Chapter 8 Policy, Discourse and Identity

1. Chapter 8Policy, Discourse and Identity

2. Policy & Practice Policy aims to modify practice; it aims to align practice with the values of governmental ideology. All childhood practitioners are required to translate and interpret policy in order to enable them to either fully embrace intended practice or locate themselves in a position whereby they can balance policy intentions with their own potentially differing values (Lea, 2013). It is important that there is an understanding of how policy can regulate or, indeed, is regulated. However, it is also important that this regulation is not, or does not have to be, all confining. Once policy is established it is ‘…intimately and deliberately woven into the fabric of professional identity and practice’ (Lea, 2013, p21)

3. Contemporary political ideology and philosophy Apple (2013, p6) argued that childhood education policies emanate from ‘…a vision that sees every sector of society as subject to the logics of commodification, marketization, competition and cost-benefit analysis’. Within the United Kingdom, Adams et al. (2015) have already argued that the more holistic education of a child is becoming threatened, and it would appear that ‘economics’ and ‘education’ are not far apart in political discourse; this is evident even in President Obama’s 2016 state of the union address, where childhood education is woven explicitly into the economic discussion, identifying that children need to be ‘job ready’ (the full address is available at: https://medium.Com/@whitehouse/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726#.E0gq7pi8j).

4. Contemporary political ideology and philosophy There is no question that that there has been greater worldwide government attention to childhood education in recent years and a significant increase in early childhood education registrations. Moss (2015, p227) suggests that the increased attention given to childhood education is a result of governments’ alarm, ‘…at the persistence and increase in various social problems and at the threat to national survival arising from intensified global competition’. There needs to be acceptance that there is hidden reasoning behind a dominant discorse and this is particularly evident in childhood education.

5. Algorithms of accountability Recognition from a political perspective that wants to see impact upon societal issues and the economy will inevitably come in the form of algorithms of accountability and performativity. In principle, accountability is not negative (Spencer-Woodley, 2013) and childhood education and childhood educators have a responsibility for high quality provision. The debate emerges on what quality is or looks like, and what controls in terms of curriculum, pedagogical approaches, organisational structures, professional development and inspection emanate from those views.

6. Regulation, control and accountability Sachs (2001, p156) notes, ‘…the efficient operation of the market is fostered through the combination of legislative controls and internal, institutional mechanisms, notably performance indicators and inspections…’ Campbell-Barr & Leeson (2016) state that underpinning all regulation are a collective set of assumptions about childhood and child development that are presented as truths but never questioned. The impact of control and regulation is felt directly in education with specific schedules, non-negotiable curricula, and preferred practices that need to align to inspection beginning to emerge.

7. Regulation, control and accountability Heimer and Klefstad (2015) argue that the pressure that is created in attempting to achieve imposed standards can actually create additional constraints for teachers. The drive for high stakes accountability that emerges from a performativity agenda can potentially harm the childhood education experience as well as the professional identity of childhood educators. ‘Arguably, the high stakes inherent in the performativity discourse can mean the holistic takes second place in practice, even if it is held in high value by trainers, trainees and teachers alike. Yet the performativity culture in schools is unlikely to diminish’ (Adams et al., 2015, p15).

8. Professionalism and professional identity Osgood (2010, p122) noted that the regulatory and performativity agenda within early childhood education was imposing external, ‘…normalising constructions of professionalism’ lacking the affective nature that seemed to define most educators’ conceptualisation of professionalism. Sachs (2001) argues for democratic professionalism and states that at its heart is an emphasis on collaboration and cooperation with ‘child-centred pedagogy’ held central. However, with current professionalism having ‘outcome-focused pedagogy’ at its core (Ryan and Bourke, 2013), we are left with managerial professionalism (Sachs, 2001) bound in competition and managerial principles, espoused both implicitly and explicitly through political discourse.

9. Professional Identity It would seem that educational reform that is imposed without consideration of the emotions and impact on professional identity of educators may be doomed to failure. The reason for such failure may be the result of a ‘crisis of professional identity’ (Bolivar and Domingo, 2006, p344) that can cause resistance to change, drive educators away from a personal commitment to education towards ‘escape routes’ (e.g. guilt; resistance; stress; demoralisation) or drive them to ‘strategic redefinitions’ of practice (ibid). It would appear that educators can modify their practice in the face of a challenge to their professional identity or desire to match what they perceive as the desired professional identity. There is evidence that there is an emergence of designer employees (Casey, 1995, cited in Sachs, 2001) or tick-box professionals (Ryan and Bourke, 2013) – those who are potentially basing their identity on what they perceive to be desired externally.

10. References Adams, K., Monahan, J. and Wills, R. (2015) ‘Losing the whole child? A national survey of primary education training provision for spiritual, moral, social and cultural development’, European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2): 119–216. Apple, M. W. (2013) Can Education Change Society? Abingdon: Routledge. Bolivar, A and Domingo, J (2006) ‘The professional identity of secondary school teachers in Spain’, Theory and Research in Education, 4(3): 339–355. Campbell-Barr, V. and Leeson, C. (2016) Quality & Leadership in the Early Years: Research, Theory & Practice London: Sage. Heimer, l.G. And Klefstad, E. (2015) ‘It’s not really a menu because we can’t pick what we do’: context integration in kindergarten contexts’, Global Studies in Childhood, 5(3): 239–254. Lea, S. (2013) ‘Early years work, professionalism and the translation of policy into practice’, in Z. Kingdon and J. Gourd (eds.) Early Years Policy: The Impact on Practice.London: Routledge. Moss, p. (2015) ‘There are alternatives! Contestation and hope in early childhood education’, Global Studies of Childhood, 5(3): 226–238 Osgood, J. (2010) ‘Reconstructing professionalism in ECEC: the case for the critically reflective emotional professional’, Early Years: An International Research Journal, 30(2): 119–133. Ryan, M. And Bourke, T. (2013) ‘The teacher as reflexive professional: making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(3): 411–423. Sachs, J. (2001) ‘Teacher professional identity: competing discourses, competing outcomes’, Journal of Educational Policy, 16(2): 149–161. Spencer-Woodley, l. (2013) ‘Accountability: tensions and challenges’, in Z. Kingdon and J. Gourd (eds) Early Years Policy: The Impact on Practice. London: Routledge.