994) explains is a ‘convenient
tool’ but carries with it potentially deficit implications of dependence (p.4). An
overt use of age descriptors is apparent throughout the DMEYFS with
overlapping descriptors and images of children (see figure 4.6) intended to help
Figure 4.6: Developmental age descriptors DMEYFS (pp.10-11)
identify appropriate practice with a clear statement that ‘The age/stage bands
overlap because these are not fixed age boundaries but suggest a typical range of
development’ (p.10), thus aiming to counter Piagetian developmental perspectives
of stages (Bertram and Pascal, 2002, p.15) but still within Burman’s (2008)
identified discourse of the ‘child development’ construct. Parts of the SFEYFS
also make occasional references to children by age. Whilst age descriptors are not
overtly apparent in Ofsted-Ev, the requirements for judgements to be made
related to ‘expected levels of development’ (p.6) as indicated in the DMEYFS
56
does, indeed, show a strong relationship with the approach. Looking at the
construct of the ‘early years foundation stage’ itself, this might be seen to carry
within it a fixed Piagetian view of staged development since it provides an end
point; by the time children are five there are certain specific goals children are
expected to have achieved, even though the strap line on overlapping boundaries
and statements that ‘children develop at their own rates, and in their own ways’
appears on most pages (p.10). Thus mixed messages are clearly inherent within
the guidance. Recounting a recent discussion over a child due to move into the
EYFS school in September, Tina expressed her approach ‘You do all you can to
help them but, it’s not, it’s not, if children can’t write their name by the time they
are five then it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter … she’s got all of reception to
figure it out and even longer than that’. Thus Tina views the boundary as a
flexible one, although the reassurance evident in her tone of voice might suggest
that, even for her, there actually may be some measure of concern, perhaps caused
by the regulations she is working within with perceived pressures to ensure
children ‘achieve’ and the need to do so whilst the child is well within the Stage
rather than at its endpoint. It could be argued that this places the EYFS firmly
within an amended version (because the phases are overlapping rather than fixed)
of Piaget’s ‘developmental perspective’ construct (Bertram and Pascal, 2002,
p.15) and persistently raises potential deficit constructs due to biological age
(Prout and James, 1997, p.7).
Practitioner conversations often used age descriptors, although on some occasions
this may be because they were avoiding the use of room names for confidentiality
(see figure 4.5). However, the fact that age was used as the replacement descriptor
indicates its underlying presence and that the setting structure is based on age. In
terms of images of immaturity though, various constructs were apparent with the
phrase ‘little’ frequently used. When talking about naming individual rooms
within the setting Layla and Sienna both used the construct of size ranges as
descriptors with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek discussion about naming rooms
‘gorillas …chimpanzees …spider monkeys …and baby orang-utans’. Tina, who
had named her setting ‘Little Jewels’, suggested ‘Emeralds, pearls, rubies and
sapphires … [because] the children you know start out as babies and turn into
57
something special and precious just like these stones’. This proposal, a romantic
construct, does not carry any age, size or progression related implications within
it; thus all could be seen as equal. Abby provided no names for her rooms, but
wanted to change the groupings so that, with the exception of lunchtimes, ‘I
would join the 0-1 and 1-2yr rooms together … and the 2-3’s and 3-5’s together’.
The reason for this was not made clear, but it indicates a different way of looking
at age-based arrangements in the setting. Liz had chosen the name ‘Butterflies’
for the setting for a range of reasons including that ‘… the children evolve and
develop just like the butterfly’ indicating she feels that there is a relationship with
development, but not stressing age. However, Liz’s proposed room names
commenced in the baby room with ‘“cocoon care” cos I really like that, as you
are wrapped up in love and care’ thus potentially indicating immaturity and
possible dependency, but also acknowledging needs and rights for attachment.
Her 1-2 and 2-3 year old’s she visualised as active, using ‘explorers’ and
‘adventurers’ respectively and ‘My big boys and girls’ Liz eventually called
‘treetops’ since she ‘wanted them to grow tall and have strong roots from
nursery’ although she was dissatisfied with the latter name. These images are still
within the constructs of stages of development. Overall these also suggest that Liz
sees childhood as a period of active growth (Zhao, 2011, p.252).
Our discussions on the setting’s self-description as a nursery and a preschool
revealed some very clearly perceived societal age boundary constructs. Tina
explained that both were needed since ‘people think of nursery as taking children
under three’ whereas three to fives is ‘preparing them for school – it’s what preschool means you know’. Similar views were expressed by all other participants
including Liz explaining ‘erm [ ] the word pre-school obviously says what it does
on the tin – it’s before school’. This clear division may be linked to historical
attitudes towards different early years provisions and to the longer existence of
policy involvement in the 3-5 year olds starting progressively from 1996. Alex
certainly explained that ‘we stop the nursery at three and go into the pre-school
room …’ and linked it to ‘the three year old funding’. Thus whilst the EYFS now
stretches from birth to five, including covering the oldest in the age range in
schools, it is apparent that this is not seen cohesively in the setting. Liz explains
58
‘nursery means a safe haven for a child … it is used to describe childcare’ and
hence the co-existence of the historical constructs of ‘care’ and ‘education’,
which the EYFS was designed to bridge are revealed. It is interesting to note that
in conversations the most common default phrase used was ‘nursery’, indicating
the continuing historical influence of the ‘childcare’ construct. No participants
felt it would be appropriate to change the descriptions since they have current
commercial societal relevance for parents, indicating no intent to position
themselves as advocates for promoting more contemporary constructs, or thinking
about what the increasing 2-year old funding might do to the distinctions (Ofsted,
2012c).
Evidence of the age divide was apparent in other parts of conversations and
appears to be influencing practice. One example of it became apparent in
conversations which related to an amended observation we shared which focused
on a girl filling a bucket with water and repeatedly walking up and down a grassy
hillock with it, whilst wearing an apron which dragged on the ground (Waite,
2011, p.26). When asked if they would have become involved at any point Tina
explained ‘we wouldn’t like to admit it but we probably would – mmm’ and other
practitioners agreed that they would have concerns about safety, agreed it may
have stopped the experience, but felt confident that they could intervene
sensitively without interrupting the flow. One major contributory factor during
practitioners’ deliberations of this was the age of the child involved, which was
not stated in the observation. Alex explains ‘it depends on the age of the child, I
know for myself that an older one I might sit back’; and Layla ‘if she was a preschool child I’d definitely let her carry on’. Whereas as Abby explains ‘if it was a
two year old you would [intervene]’ and Sienna agrees ‘if it was a two year old, if
it was in my room, I would have changed her apron ... I would have just quickly
changed it and they would have got on with it...’. The change of attitude reflected
between two year olds and three year olds apparently based on age construct
judgments rather than capability was very marked. Responses may have been
different if specific practice examples drawn from practitioners’ own key children
had been used here.
59
Further views of two year olds were also evident. Abby explained that for her
‘you develop from being a baby into a pre-schooler and that two year old bit is
the most vital part’. From a developmental descriptors perspective it might also
be seen as the most complex since, unlike the age brackets in other base rooms in
the nursery, three, rather than two phases are covered in the DMEYFS. Abby
shared her concerns about the growing emphasis in the two year old room ‘on
trying to teach the two year-olds, like numbers one to five … I do think that
putting emphasis on learning colours and shapes and numbers at the age of two is
just silly … you don’t need it that early as two… I think that trying to teach them
is wrong … why make a two year old learn how to count from one to five’. Tina
agreed with Abby’s views. It was within the context of this conversation that
Abby talked about ‘the poor little two year olds’.
In policy terms a growing emphasis on selective ‘funded two year olds’ is
currently being rolled out from September 2013 (Ofsted, 2012c), described by Liz
as ‘this thing in current practice about two year olds’. Abby’s concern about
number as a focus appears to reflect her reaction to a recent training day on this
and understandings that the revised DMEYFS also includes amended expected
developmental goals by the age of five, in this case that ‘Children count reliably
with numbers from one to 20, place them in order and say which number is one
more or one less than a given number’ (p.35). This change from counting to ten
(DCSF, 2008c, p.68) to 20 was raised during the consultation process and
justified by the government on the basis that ‘experts advised that this is an
appropriate level of stretch’ (DfE, 2011c, p.9). Commenting on this decision is
beyond this research study remit; however, a comparative analysis of effective
practice guidance across the three age phase developmental statements between
the two documents (DCSF, 2008, pp.65-67 and DMEYFS pp.32-33) does not find
any significant change in suggested practitioner approach, with much being a
direct copy between the two. There is, however, some change of observational
guidance with the 30-50 month statement recommending note when a child
‘recites numbers in order to 10’ for example (DMEYFS, p.33). It may be the case
that this interpretation is not how it is perceived in Butterflies, and anxieties about
‘knowing numbers’ could be creating more formal responses; this may be an area
60
for further investigation. In terms of the complexity of constructions here there
may be a response to the apparent ‘schoolification’ construct of early years
childhood provision, the vertical pull referred to by Pugh (1996b, p.4).
It also relates to constructs of when children might be seen as cognitive learners
within what are now presented in the EYFS as the specific areas of learning
(literacy; mathematics; expressive arts and design; and understanding the world)
(SFEYFS, p.5). It may suggest a construct where the more cultural and
cognitively specific areas, because of their perceived relationship with school
subjects rather than seen in terms of the wider cultural world, are seen as opposed
to the time sensitive prime areas (personal, social and emotional development;
communication and language; and physical development), which themselves
appear to be dependent on age phases (DMEYFS, p.4). This is despite the
presentation of guidance which seeks to influence this construct stating that ‘all
areas of learning and development are important and inter-connected’ (SFEYFS,
p.4), a phrase which I suggest reflects ‘the EPPE child’. It is also pertinent to
note that as Liz explains ‘from speaking to primary and reception class teachers
its “can they put their coat on? … can they form a line? … can they follow a
verbal instruction? … readiness to learn the more academic stuff’ and this
feedback from schools, carrying with it the school perception of the PVI/school
divide identified in Roberts-Holmes (2012, p.39) may also be influencing this
approach towards the specific areas, since it is not perceived as valued or
required. It is further echoed in some descriptions of the kind of child the setting
aims to produce with Alex offering ‘happy, confident, able to learn, polite’,
which address aspects of ‘the well-being child’ rather than the balanced ‘EPPE
child’ and suggests the binary ‘becoming’ rather than ‘being’ construct.
Active children
I now move on to consider a further aspect of how the child as subject is
constructed within documentation and the setting using aspects of the analysis
built up around the terms child/children etc and practitioner conversations. A
61
summary of the analysis of the SFEYFS and DMEYFS is available in figures 4.1
and 4.2 above. Not surprisingly the SFEYFS covers a broader range of elements
than the DMEYFS one. However, in both, the illustrations category presents
positive examples of active children who, for example, ‘concentrate, watch, sing,
learn and develop’. An additional analysis of verbs from the DMEYFS Unique
Child reveals a more detailed picture, 135 separate verbs, revealing among many
things the unique child who ‘can, enjoys, listens, understands and uses’ (see
figure 4.7). These phrases may be seen to serve as a counterweight to the
potentiality of dependent age constructs discussed earlier and identify ‘childhood
as a period of active growth’ (Zhao, 2011, p.252). They echo a description of the
child which Sienna offered as her response in a discussion about the sort of child
the setting should aim to produce which was an ‘inquisitive’ child, a phrase also
used by Liz in another context, and echoes both the powerful image of the child
portrayed in the Bt3M and an aspect of the Reggio Child construct (Malaguzzi,
1993, p.10 cited in New, 1998, pp.274-275).
However I was also interested to go beyond this and consider how the
documentation presents practitioner activity in relation to constructs which might
be implicitly rather than explicitly presented. Drawn from DMEYFS my analysis
of 51 categories of practitioner actions (see figure 4.8) identified four most
common verbs: encourage (34); support (33); help (29) and observe (21). The
terms ‘help’ and ‘support’ were also identified in Ofsted-Ev. (pp.6,10). They were
not, however, common in the SFEYFS, appearing only occasionally in the
analysed ‘practice statements’ of the breakdown. This indicates that the
interpreted constructs may have been created through ‘practice’ guidance rather
than ‘law’. Having excluded ‘observe’ since it was slightly less frequently found,
I asked groups A and B (my interview with Liz had already occurred before I
identified these) to explain what the words might mean to them and how they
might see them as different to each other. This was a last minute additional
question which was not pre-trialled, and, with hindsight, could have been much
62
able
(3)
absorbed
anticipates
(3)
ascribes
associates
comments
Figure 4.7
develops
(3)
Actions of
communi- the Unique distinguis
cates (4) Child to look
hes
for during
distracts
compares observations
self
(analysis of
selected
completes
draws
pages from
concentra- DMEYFS)
tes
dresses
intently
fills
finds
(2)
friendship
gains
gazes
attempts
(3)
confident
(3)
drinks
gets
attention
(7)
constructs
eats
gives
aware
(4)
contiunes
(2)
engages
(2)
grasps
beginning
to (37)
cooperates
enjoys
(14)
handles
(3)
builds
(3)
copies
estimates
hears
calms
counts
(5)
experimen
ts (3)
helps
can
(19)
crawls
explains
holds
(8)
captures
creates
(5)
explores
(10)
identifies
chooses
(2)
curious
expresses
(3)
imitates
(5)
climbs
demonstrates (2)
extends
initiates
(3)
comes
downstair
s
describes
favourites
interacts
comforted
developing
(4)
feeds self
interested
63
moves
(5)
reacts
(3)
smiles
joins
(4)
negotiates
realises
(2)
soothes
self
recites
(2)
squats
jumps
notices
(5)
recognise
s (8)
stops
records
suggests
remembe
rs (2)
takes
(2)
repeats
(2)
talks
responds
(9)
taps
introduces
(2)
knows
(10)
laughs
leans
observes
(2)
opens
operates
learns
(3)
orders
(3)
lifts
(2)
passes
rolls
travels
likes
picks up
runs
(2)
tries
links
(3)
plays
(4)
says
(2)
turns
(3)
pratices
seeks
(5)
understa
nds (13)
practises
selects
(6)
uses
(38)
sense of
(2)
wary
separates
(2)
walks
(4)
shows
(33)
watches
(2)
sings
(2)
welcomes
sits
willing
listens
(9)
looks
(5)
makes
(3)
pretends
manipulat
es
pulls
matches
(2)
questions
(2)
measures
quietens
mounts
reaches
writes
64
anticipate
attention
avoid
broaden
calm
care
create
decode
dress
enable
encourage
engage
explain
extend
feedback
follow
help
hold
identify
interest
introduce
involve
keep
let
listen
make
model
move
notice
observe
plan
play
provide
read
respect
respond
review
scaffold
sensitive
share
show
sing
stimulate
support
talk
teach
use
with
work
Figure 4.8 Further
breakdown of
categorical analysis of
phrases associated with
practice in DMEYFS
as summarised in
figure 4.2 (Early
Education 2012)
0
10
20
30
40
65
better worded to identify constructs, perhaps by asking for examples of how
practitioners used this in their practice, and by not including the stress on
‘different’ which skewed the discussions.
With this proviso in place each practitioner identified the phrases as ones they
frequently used with Sienna commenting ‘with us doing our level 3 I feel that all
the words I use are helping, encouraging and supporting’ and Tina ‘I’m
constantly using them on my observations sheet’ . This suggests that my analysis
did identify common words, that these words may well be powerful key
descriptors in the practice guidance document, since they are so commonly used
by the practitioners, although the sample size here is too small for this to be
confirmed. The practitioners also agreed, after discussion, that the three words are
very interlinked and difficult to define individually with Layla explaining ‘well
when I’m writing them I might use them, just choose a different word but I’m
meaning the same thing all the way through …’. Alex tried to explain their
meaning thus ‘if we’re helping and supporting and things I just see them as like
your scaffolding of your building, supporting and holding it up – yes’. Scaffolding
is a word which appears only once in figure 4.8, with links to a social
constructivist approach to pedagogy. Abby pondered ‘I thought support was like
Tina said for encourage, to model..’, and ‘model’ also appears once in the
analysis. Tina suggested ‘… if you look up the word support in the dictionary it
probably means sturdy – and we sturdy the children by giving them all the help
and encouragement’. This discussion opens up potentially many other questions
which I did not pursue in my researcher role; however it causes me to reflect on
the relevance of much of the theory I teach with my students when it is not
included in the practice guidance and how I might relate to these key phrases in
future in my work. My own perspective on the phrases is that their vacuity,
blandness and interconnectedness, whilst fulfilling demands for practice guidance
which is acceptable by all, does not offer any really clear theoretically-based
pedagogical guidance on how to practice with the child. In so doing, however, it
also potentially offers the setting the opportunity to develop a local formulation to
shape their own practice rather than use ‘universal’ guidance, which Stephen’s
(2012) argues is a far more appropriate goal (p.236). For the purposes of this
66
research study to me, the phrases offer an impression of the deficit child as
‘needy’ for help, support and encouragement, which flows with the
‘presociological’ needs discourse in Ofsted-Ev. (p.6) and thus at odds with the
‘active’ and ‘competent’ image of the child that the documents also portray, thus
illustrating the existence of competing constructs.
A final area for consideration here is how the active child might be seen in terms
of ‘agency’ and having choice, a key feature of James et al.’s (1998) ‘sociological
child’ and described by Dahlberg et al.’s (2007) construct of ‘the child as a coconstructor of knowledge, identity and culture’ (p.48). Zhao (2011) argues
positive constructs of the child can still be ones ‘which seek to manipulate and
dominate’ (p.254). This did not come through the analysis as a clear theme, and
therefore I changed my approach and actively sought it since, as Denscombe
(2010) explains, it is important to identify what might not be present or ‘does not
fit’ (p.305) and I looked for phrases and actions which might empower children
and where practitioners are guided more directly to share with children. Figure 4.9
shows some use of elements grouped together during analysis from the SFEYFS
under the headings of practice categorised as ‘joint focus’ and ‘agency’ whilst
from the DMEYFS three phrases ‘enable’ , ‘follow’ and ‘with’ are shown in
figure 4.10. From this analysis I am cautious about drawing any firm conclusions
since my analytical frame is constricted through other single level categorisations,
and more focused work on agency and choice might reveal some more powerful
key words for the analysis. However, from this analysis it would tentatively
appear that co-construction and agency might not be a dominant construct in the
documentation, certainly in terms of frequency, and I suggest that this might be a
focus for future enquiry.
In Butterflies Layla explains how themes are drawn from child-initiated interests
‘Goldilocks and the three bears has been a big one recently … they were playing
mummies and daddies and babies and they were making porridge – so we came
up with Goldilocks and the three bears’. Liz, however explains this can be hard if
67
Figure 4.9: SFEYFS phrases associated with ‘child as coconstructor of knowledge, identity and culture’
(Dahlberg et al., 2007, p.48)
working with the…
working with the child
work(ing) with children
use with the children
up – to - date with…
this with the child’s
Joint Focus
interaction(s) with…
Agency
in guiding their child’s
directly with children
contact with a child
used by children
led by children
child-initiated
0
1
2
3
4
you have ‘a little girl who comes in and says “I’ve been a bridesmaid” and the
same day a little boy says “I’ve been on an aeroplane” – do you do celebrations
or do you do transport?’ with her solution being that ‘you need to acknowledge –
I think there’s a difference between acknowledging a child’s interests to actually
doing a full blown thing on a child’s interests’. In both these discussions an
awareness of the child is present, but the agency appears to be that of the adults.
Layla explains how she interacts ‘you’re sat building with them and you’re asking
questions and they’re asking you questions and [ ] stuff like that’. Liz also relates
‘you can see in their face the delight that they’ve done it and you think – we’ve
done that together’ and thus elements of a participatory approach are revealed.
Abby and Tina explain that choices of materials and activities are available,
indicating elements of autonomy and Abby’s comment that ‘I know at circle time
I ask the children individually what songs they want to sing’ identifies elements of
68
Figure 4.10: DMEYFS phrases associated with ‘child as co-constructor
of knowledge, identity and culture’ (Dahlberg et al., 2007, p.48)
with the things children
them with the children
them with all children
Talk with children
Talk with babies
shared thinking helps children
Listen with children
interacting with young babies
interact with young babies
display with the children
With
Discuss with children
Follow
from examples the children
Enable
follow the ideas children
Follow the baby’s
Follow children’s
fitting in with children’s
Add child-made
about the methods children
vocabulary to enable children’s
experiences to enable children
Enable children
0
1
2
3
4
5
69
child control. However, responses to questions about base room layouts, for
example reveal that here the children are not consulted, decisions are made by the
adults. Sienna suggests that ‘it depends on who’s the loudest’ acknowledging
‘that’s not the professional way to do it’. Layla and Alex explained that recent
changes in the pre-school room were ‘discussed as a team’ and then changed
several times until staff felt happy with the new layout. Liz’s response was similar
explaining that ‘I’ve put team leaders and curriculum planning for a lot of them
and practitioners for others of them’. Thus in terms of Turenen and Määttä’s
(2012) subject positions of the child (p.212) it would appear that the construct of
child agency in Butterflies may be based within everyday choices which may be
aimed at constructing ‘knowledge’ but appears not to extend to involvement with
more major environmental citizenship decisions within the setting relating to the
‘identity and culture’ aspects of the setting.
70
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
My exploratory study set out to answer the question ‘what constructions of
children and childhood are shaping contemporary practices and beliefs in an
English early years setting in 2013?’ It was based on the understanding (James et
al., 1998) that there are many forms of construction and therefore an ‘issue of
plurality …[with] diverse constructions’ (p.27) and appreciations that these
constructions have implications for thinking and practice (Moyles et al., 2002)
which as reflective practitioners we need to be aware of. It was located within
Vandenbroek et al.’s (2010) claim that in terms of societal constructions ‘early
childhood provisions are outstanding examples of “the social arena”’ (p.140) and
focused within the educational perspective and my personal role as an early years
lecturer, stimulated by my own previous recognition of the complexity of ideas
and thinking within the first version of EYFS (DCSF, 2008) and ignited by my
thinking in response to reading Tickell (2011). I then related these to
understandings of policy as practice using Vidovich’s (2007) policy cycle model
(p.291).
The study revealed a complex range of constructions within the literature review
and in the key documentation and practitioner discussions. These were identified
in a content analysis tinted by my own personal lenses and thus my ‘researcher
self’ which I have also endeavoured to reveal to address aspects of the credibility
of the study. From this plethora of constructions I have drawn and presented some
key themes which stood out in the data to me which are aspects of ‘happy
childhoods’; ‘constructs of group’; ‘age constructs’; and ‘child as active’. My
identification and discussion of these themes therefore provides an answer to the
research question that these are shaping contemporary practices and beliefs in
Butterflies and that there are tensions between them with mixtures of James et
al.’s (1998) ‘presociological’ and ‘sociological’ paradigms (pp.10,26), they
generate different nuances of ‘symbolic capital’ competence (Haralambos and
Holborn, 2013, p.73), and reflect some of the emerging constructs of the ‘pre-
71
schooled child and childhood’. However, I also understand that this is only a
partial answer to the research question, and I acknowledge that any answer to this
question would only ever be an incomplete one both because there is no one truth
and because the complexity and embededness of constructions means that all
could never be known. One limitation of the study has been that only a few
constructions have been developed from the rich material collected.
Whilst the fact that the answer is partial, which I initially saw as a limitation of
the study, does not mean that it is without value, since the surfacing of
constructions provides opportunities for reflection upon them by participants in
the study, by myself, and by readers of the study to confirm, to challenge or to
further clarify the attitudes, actions and approaches which they underpin. I
recognise that the study would have benefited from a sharper focus on specific
constructions and a clearer analytical framework. Reflecting on this, I identify
that in formulating the question there has been an underpinning tension between
my explicit understandings that all knowledge is constructed and an underlying
implicit one that leaving the question open will allow ‘truths’ to be found. This
also led me to develop a broad rather than deep literature review from which it
has been difficult to unpick themes for analysis.
My findings suggest that within the ‘happy childhood’ construct there are a range
of dissonances and pulls between visions and reality and in ‘societal group’
constructs that children are variously viewed, although most commonly as an
individual group. Constructs also reflect the positioning of early childhood
settings in what Pugh described as the ‘L-shaped dilemma’ (2010, p.17) with
aspects of Bertram and Pascal’s (2002) ‘Romantic perspective: as an immature
biological being to be protected in an enriched environment’ (p.15) in tension
with Hendrick’s (1997) ‘schooled child’ construct (p.45). Butterflies may find it
helpful to discuss these constructs to ensure that they can more fully articulate
their own positions in setting discussions and documentation. Tensions between
the ‘L’ are also visible within other themes and Butterflies’ participants may wish
to consider ways to explore these tensions, starting perhaps by looking at attitudes
72
and approaches to ‘counting’ revealed in the discussions about two year olds, may
be through the use of a participative action research cycle and more broadly by
looking at where they feel they should be positioned in terms of ‘the EPPE child’
construct. In terms of ‘age constructs’ some clear age boundaries between two
and three years were apparent in the setting which it might be appropriate to
explore, whilst a different set, those of ‘baby’ are partially articulated in
DMEYFS. Since ‘baby’ practitioners were not involved in the groups then it is
not possible to comment on constructs here. When elements were directly related
to children they were constructed as ‘active’, particularly in DMEYFS
documentation. However, the same was not found to be true in terms of how
practitioners were advised to work with children and the most common phrases
found here ‘support, help and encourage’ all carry implications which can be
interpreted as deficit constructs of children in ‘need’ . The identification of an
unclear theoretical base in the DMEYFS, however, also provides practitioners
with the opportunity to develop a local formulation of practice in which they can
decide whether these terms should be interpreted as the needy child or how this
might be changed by careful practice interpretation. This again, is something
which I would recommend that the nursery setting at the heart of this study,
‘Butterflies’ considers developing.
To answer the question it was necessary to identify and justify my ‘form’ (Clough
and Nutbrown, 2012, p.20) for the study as well as articulate my set of beliefs and
reasons to underpin it and these aspects were as challenging to me as researching
the content of the question. This was partly because I chose to use a combination
of policy and policy-in-practice with documentary analysis and discussions in a
methodology which did not seem to quite fit with other practices I found during
my research, but which I have sought to justify through clear articulation to aid
credibility and dependability and I feel fitted the study. I suggest that it could
legitimately be used as the stepping off point for other studies.
This exploratory study also opens opportunities for future research beyond
Butterflies. A documentary study of the various English curricula might identify
73
more clearly the threads of principles which underpin them. I suggest that a
further analysis of the study documentation might reveal more or illuminate
further the constructions identified. In particular a more detailed analysis of
extended suggestions for practice within the EYFSPD could explore the
‘vacuous’ hole on practice with ‘support, encourage and help’ to uncover more
implicit constructions of children and childhood. Equally, a clearer focus on
identifying a frame for the existence of ‘agency’ constructs, to consider what
Dahlberg et al. (2007) suggest is the construct of ‘the child as a co-constructor of
knowledge, identity and culture’ (p.48) also offers a future research direction.
Other future study could also identify with more clarity contemporary
constructions drawn from curriculum and other policy documents and research
which may be underpinning the EYFS such as the ‘EPPE child’ and the ‘preschool child’ and the way that these are articulated across the school/PVI divide.
In concert with this it would be interesting to work on adapting and developing
methodologies which might address the void in documentary research described
by McCulloch (2004, p.11).
Finally therefore I reflect on the study in the light of Clough and Nutbrown’s
(2012) argument that the ‘purpose of much research … is … to investigate
questions, enquire into phenomena and explore issues’ (p.4) with the intention of
‘bringing about some kind of change’ (p.10). I believe that my research study has
endeavoured to ‘investigate, enquire and explore’ in a range of ways by seeking
to formulate and carry out the study. Whilst I cannot comment on whether it will
bring about change, I do hope it has been a valuable experience for Butterflies as
well as for me and that the findings will be used as an aide-mémoire to their selfevaluation. Similarly I cannot really know if my work will encourage the
participants in Butterflies to be more empowered or if it will assist other readers
to be able to harness their own inherent power in the interpretation and
development of policy but it remains an aspiration that it may do so. However, I
can identify that it has brought about some personal changes. In terms of my own
teaching and practice I have become very aware of the impact of the phrases and
terminology I use now and in the future and have identified some key EYFS
phrases, namely ‘help, support and encourage’ which I will now bring into my
74
teaching to encourage students to see beyond them. In terms of my own research I
have reflected on and appreciated in further depth my own role in the process
including considerations about the situated ethical ‘rights’ and roles of
participants and researchers. I have also developed my skills and understandings
in designing and adapting studies, interviewing, content analysis, handling and
presentation of the data and the development of themes. In terms of my own
understandings I have used the opportunity to challenge and articulate my own
beliefs. In these ways the study has already brought about change in me.
75
REFERENCES
Ariès, P. (1962) Centuries of childhood. (R. Baldick Trans.). London, Pimlico.
(Original work published 1960).
Bacchi, C. (2000) Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us?
Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education 21(1), 45-57
Baldock, P., Fitzgerald, D. and Kay, J. (2013) Understanding early years policy.
3rd edition. London, Sage.
Barron, I. and Holmes, R. (2005) Aspects matter. In: L. Abbott and A. Langston
(eds) Birth to three matters: supporting the framework of effective
practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp.15-30.
BERA (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Available from:
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1t9gr/BERAEthicalGuideline/resources
/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.yudu.com
%25252Fitem%25252Fdetails%25252F375952%25252FBERA-EthicalGuidelines-2011 [Accessed 20 August 2013]
Bertram, T. and Pascal, C. (2002) The OECD thematic review of early childhood
education and care: background report for the United Kingdom.
Worcester: Centre for research in early childhood, University College.
Available from: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/2479205.pdf
[Accessed 18 March 2013]
Blaise, M. and Ryan, S. (2012) Using critical theory to trouble the early childhood
curriculum: Is it enough? In: N. File, J. Mueller and D. Basler Wisneski
(eds) Curriculum in early childhood education: re-examined,
rediscovered, renewed. Abingdon, Routledge. pp.80-92.
Blundell, D. (2012) Education and Constructions of Childhood. London,
Continuum.
Bruce, T. (1987) Early Childhood Education. Sevenoaks, Hodder and Stoughton.
Bruce, T. (2005) Early Childhood Education. 3rd ed. London, Hodder Arnold.
Burman, E. (2008) Developments: child, image, nation. Hove, Routledge.
Burns, D. and Chantler, K. (2011) Feminist methodologies. In: B. Somekh and C.
Lewin (eds) Theory and methods in social research. 2nd edition. London,
Sage. pp.70-77.
Cannella, G. and Lincoln, Y. (2011) Ethics, research regulations, and critical
social science. In: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The Sage handbook of
qualitative research. London, Sage. pp.81-89.
Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2012) A student’s guide to methodology. 3rd
edition. London, Sage.
76
Coady, M. (2001) Ethics in early childhood research. In: G. MacNaughton, S.
Rolfe, and I. Siraj-Blatchford, (eds) Doing early childhood research:
international perspectives on theory and practice. Buckingham, Open
University.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research methods in education.
7th edition. Abingdon, Routledge.
Cole, M. (1998) Can cultural psychology help us think about diversity? Mind,
Culture and Activity 5(4), 291-304
Crowe, B. (1983) Play is a feeling. London, Unwin.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (2007) Beyond quality in early childhood
education and care: languages of evaluation. 2nd edition. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Davis, R. (2010) Government intervention in child rearing: governing infancy.
Educational Theory 60(3), 285-298.
De Vaus, D. (2001) Research design in social research. London, Sage.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2004) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and
schizophrenia. London, Continuum.
Denscombe, M. (2010) The good research guide for small-scale social research
projects. 4th edition. Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2011) Introduction: the discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The Sage
handbook of qualitative research. London, Sage. pp.1-19.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008a) The early years
foundation stage: setting the standards for learning, development and
care for children from birth to five. 2nd edition. Nottingham, DCSF
Publications.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008b) Statutory framework for
the early years foundation stage: setting the standards for learning,
development and care for children from birth to five. 2nd edition.
Nottingham, DCSF Publications.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008c) Practice guidance for the
early years foundation stage: setting the standards for learning,
development and care for children from birth to five. 2nd edition.
Nottingham, DCSF Publications.
Department for Education (2011a) Supporting families in the foundation years.
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supportingfamilies-in-the-foundation-years [Accessed 1 June 2013]
77
Department for Education (2011b) Reforming the early years foundation stage
(the EYFS): Government response to consultation. Available from:
https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Governm
ent%20response%20doc%20191211%201630%20finaltext%20KM%20C
B%201808(v2).pdf [Accessed 3 August 2013]
Department for Education (2012) Statutory framework for the early years
foundation stage: setting the standards for learning, development and
care for children from birth to five. Runcorn, Department for Education.
Available from:
http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g00213120/eyfsstatutory-framework [Accessed 13 June 2013]
Department for Education (2013) More great childcare: raising quality and
giving parents more choice. London, Department for Education.
Department for Education and Skills (2002) Birth to three matters framework
pack. London, DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Every child matters: change for
children. Nottingham. DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every child matters: next steps.
Nottingham, DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2005b) Early years foundation stage:
direction of travel paper. Available from:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7310/1/060309_rmann_fndtn_eyfs_direction_of_trav
el.pdf [Accessed 12th June 2013]
Drever, E. (2003) Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research: a
teacher’s guide. 2nd edition. Glasgow, The SCRE Centre, University of
Glasgow.
Early Education (2012) Development matters in the early years foundation stage.
London, Early Education. Available from:
http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/Development-Matters-FINAL-PRINTAMENDED.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2013]
Early Years Curriculum Group (1989) Early childhood education: the early years
curriculum and the national curriculum. Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham
Books.
Eisenstadt, N. (2011) Providing a Sure Start: how government discovered early
childhood. Bristol, Policy Press.
File, N. (2012) Curriculum and research: what are the gaps we ought to mind? In:
N. File, J. Mueller and D. Basler Wisneski (eds) Curriculum in early
childhood education: re-examined, rediscovered, renewed. Abingdon,
Routledge. pp.14-26.
78
Foddy, W. (1993) Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires:
theory and practice in social research. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Gillie, C. and Allen, G. (1996) Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools
Bill [Bill 41 of 1995/96] Research Paper 96/8. House of Commons
Library. Available from:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qLHvaWM7JDkJ:www.pa
rliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP968.pdf,%2520accessed%252022%2520November%25202011+voucher+ba
sed+nursery+scheme+1996&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiyZ0
uPSLSa_VTs69F-ZPRRMiEnBc1OE7ffY7ZGuZZhq4sIgTqunTOlqHNF-Xe-1D1DaRAZf3zu5SsqTw-hooVmYCSGEaIoTGBrnKYVu76nclAEYnK9il2vcfvZ7af4f0fFp&sig=AHIEtbTbuJV2CwinNMgNQ4__jjwD_jHoHg [Accessed 28
March 2013]
Goldschmied, E. and Jackson, S. (1994). People under three: young children in
day care. Abingdon, Routledge.
Goldson, B. (1997). ‘Childhood’: an introduction to historical and theoretical
analyses. In: P. Scraton (Ed.), ‘Childhood’ in ‘crisis’? London, UCL
Press. pp.1-27.
Goouch, K. and Powell, S. (2013). The baby room: principles, policy and
practice. Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Hammersley, M. (2010) Reproducing or constructing? Some questions about
transcription in social research. Qualitative Research 10 (5), 553-569
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (2013) Sociology: themes and perspectives. 8th
edition. London, Collins.
Hendrick, H. (1997) Constructions and reconstructions of British childhood: an
interpretative survey, 1800 to the present. In: A. James and A. Prout (eds)
Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the
sociological study of childhood. 2nd edition. London, Routledge. pp.34-62
HM Treasury, (2004), Choice for Parents, the Best Start for Children: a Ten Year
Strategy for Childcare, London, HMSO.
Hill, M. (2013) The public policy process. 6th edition. Harlow, Pearson Education.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd edition. London, Sage.
Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London, Routledge.
Honan, E. (2004) (Im)plausibilities: a rhizo-textual analysis of policy texts and
teachers’ work. Educational Philosophy and Theory 36 (3), 267-281
James, A. (1998). From the child’s point of view: issues in the social construction
of childhood. In: C. Panter-Brick. (Ed.), Biosocial perspectives on
children. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp.45-65
79
James, A., Jenks, C., and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing childhood. Cambridge,
Polity Press.
Josselson, R. (2007) The Ethical Attitude in Narrative Research: Principles and
Practicalities. In: D. Clandinin (Ed) Handbook of Narrative Inquiry:
Mapping a Methodology. London, Sage.
Ltscotland (2007) ESRC seminar 1: Critical issues for pre-school education.
Available from: http://wayback.archiveit.org/1961/20100624210324/http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/earlyyears/prof
essionaldevelopment/events/esrc/seminar1/index.asp [Accessed
13/05/13]
Langston, A. and Abbott, L. (2005) Framework matters. In: L. Abbott and A.
Langston (eds) Birth to three matters: supporting the framework of
effective practice. Maidenhead, Open University Press. pp. 1-14.
Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist research in theory and practice. Buckingham,
Open University.
Letherby, G., Scott, J. and Williams, M. (2013) Objectivity and subjectivity in
social research. London, Sage.
Levin, P. (1997) Making social policy: the mechanisms of government and
politics, and how to investigate them. Buckingham, Open University
Press.
Lock, A. and Strong, T. (2010) Social constructionism: sources and stirrings in
theory and practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mac Naughton, G. (2003) Shaping early childhood: learners, curriculum and
contexts. Maidenhead, Open University Press.
McMillan, M. (1919) The Nursery School. London, Dent and Sons.
Marsh, C. (2009) Key concepts for understanding curriculum. 4th edition.
Abingdon, Routledge.
McCulloch, G. (2004) Documentary research in education, history and the social
sciences. Abingdon, Routledge.
McCulloch, G. (2011) Historical and documentary research in education. In:
L.Cohen, L. Manion and K. Morrison (eds) Research methods in
education. 7th edition. London, Routledge. pp.248-255.
McDowall Clark, R. and Baylis, S. (2012) ‘Wasted down there’: policy and
practice with the under-threes. Early Years: An International Research
Journal 32(2) 229-242.
McGillivray, G. (2008) Nannies, Nursery Nurses and Early Years Professionals:
Constructions of Professional Identity in the Early Years Workforce in
England. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2),
242-254.
80
Mills, R. (2000) Perspectives of childhood. In: J. Mills and R. Mills (eds)
Childhood studies: a reader in perspectives of childhood. London,
Routledge. pp.7-38.
Mitchell, L. (2007) A new debate about children and childhood. Could it make a
difference to early childhood pedagogy and policy? PhD thesis Victoria
University of Wellington. Available from:
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/347?__utma=1.138216584
7.1374508667.1374508667.1374508667.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1374508667&
__utmc=1&__utmx=&__utmz=1.1374508667.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(n
one)&__utmv=-&__utmk=255488008 [Accessed 20 May 2013]
Morss, J. (2002) The several social constructions of James, Jenks and Prout: a
contribution to the sociological theorization of childhood. The
International Journal of Children’s Rights 10, 39-54.
Moyles, J. and Paterson, A. (2001) The reflective dialogue method. In: J. Moyles,
S. Adams, and A. Musgrove, (2002) SPEEL: Study of Pedagogical
Effectiveness in Early Learning Research Report 363. London, DfES.
pp.161-163.
Moyles, J., Adams, S. and Musgrove, A. (2002) SPEEL: Study of Pedagogical
Effectiveness in Early Learning Research Report 363. London, DfES.
Moylett, H. and Stewart N. (2012) Understanding the revised early years
foundation stage. London, British Association for Early Childhood
Education.
New, R. (1998) Theory and praxis in Reggio Emilia: they know what they are
doing, and why. In: C. Edwards, L.Gandini and G. Forman (eds) The
hundred languages of children: the Reggio Emilia approach – advanced
reflections. 2nd edition. London, Ablex Publishing. pp.261-284.
North Yorkshire County Council Children and Young Peoples Services (2011) A
guide for childcare providers on policies and procedures. Available from:
http://cyps.northyorks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12685&p=0
[Accessed 6 August 2013]
Nsamenang, A. (2009) Cultures in early childhood care and education. In: M.
Fleer, M. Hedegaard and J. Tudge (eds) Childhood studies and the impact
of globalization: policies and practices at global and local levels. London,
Routledge. pp.23-45.
Nurse, A. (2007) Introduction: dilemmas and debates. In: Nurse A. (2007) (ed)
The New Early Years Professional: Dilemmas and Debates. Abingdon,
Routledge.
Nutbrown, C., Clough, P. and Selbie, P. (2008). Early childhood education:
history, philosophy and experience. London, Sage.
81
Nutbrown, C. (2012) Foundations for Quality: The independent review of early
education and childcare qualifications. Final Report. London,
Department for Education.
Nutbrown, C. (2013) Shaking the foundations of quality? Why ‘childcare’ policy
must not lead to poor-quality early education and care. Sheffield, The
University of Sheffield. Available from:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.263201!/file/Shakingthefoundationso
fquality.pdf [Accessed 27 March 2013]
Ofsted (2012a) Early years self-evaluation form. For provision on the early years
register. Manchester, Ofsted. Available from:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/early-years-online-self-evaluationform-sef-and-guidance-for-providers-delivering-early-years-founda
[Accessed 21 May 2013]
Ofsted (2012b) Evaluation schedule for inspections of registered early years
provision: guidance and grade descriptors for inspecting registered early
years provision from September 2012. Manchester, Ofsted. Available
from: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/using-early-years-evaluationschedule-guidance-for-inspectors-of-registered-early-years-settings-req
[Accessed 17 July 2013]
Ofsted (2012c) Top providers urged to get ready for two-year-old education offer.
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/top-providersurged-to-get-ready-for-two-year-old-education-offer [Accessed 17 July
2013]
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) Starting strong
III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. OECD
Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264123564-en
Osgood, J. (2012) Narratives from the nursery: negotiating professional identities
in early childhood. London, Routledge.
Ozga, J. (2000) Policy research in educational settings: contested terrain.
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Painter, E. (2011a). Module 1: Early childhood education – history and policy.
Unpublished postgraduate paper. Sheffield School of Education,
University of Sheffield.
Painter, E. (2011b). Module 2: Development, learning and curriculum in early
childhood education. Unpublished postgraduate paper. Sheffield School
of Education, University of Sheffield.
Painter, E. (2011c). Module 3: Contemporary issues in early childhood education.
Unpublished postgraduate paper. Sheffield School of Education,
University of Sheffield.
Penn, H. (2008) Understanding early childhood: issues and controversies. 2nd
edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
82
Powell, S. (2010) Hide and seek: values in early childhood education and care.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(2) 213-229.
Prout, A. and James, A. (1997) A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood?
Provenance, promise and problems. In: A. James and A. Prout (eds)
Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the
sociological study of childhood. London, Routledge.
Pugh, G. (1996a) A policy for early childhood services? In: G. Pugh (ed)
Contemporary issues in the early years: working collaboratively for
children. 2nd edition. London, Paul Chapman Publishing. pp. 9-29
Pugh, G. (1996b) Introduction. In: G. Pugh (ed) Contemporary issues in the early
years: working collaboratively for children. 2nd edition. London, Paul
Chapman Publishing. pp. 1-6.
Pugh, G. (2010) The policy agenda for early childhood services. In: G. Pugh and
B. Duffy (eds) Contemporary issues in the early years. 5th edition.
London, Sage. pp.7-20.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000) Curriculum guidance for the
foundation stage. London, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Qvortrup, J. (1994) Childhood matters: an introduction. In: J. Qvortrup, M.
Bardy, G. Sgritta and H. Wintersberger (eds). Childhood matters: social
theory, practice and politics. Aldershot, Avebury pp.1-23.
Roberts-Holmes, G. (2012) ‘It’s the bread and butter of our practice’:
experiencing the Early Years Foundation Stage. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 20(1) 30-42.
Rumbold, A. (1990) Starting with quality. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Ryan, P. (2008) How new is the ‘new’ social study of childhood? The myth of a
paradigm shift. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 38(4) 553-576.
Saracho, O. (2012) Creativity theories and related teachers’ beliefs. Early Child
Development and Care, 182(1), 35-44.
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (1996) Nursery education:
Desirable outcomes for children’s learning on entering compulsory
education. Available from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED433091.pdf
[Accessed 24th March 2012]
Smetsky, I. (2003) Deleuze’s new image of thought, or Dewey revisited.
Educational Philosophy and Theory 35(1) 17-29
Stainton Rogers, W. (2009) Promoting better childhoods: constructions of child
concern. In: J. Kehily, (ed) An introduction to childhood studies. 2nd
edition. Maidenhead, Open University Press. pp.141-160.
83
Stephen C. (2010) The early years research-policy-practice nexus: challenges and
opportunities. In: N. Yelland (ed) Contemporary perspectives on early
childhood education. Maidenhead, Open University Press. p.248-264
Stephen C. (2012) Looking for theory in preschool education. Studies in
Philosophy and Education. 31 227-238.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart B. (2004).
The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: final
report. London, DfES.
Teaching Agency (2012) Early years professional status standards from
September 2012. London, Department for Education. Available from:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/EarlyYearseducation
andchildcare/Page1/TA-00083-2012 [Accessed 26 March 2013]
Tickell, C. (2011). The early years: foundations for life, health and learning: an
independent report on the early years foundation stage for Her Majesty’s
Government. London, England: Department of Education. Available
from:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/F/The%20Early%20Years%
20Foundations%20for%20life%20health%20and%20learning.pdf
[Accessed 30th March 2011]
Tobin, J., Wu, D. and Davidson, D. (1989) Preschool in three cultures: Japan,
China and the United States. London, Yale University Press.
Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y. and Karasawa M. (2009) Preschool in three cultures
revisited: China, Japan and the United States. London, The University of
Chicago Press.
Turenen, T. and Määttä K. (2012) What constitutes the pre-school curricula?
Discourses of core curricula for pre-school education in Finland in 1972–
2000. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 20(2), 205215.
The University of Sheffield (nd) Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving
Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue: Version 6
Available from:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.112655!/file/General-Principles-andStatements.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2013]
Uprichard, E. (2008) Children as ‘beings and becomings’: children, childhood and
temporality. Children and Society 22, 303-313
Vandenbroeck M. (2006). Globalisation and privatisation: the impact on
childcare policy and practice. Working paper 38. Bernard van Leer
Foundation: The Hague, The Netherlands. Available from:
http://www.bernardvanleer.org/Globalisation_and_privatisation_The_imp
act_on_childcare_policy_and_practice [Accessed 20 October 2010]
84
Vandenbroeck, M., Coussée, F. and Bradt, L. (2010) The social and political
construction of early childhood education. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 58(2), 139-153.
Vandenbroeck, M., Roets, G. and Roose, R. (2012) Why the evidence-based
paradigm in early childhood education and care is anything but evident.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 20(4), 537-552
Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: some theoretical
framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review 59 (3), 285-298.
Waite, S. (2011) Children learning outside the classroom: from birth to eleven.
London, Sage.
Whiteman, P., De Gioia, K. and Mevawalla Z. (2012) Perspectives. In:
P.Whiteman and K. De Gioia. (eds) Children and childhoods 1:
Perspectives, places and practices. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge
Scholars Publishing. pp.1-15.
Woodward, K. and Watt, S. (2004) Science and society: knowledge in medicine.
In: D. Goldblatt (ed) Knowledge and the social sciences: theory, method
and practice. 2nd edition. London, Routledge. pp.8-40.
Zhao, G. (2011) The modern construction of childhood: what does it do to the
paradox of modernity? Studies in Philosophy and Education 30, 241-256.
85
APPENDIX ONE
86
APPENDIX TWO
Practitioner interview schedule with accompanying comments as
sent on emails.
Hello All,
As promised here is a copy of the items we are likely to be talking about in our
research discussions so that you can read them through and think about in
advance. This is not an exam or a test of any kind and there are no wrong
answers, I genuinely just wish to seek your honest individual ideas, opinions and
views. The current plan is for the interviews to be in small groups (2 or 3 people)
and take place on Tuesday 2nd July, depending on when cover can be arranged. I
anticipate that it will take up to an hour.
I look forward to seeing then.
Esther
Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research and sparing the time for this
interview. I want to understand what ideas and beliefs about children and
childhood are influencing practice in this setting. It is often the case that we each
hold a range of ideas and these may or may not be the same as everybody else’s in
the setting. Our similarities and differences are what make this interesting to
explore.
So it is your ideas, as individual members of the setting, that I am interested in
exploring in this interview.
It is not my intention that you should feel uncomfortable at all during the session
and if you feel you do not wish to cover any topics or questions please feel free to
say that you do not wish to discuss this item.
87
I wish to remind you that in the interests of personal, setting and child
confidentiality information should be kept general rather than specific with no
actual names and places mentioned. May I also ask for your individual agreement
not to share details of real/participant research names and comments made in this
group with others outside this interview so that anonymity might be maintained.
In the unlikely event that the discussions reveal anything which I deem as a child
protection concern then the setting’s child protection procedures will be followed
and confidentiality arrangements will be overruled.
Discussion:
1. I would like to start by collecting some brief background information about
you individually. It will also help me distinguish your voice on the recording for
later analysis.

a name, other than your own, which you would like to be called during
this research project

Please could you put your research name on the sticky label provided to
help us all remember how to address each other

Your year of birth

Whether you are yourself a parent or not

The year you started working with children as a practitioner

What early years qualifications you hold/are working towards

The year you started work in this setting.

Your current job role – (in certain circumstances this might identify you to
anyone else in the setting reading the research summary).

The age range/ranges you are working with
2. Imagine that this setting has no names at the moment.

What would you call the setting?

What would you call the base rooms?
88
Please explain why you have made these choices.
3. Currently this setting describes itself as a nursery and pre-school.

Would you use these words?

Please explain why.
4. What, in your view, are the main aims of this setting?
5. What kind of child does this setting aim to produce?
6. Please list what you think are your most important jobs as a practitioner?

Please explain why you have made these choices.
7. I am going to slowly read a short observation of a child and her activities.
Interrupt me at any point if you think you, as a practitioner, would get involved.
When I have finished please explain the decision you have made.
8. In your base room how are decisions made:
- on the layout of the room?
- on the toys in use?
- on the music and songs?
- on the books and stories?
- on the focus activities?
- on being inside or outside?
89
- on the technology used in the room?
9. The four EYFS principles were recently described in a research project as ‘the
bread and butter of our practice’. How do you view them?
10. The EYFS talks about the ‘unique child’. Describe what this means to you.
Use illustration/illustrations from your work in the setting, (remember not to use
‘real names’), if it helps.
11. According to the EYFS it aims to:
‘ensure that children learn and develop well and are kept healthy and safe. It
promotes teaching and learning to ensure children’s “school readiness” and gives
children the broad range of knowledge and skills that provide the right foundation
for good future progress through school and life’.
Do you agree with all of these aims?
12. Is there anything else you want to say or add?
Is there anything else that you want to ask me?
13. Thank you for allowing me to interview you. I will now copy out our
discussions from the recorder and analyse them for the research project. If there is
anything I am very unsure about I may come back to you briefly for further
clarification.
Additional question sent by email:
As a result of some other analysis that I am doing for the project I have now come up
with an additional topic over the weekend I would like to ask people in tomorrow's
interviews and wondered if it would be possible for you to let them have a copy of it
today?
The topic is:
'The EYFS uses some frequent phrases relating to how we practice and I am keen to
understand what they may mean to you. They are 'encourage', 'help' and 'support'.
90
Can you explain your understanding of these - use some illustrations from your practice
today if you find this helps
Let us start with 'encourage'
Now move on to 'help'
Finally 'support'
91
APPENDIX THREE
Extended version of the process of documentary analysis
Being familiar with parts of the statutory document and non-statutory guidance
for this research I sought to find a way to make it less familiar. I decided that a
fresh perspective of it could be found and made the decision to look at the actual
words used in them to see what constructions of children and childhood might be
drawn from them. My initial unit of analysis in the statutory document was a
single word and the document was manually searched and the terms
children/child/infant/baby/pupil/childhood (including plural and ‘s versions) were
highlighted. The results of this generated numeric figures which allowed for very
limited analysis. The process was repeated with the addition of a second word
which prefixed the single unit. The two numerically largest two-word units,
children and child, were then sorted separately into initial categories to see what
this might reveal. The numerical small units of infant /baby/pupil were included
with the children term. It became apparent that the two-word unit did not appear
to be sufficiently descriptive in many cases and so a further extraction of up to a
four-word unit was carried out in a staged manner and these were then sorted and
re-sorted several times into emerging categories. The extension to four words in
particular led to the need for other decisions to be made such as how to deal with
a range of situations such as where the target word, for example, children, was the
first word in a sentence, or after a colon. In this situation words after the target
word, rather than before it, were used in the analysis. Other situations such as
‘apostrophe s’ also led to the development of guidance rules. Eventually the
numerically large number of up-to-four-word units for children and child were
merged together to generate some final categories. The identification of names for
the categories was also difficult since I was struggling to express what I was
finding and was trying to find words which did not themselves carry associative
implications for constructions. I found that the words used were often clumsy and
did not really express the connections which I felt were present. This process is
shown graphically over the page and the details of the final up-to-four-word units
sorted into each merged category are available in appendices four and five.
92
Smallest unit of
analysis
‘children’
Re-analysis
using ‘children’
and prior word
Initial sort into
categories
Re-analysis
using 2 prefix
words initially
for standalone
categories
Re-sort into
categories
Re-analysis of
‘Children’ (34
references) in
social group to
fourth word
followed by resort and
subsequent reanalysis of other
words up to
fourth word
including
merging of
baby/infant/pupil
Final categories
before merge
with ‘child'
Initial Categories:
Positional
Legal
Description
Social group
Practice verbs
General verbs
Time/possibilities
Standalone – of
children; by
children; for
children; with
children
Second
Categories:
Positional
Description
Social group
Practice verbs
General verbs
Time/possibilities
Focus of provision
Focus on child
Joint focus
Final Emerging
Categories:
Home
Multi-agency
Description (A)
Description (B)
Practice
General actions
Time and location
Focus of provision
Focus on child
Joint focus
Documentation
Groups
Design
/environment
Imperatives
Responsibility
Growth and
development?
Not categorised
93
Smallest unit of
analysis ‘child’
Re-analysis
using ‘child’ and
prior word
Initial sort into
categories
Re-analysis of
up to fourth
word
Re-sort into upto-four-word
categories
Remained mainly
as words which
could not easily be
categorised:
a child (28)
the child (24)
each child (12)
every child (5)
their child (5)
per child (3)
any child (2)
individual child (2)
no child (1)
child-initiated (1)
local child (1)
to child (1)
unique child (1)
Final Categories
emerging before
merge with
‘children’:
Imperatives
Descriptive
Health and Safety
The other people
Agency
Joint focus
Documentation
Place/position/time
and occasion
Ownership?
Practice
Individuals
94
The initial word chosen for investigation was the largest numeric group ‘children’
and the subsequent analysis of ‘child’ proved to be less complex both because it
was numerically smaller and because my experiences from the analysis of
‘children’ were built upon.
A broadly similar approach and process was used for the analysis of the nonstatutory guidance document. Due to the density of the words in the document
and the time available for this research project I decided to use only part of the
document for detailed analysis. The pages selected as representative were the
cover, the introductory pages, the characteristics of effective learning, and the
guidance which encompasses the first early learning goal within each of the seven
areas of learning.
95
APPENDIX FOUR
Table showing breakdown of phrases and category allocations
drawn from SFEYFS
Focus of provision
(educational programs) for children
care of children
development of children’s
education of children
Every child deserves the
experience(s) for children (3)
experiences for each child
health of children
interests of children
necessary to promote children’s
needs of all children (3)
needs of children
opportunities for children
opportunity for children
outcomes for children
process for children
provided for children (2)
safe for children
safety of children (2)
security of children
stimulating, and where children
suitable for children
well-being of children
Home
For children whose home
Illustrations
children are confident to
children concentrate and keep
96
children count reliably with
children develop and learn
children develop quickly in
children express themselves effectively
children follow instructions involving
children have and develop
children investigate and experience
children know about similarities
children know the importance
children learn and develop
children learn best when
children learn by leading
children learn to be
children listen attentively in
children play co-operatively taking
children read and understand
children recognise that a
children show good control
children sing songs, make
children talk about how
children talk about past
children use everyday language
children use their phonic
children use what they
Journey
As children grow older
deterioration in children’s
development involves giving children
development of all children
development of each child
level of progress children
readiness’ and gives children
significant changes in children’s
97
steps to keep children
years, if a child’s progress
Not Categorised
including how those children
arise for the children
are necessary when children
role, when a child starts
Others
about staff and children
adults and other children
and/or carer(s) the child
carers about a child’s
know that other children
of all the children
person (including the child)
providers, if a child
teachers about each child’s
Practice
Agency
child-initiated
led by children
used by children
Documentation
and inform the child’s
carer’s comments into children’s
completed for all children
completed for each child
evidence on how children
example in the child’s
information about a child’s
information for each child
information on a child’s
obtained from the child’s
picture of a child
98
records about their child
relating to the child
summary of their child’s
their assessment of the child
they think the child
Focus on child
and capacities all children
children will have differing
children’s comments which give
different ways that children
Each child’s level of development
experience of children
name of their child’s
names of each child’s
names of the children
privacy of the children
so that every child
Health and Safety
adversely affect a child’s
be administered to a child
concern in the child’s
concern that a child may
contact with children (5)
contact with the children
drinks for children
food allergies that the child
injury sustained by the child
issues – particularly concerning
children’s
prescribed for a child
punishment to a child
take to keep children
visitors can identify children’s
99
with local statutory children’s
Imperatives
also ensure that children
and must accompany children
children must also be
children must be given
children must be kept
children must usually be
Each child must be
learning to ensure children’s
must attend a child
must ensure that children
must ensure that children
must explore the child’s
must identify the child’s
must indicate whether children
must only release children
staff to ensure children’s
the EYFS ensuring children
to ensure that children
to ensuring that children
Joint Focus
contact with a child
directly with children (3)
directly with the children (4)
in guiding their child’s
interaction(s) with the children (2)
this with the child’s
up–to-date with their child’s
use with the children
work(ing) with children (2)
working with the child
working with the children
100
Statements
any risks to children’s
appropriate action if children
assess children’s (2)
care for children (3)
care of all children
care of babies
carers of children
commentary on each child’s
consider whether a child may
day–to–day observation about children
enabling children
encourage(e)ing children(2)
ensure(ing) that every child (3)
for responding to children
guiding children (2)
have concerns about children’s
help(ing) children (2)
igniting children’s
including children
looking after children
observation of children’s
observing children
or to manage a child’s
practise doing verbs with children
practitioners to recognise children’s
relationship for the child
response to each child
safeguard(ing) children (6)
support(s) children (2)
teach its infant (classes)
they should discuss children’s
to hear the children
101
to help the child
to look after children
to look after children
to support the child(s) (2)
understanding children
Responsibility
charge of the children
children may be left
permission for children
permission to leave children
responsibility for the child
their own baby
to collect a child
Space/Place/Time
(area) for children
a separate baby (room)
age and infant (class)
all times when children
areas where the child’s
at times when children
Before a child
equipment for babies
event of a child
for changing any children
For children attending more
If a child (5)
in a baby (room)
in which a child is
in which the child
play area, when children
reach of children
school where the child
settings in which children
102
size of infant (classes)
space available to children
the setting where the child
to child
vehicles in which children
When a child is
Where children are provided
Units - Descriptive
10/6/4/13/8/3 children (8)
any child (2)
attitudes children
children aged three to
children under two years
For children aged three (3)
for sibling babies
foundation children
If child aged four…
individual child (2)
individual children (2)
local child
local children
majority of children
more children
no child
number of children (2)
older children (2)
per child (3)
sleeping children
unique child
young children (5)
younger children
youngest children
103
APPENDIX FIVE
Table showing breakdown of phrases and category allocations
drawn from DMEYFS
Environment/Provision
Places
areas in which children
areas where some children
book area where children
floor so that babies
listening area where children
Resources
activities that give children
and materials for children
and resources where children
balls, so that children
bingo to develop children’s
books about the children
collect resources that children
dolls that help children
games to welcome children
in print where children
instruments so that children
interesting things for children
make books about, children
marks so that children
materials that enable children
materials to support children
moulds for young children
number labels for children
photographs of the children
portable equipment that children
print such as a child’s
props which support children
104
provide props for children
puppets which allow children
resources that support children
resources which represent children’s
role-play opportunities for children
simple texts which children
stories for all children
stories that encourage children
story props that children
sufficient equipment for children
than counters for children
with materials reflecting children’s
Time
a period for children
an opportunity for children
in opportunities for children
key opportunity for children
make time for children
plan time for children
predictable routines help children
sessions based on children’s
time for all children
time for helping children
Groups
activity with other children
adults and other children
adults and that children
between adults and babies
child observing what children
children play co-operatively
conflicts with other children
cooperation between two children
105
cultures and in babies’
encourage adult and child
Encourage parents of children
in grouping of the children
or identifying other children
out about other children
people and support children’s
people in the child’s
problems for other children
showing how many children
support babies and children
you and the children
Illustration
babies explore media and
Children can maintain focus
children count reliably with
children listen attentively to
Children read and understand
children show good control
children sing songs, make
children talk about
children then all hear
e.g. clapping the baby’s
favourite stories as babies
images of all children
independence as young children
interested in watching children
the names of children
the needs of children (2)
the positive impressions children
When children can see
Imperatives
be aware that babies
106
be aware that children
E/ensure children (3)
ensure that children (5)
ensure that each child
make sure babies
Journey
all the ways children
Children are born ready
Children develop and learn
children develop at their (18)
Children develop in the
Children develop quickly in
Children develop their own
Children learn and develop
Children learn to be
Children will become more
development of the children
help to discover children’s
steps for individual children (18)
the different ways babies
ways in which children
Location
school so that children
Not Categorised
about what the child
about whether a child
and are related to children’s
and between one baby
and knowledge for children
and phrases so babies
as how the child
as possible for children
attention - not under child’s
107
carefully why some children
English, particularly where children
For those children
in which the child
meaning for the child
or why some children
so that young babies
that a young baby
years provision, including children
Principles
A Unique Child
a unique child (19)
accept wholeheartedly young
children’s
and opportunities for children
and respect all children
are relevant to children’s
Children have a night
columns headed ‘Unique Child’
Every child is a
involve all children
is a unique child
on each unique child
opportunities for the child
rights of the Child
the diversity of children
the safety of children
the unique child
to all the children’s
unique child
value the ways children
will benefit all children
108
Practice
anticipate
Anticipate young children’s
attention
attention to how children
attention when young children
more attention when children
more attention when children
avoid
Avoid children’s just reproducing
broaden
unfamiliar, to broaden children’s
calm
and calm over-stimulated children
care
care for all children
create
Create opportunities for children (2)
decode
decode words with children
dress
dress or change babies
enable
Enable children (2)
experiences to enable children
vocabulary to enable children’s
encourage
and encourage young children
do, and encourage children
Encourage and support children’s
Encourage babies (3)
Encourage children (20)
Encourage young babies
109
Encourage young children
endings and encourage children
receiving games, encouraging children
reference and encourage children
resources and encourage children
texts and encourage children
that encourage young babies
engage
Engage babies
explain
explain safety to children
extend
and extend the child’s
backgrounds to extend
extend concentration for children
questions to extend children’s
feedback
feedback and help
follow
about the methods children
Add child-made
fitting in with children’s
Follow children’s
Follow the baby’s
follow the ideas children
from examples the children
give
Give children (4)
help
can to help children
downs to help babies
Help babies
110
Help children (13)
Help young children (2)
opportunity to help children
hold
hold and handle babies
identify
identify where the child
interest
interest in how children
introduce
Introduce and encourage
Introduce children
invite
Invite children
invites responses from babies
involve
involved in a child’s
keep
keep children safe
let
Let children
listen
by listening to children
make
Make sure children
model
Model to children
move
move with babies
notice
Notice and support babies’
Notice what arouses children’s
111
Notice when babies
observe
and observe each child’s
Observe children
Observing how a child (3)
observing what a child
observing what a child (15)
plan
Plan activities where children
Plan opportunities for children
Plan support for children
play
Play with children
provide
Provide children
Provide opportunities for babies
provide to a child’s
read
Read stories that children
read stories to children
respect
Always respect children’s
respond
respond to different children
responding quickly to babies’
responds differently to children
response to the children
responsive to the child’s
review
practitioners to review children’s
scaffold
and scaffold individual children’s
sensitive
112
in sensitively to babies
share
Share photographs of children’s
show
and showing the baby
Show babies
Show children
Showing how young babies
sing
sing with young babies
stimulate
stimulate children’s
support
additional support for children
and support the child
critically support children’s
Critically support children’s learning
practitioners to support children,
Support and encourage young babies
Support children (9)
support each individual child’s
supportive of the child’s
sure to support children’s
Thinking critically support children’s
(13)
to support each child’s
to support the child
to support young babies’
talk
greet a young baby
say goodbye to babies
Talk about children’s
Talk about why children
113
Talk about young children’s
Talk to children (3)
Talk to young children
Talking aloud helps children
teach
available and teach children
Practitioners teach children
Teach children
Teach children skills
use
fully obtained – using child’s
with
Discuss with children (2)
display with the children
interact with young babies
interacting with young babies
Listen with children
shared thinking helps children
Talk with babies
Talk with children (4)
them with all children
them with the children
with the things children
work
work together for children
Relationship
friendship with another child
games that their babies
who know the baby