Formal "early childhood education" - whatever that means
Today's Australian newspaper announced that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) plans "to switch childcare from babysitting to education" (The Australian, Tuesday 19 December 2006, Page 1). The Age put the ALP's new policy this way: "The opposition has proposed switching the focus of child care from babysitting to education by requiring all childcare centres, including home-based family day care, to provide an early childhood learning program for kids.
The proposal, put forward by opposition families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin, would be implemented if Labor wins government next year". She said that the proposal would "require carers to undergo early childhood education" (The Age, 19 December 2006). According to The Age, Ms Macklin claimed that "parents wanted their kids to receive the best education possible, and evidence showed that the younger children started learning, the better". She added: "We need to get more early childhood education into our childcare centres, into our preschools, into family day care, and that way our children can really get the benefit of early childhood learning."
My God, how low we've sunk in the education non-debate. The new leader of the ALP, Kevin Rudd, told reporters: "If you look at any specialist report on how a young person's intellectual processes are developed ... (early childhood education is) critical". He added: "If you like, the poor cousin of our entire educational system from early childhood through to primary school, secondary school, TAFE, technical college, university ... across that whole spectrum, the poor cousin ... is what happens in early childhood...We have to do better there and we're examining ways in which that can be done."
It is becoming more and more difficult even to discuss these things, so much damage has been done to the ordinary use of the English language. None of the news media spell out exactly what is intended and that, of course, is the essence of today's non-communication. A very careful reading, however, reveals what none of the newspapers are willing to acknowledge in so many words, namely, that we are talking about children of an unspecified age, but very likely between 0 and 3, possibly 0-5. Since this is nowhere spelled out, but has to be worked out from a variety of statements made by a variety of people in one of several places, the absurdity of the proposal is hidden from view. Indeed, it appears progressive. So, when do we begin to "teach" children to read and write or to use mathematical symbols and, more importantly, how do we do so? Do we begin in the first year of life? In the second? Or is the ALP thinking of three-year-olds only? Or do they mean four-year olds perhaps? The simple answer is that there is no answer to these questions because the entire scheme depends on catchy phrases and woolly thinking. The point is, of course, it's a vote-winner. We all want our children educated and the assumption is that the earlier we start the more effective the process. It requires no demonstration because we have all been told, accurately for a change, that, as Mr Rudd said, "what happens in early childhood is critical." We simply do not notice - and are not meant to notice - that the phrase "what happens in early childhood" is not coextensive with the phrase "formal early childhood education", even though the latter phrase is itself not a clearly-defined concept.
Most important of all, the existence of "childcare" as an institution is taken for granted even though the same articles point out that, as it turns out, only 25% of Australian parents actually use such formal arrangements (preferring, apparently, more informal arrangements making use of family members for example). I must admit I thought the figure was much higher and I am to some extent encouraged that most Australians haven't been brainwashed by the "childcare" lobby into abandoning their babies to the care of strangers.
This is the 21st century, of course, so we no longer read - much less heed - the message of writers like Jean Piaget or John Dewey (eg Democracy and education, 1916), nor, even, the more "recent" voices of wisdom contained in the writings of John Holt (eg How children learn, 1967, or What do I do Monday, 1970). And there is simply no interest whatsoever in studies demonstrating that "more" (formal education) may mean "less" (learning). I will continue soon [To be continued].
The proposal, put forward by opposition families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin, would be implemented if Labor wins government next year". She said that the proposal would "require carers to undergo early childhood education" (The Age, 19 December 2006). According to The Age, Ms Macklin claimed that "parents wanted their kids to receive the best education possible, and evidence showed that the younger children started learning, the better". She added: "We need to get more early childhood education into our childcare centres, into our preschools, into family day care, and that way our children can really get the benefit of early childhood learning."
My God, how low we've sunk in the education non-debate. The new leader of the ALP, Kevin Rudd, told reporters: "If you look at any specialist report on how a young person's intellectual processes are developed ... (early childhood education is) critical". He added: "If you like, the poor cousin of our entire educational system from early childhood through to primary school, secondary school, TAFE, technical college, university ... across that whole spectrum, the poor cousin ... is what happens in early childhood...We have to do better there and we're examining ways in which that can be done."
It is becoming more and more difficult even to discuss these things, so much damage has been done to the ordinary use of the English language. None of the news media spell out exactly what is intended and that, of course, is the essence of today's non-communication. A very careful reading, however, reveals what none of the newspapers are willing to acknowledge in so many words, namely, that we are talking about children of an unspecified age, but very likely between 0 and 3, possibly 0-5. Since this is nowhere spelled out, but has to be worked out from a variety of statements made by a variety of people in one of several places, the absurdity of the proposal is hidden from view. Indeed, it appears progressive. So, when do we begin to "teach" children to read and write or to use mathematical symbols and, more importantly, how do we do so? Do we begin in the first year of life? In the second? Or is the ALP thinking of three-year-olds only? Or do they mean four-year olds perhaps? The simple answer is that there is no answer to these questions because the entire scheme depends on catchy phrases and woolly thinking. The point is, of course, it's a vote-winner. We all want our children educated and the assumption is that the earlier we start the more effective the process. It requires no demonstration because we have all been told, accurately for a change, that, as Mr Rudd said, "what happens in early childhood is critical." We simply do not notice - and are not meant to notice - that the phrase "what happens in early childhood" is not coextensive with the phrase "formal early childhood education", even though the latter phrase is itself not a clearly-defined concept.
Most important of all, the existence of "childcare" as an institution is taken for granted even though the same articles point out that, as it turns out, only 25% of Australian parents actually use such formal arrangements (preferring, apparently, more informal arrangements making use of family members for example). I must admit I thought the figure was much higher and I am to some extent encouraged that most Australians haven't been brainwashed by the "childcare" lobby into abandoning their babies to the care of strangers.
This is the 21st century, of course, so we no longer read - much less heed - the message of writers like Jean Piaget or John Dewey (eg Democracy and education, 1916), nor, even, the more "recent" voices of wisdom contained in the writings of John Holt (eg How children learn, 1967, or What do I do Monday, 1970). And there is simply no interest whatsoever in studies demonstrating that "more" (formal education) may mean "less" (learning). I will continue soon [To be continued].
posted by Andrew Reiner at 12/19/2006 04:50:00 pm
0 comments
