CIFRA DE FACTURACIÓN TASA DE VARIACIÓN RESPECTO A

Introduction

This study involves dual disciplines and multiple contexts. Firstly, it crosses the domains of sociology and education, specifically immigrant studies and ECE respectively, and secondly, although it is situated in New Zealand, the participants are Chinese immigrant parents from the PRC, including Hong Kong. Due to the participants’ identity, background knowledge regarding ECE in China and Hong Kong is as important as the contexts of New Zealand ECE. It is thus necessary to examine literature pertaining to New Zealand ECE and the parenting and education practices of Chinese families. The participants’ immigrant identity further indicates the importance of including research findings relating to parental aspirations of immigrants. The range of literature reviewed in this chapter, therefore, is multi-contextual. In order to present contemporary understandings of ECE in the countries involved, information and sources are drawn from recent literature and official websites. At the time of writing this thesis, no ECE information was available from the official website of the PRC Ministry of Education.

This chapter comprises four main sections: contexts of New Zealand ECE; discourses regarding parental involvement; beliefs and practices of immigrant parents; and Chinese contexts of parenting and ECE. Understanding the contexts of New Zealand ECE entails examining the governance and regulations of diverse ECE services, as well as the influence of 7H:KƗULNL, the New Zealand ECE curriculum, in shaping ECE discourses and teaching

practices. Notions of parental involvement and parent-teacher partnership are also critiqued, and the importance of communication, engagement and empowerment in relation to facilitating genuine partnership is highlighted.

International studies indicate that most immigrant parents are education- oriented and use children’s academic success for upward social mobility (Benton & Gomez, 2003; Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002; Feliciano, 2006; Li, 2001; Wu & Singh, 2004). Other studies further show that many immigrants’ perceptions of children’s education and learning are different from the dominant parenting and teaching practices of the host society, and that they usually feel uncomfortable to engage in their children’s ECE settings (De Gioia, 2013; Ebbeck & Glover, 1998; Obeng, 2007; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2007; Tobin et al, 2007). The impacts of a lack of engagement in children’s learning and social cohesion are discussed in this chapter. Likewise, traditional Chinese parenting and education beliefs differ from the dominant New Zealand ECE discourses in many ways. Previous New Zealand studies indicate that many Chinese immigrant parents are unfamiliar with New Zealand teachers’ expectations and that these parents are reluctant to be involved in ECE settings (Chan, 2006; Guo, 2010; Wu, 2011; Zhang, 2012).

Finally, it is easy to assume that since the PRC is founded upon communist ideologies, communism would play a role in shaping the values and practices of the country’s population. However, both Confucianism and collectivism are used often by researchers, including Chinese academics, to explain the practices of Chinese parents and learners (Bai, 2005; Chan, 2004; Li, 2004; Luo, Tamis- LeMonda & Song, 2013; Pearson & Rao, 2003; Rao & Chan, 2009; Salili, 1996; Woodrow & Sham, 2001; Yang, Zheng & Li, 2006). None of the literature

reviewed about Chinese parenting, teaching and learning practices makes any connection to communism.

Contexts of New Zealand ECE

Diverse ECE services

ECE services in New Zealand are non-compulsory and cater for children from birth to school entry which is usually five years of age. There is a diverse range of ECE services in New Zealand and they are “categorised broadly as teacher-OHG DQG SDUHQWZKƗQDX-led to differentiate between how the services operate and are funded” (Lee, Carr, Soutar & Mitchell, 2013, p. 4). A qualified and registered ECE teacher is required to be the person responsible for teacher-led services which include kindergartens, education and care services (privately-owned and community-based childcare centres), and home-based services (Lee et al, 2013). Education and care services further include A’oga Amata and Pasifika language nests. 2QWKHRWKHUKDQG3OD\FHQWUHV.ǀKDQJD Reo and playgroups are led by parents. The three teacher-led services account for the highest number of enrolments (Education Counts, 2013).

Most kindergartens are owned and managed by Kindergarten Associations (Davison, Mitchell & Peter, 2012). The Associations receive bulk funding from the MoE, which is used to pay for staff salaries and some other resourcing, and parents are usually asked to pay a donation or nominal fees. They have historically provided half-day sessional programmes for children from three to five (school age). However, in response to an increasing number of full-time working parents, many kindergartens are extending their hours to match the full- day school model (Davison et al, 2012). Kindergarten teachers are all qualified.

Furthermore, each kindergarten is run by a committee of teachers, parents and people from the community. This committee reports to a local kindergarten association, such as the Auckland Kindergarten Association (AKA) which has “107 public kindergartens throughout Auckland” (AKA, 2007a). The role of the AKA includes overseeing the bulk funding of these kindergartens. Parents and families are encouraged to work in partnership with teaching teams and management (AKA, 2007b), for example, by joining the committee or the association, or volunteering as parent-helpers or fundraisers. Since the term ‘public kindergartens’ is used by the AKA and the participants of this study were recruited from these kindergartens, the term ‘public kindergarten’ is utilised in this thesis to distinguish this type of kindergartens from those community or privately owned and managed kindergartens.

Education and care services offer sessional and all day services. They are privately or community owned and managed but licensed by the MoE, and they also receive government subsidies. Services that practise a particular educational philosophy, such as the Montessori and Rudolf Steiner centres, fall under this category as well (MoE, 2009a). Home-based early childhood services provide education and care for small groups of up to four young children in a home setting, and are also partially funded by the Ministry (MoE, 2009a).

Playcentres are led by parents collaboratively, providing sessional programmes for children from birth to school age and education programmes for parents (MoE, 2009a). Most Playcentres are licensed and funded by the Ministry. Since parents are highly involved in the running of Playcentres (Mitchell & Davison, 2010) and there is a lack of need to pay for staffing, the fees and donations requested from parents are low.

1JƗ.ǀKDQJD5HR centres are licensed by the MoE to cater for children from ELUWK 7H .ǀKDQJD 5HR 1DWLRQDO 7UXVW LV WKH JRYHUQLQJ ERG\ DQG XPEUHOOD RUJDQLVDWLRQ IRU DOO 7H .ǀKDQJD 5HR FHQWUHV ZKLFK SURYLGH 0ƗRUL LPPHUVLRQ SURJUDPPHVWKDWDLPDWVWUHQJWKHQLQJWKHNQRZOHGJHRIWHUHR0ƗRULODQJXDJH and tikanga (culture) of children and their families (MoE, 2009a 7H .ǀKDQJD Reo National Trust, 2013). Families are highly involved in the management and

RSHUDWLRQRI.ǀKDQJD5HRand they are expected to pay fees or a donation. Te

.ǀKDQJD5HR1DWLRQDO7UXVWRIIHUVWUDLQLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUWKH.ǀKDQJD5HR

IDPLOLHV 7H .ǀKDQJD 5HR 1DWLRQDO 7UXVW 3). Finally, Pasifika playgroups

are usually community-based and offer the opportunity for young children to develop their own Pasifika language and culture (MoE, 2009a). Parents contribute to the operation of the programmes.

The wide range of ECE services that receive different levels of government funding offer a mixed provision model and diverse options for families. While each centre and/or service may practise a different philosophy and approach to reflect its beliefs regarding childhood, children, childrearing, teaching and learning, all centres have to comply with mandatory regulations legislated by the government.

Regulations, ‘quality’ and challenges

Education policy reforms in the 1980s saw the introduction of a charter system to New Zealand ECE that required each ECE centre to develop “a statement of objectives and practices, drawn up in consultation with parents, in keeping with the national guidelines for early childhood” (McLachlan, 2011, p. 37). Chartered ECE centres would be bulk-funded and receive differing levels

of funding from the government (McLachlan, 2011; Scrivens, 2002). Currently, all ECE centres are regulated by the Ministry and to operate, each centre must meet the criteria, set out in the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 (New Zealand Government, 2009) and the Licensing Criteria for Early Childhood Education and Care Centres 2008 (MoE, 2008). Regulations include “a comprehensive list of requirements including licensing, health and safety, curriculum, management, and staffing standards” (Scrivens, 2002, p. 159). Only upon meeting these licensing and chartering requirements will an ECE centre receive government subsidised funding, whilst non- government funding includes parental donations, fees and fundraising (McLachlan, 2011; Scrivens, 2002). Each ECE centre has the freedom to decide how to spend the government grant (May, 2007; Mitchell, 2001; Scrivens, 2002).

The discourse of ‘quality’ in ECE has received a significant amount of attention in the last two decades (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999, 2007; May, 2009; McLachlan, 2011; Scrivens, 2002). After the promulgation of 7H:KƗULNL in 1996, the Revised Statement of Desirable Objectives and Practices (DOPs) set out quality standards for the learning and development of children, guidelines for communication and consultation, and the processes of operation and administration (The New Zealand Gazette, 1996). Quality in Action/Te Mahi Whai Hua(MoE, 1998), a printed Ministry resource, further “provided user- friendly guidance for implementing the DOPs” (May, 2009, p. 238). Quality is further monitored by the ERO, which is a New Zealand government agency that reviews, evaluates and reports on the performance of schools and ECE services (ERO, 2014).

ERO recently introduced in the document, He PouTƗtaki: How ERO Reviews Early Childhood Services, a two-tiered process of “complementary evaluation” (ERO, 2013b, p.10) which involves external and internal evaluation reviewed by ERO and the individual ECE centre respectively (ERO, 2013b). Despite the fact that ERO maintains its role in the external reviews of ECE centres, Ken Blaiklock, an ECE teacher-educator, is sceptical of the internal self-review approach promoted by ERO, claiming that there is a lack of evidence to support the robustness of this approach and that there is a “wide variation between services in self-review practices” (Blaiklock, 2012, p. 2). A “differentiated return times” model is used by ERO, which means the frequency of their external reviews depends on “how well placed” each ECE centre is “to promote positive learning outcomes for children”, with most “well placed” centres being likely “to be reviewed every three years” (ERO, 2013b, p. 47). Each centre’s ERO reports are available to the public via its official website. ERO also generates ongoing national reports on various facets of educational provision, such as issues around cultural diversity, quality and literacy in ECE services. These reports are discussed in the documentary review chapter of this thesis.

Improving the quality of ECE services was one of the three main goals set out in 3DWKZD\VWRWKH)XWXUH1JƗ+XDUDKL$UDWDNL$10-Year Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education (MoE, 2002). A strategy suggested by the Ministry of Education to achieve this goal was to increase the number of registered teachers and to have a fully qualified teaching force by 2012 (MoE, 2002). Unfortunately, with a change of government, starting from December 2007, only 50% of the teachers in the education and care sector are required to be registered and qualified with at least a Diploma in Teaching (ECE) or similar

qualification (MoE, 2009a), although teachers working in the public kindergartens must all be qualified and registered (AKA, 2007a).

The lack of professional qualifications in the education and care services has been considered to be one of the key challenges impeding the appropriate and effective implementation of 7H :KƗULNL, the New Zealand ECE curriculum (Scrivens, 2002; May, 2007, 2009; May & Mitchell, 2009). When the curriculum was first released in 1996, very few of the teachers working in ECE services, other than those in the kindergarten sector, had a three-year tertiary ECE qualification. The curriculum was criticised by ERO, which was dominated by “school-sector reviewers”, as too complex and that therefore its implementation would require a “high level of training and/or guidance” (May, 2009, p. 246).

The conceptualisation of 7H :KƗULNL was underpinned by a bicultural, sociocultural and integrative model, incorporating key principles of holistic development, relationships, families and communities, and empowerment. This was very different from those of the school model which focused on separate “basic subjects, the three Rs… pre-planned and measurable learning objectives” (Carr & May, 1993, p. 74). Competency-based learning dispositions were further developed to assist providing evidence of children’s learning, against the “deficit models that dominated school assessment practice” (May, 2009, p. 248). Hence, one of the ongoing challenges experienced by the ECE sector in relation to the provision of quality programmes include pressure from parents and primary school teachers who expect children to be prepared and ready for school (May, 2009).

In general, many parents and educators from the primary school sector expect children to have acquired the basic literacy and numeracy skills, as in reading, writing and mathematics, before starting primary schools. Yet, most ECE teachers believe that a dispositional approach to learning is fundamental and prepares children for life-long learning, including schooling, and that the learning opportunities offered to children within ECE should be discovery, inquiry and play-based, rather than skill acquisition-focused, in order to provide children with a “social and playful preparation for school” (May, 2009, p. 296).

In terms of assessment, ECE teachers are expected to document children’s learning and dispositions for learning, using narrative learning stories which are usually collected in the child’s portfolio (Carr, 2001). This formative model of assessment based on the principles and strands of 7H :KƗULNL is also particularly challenging for primary school teachers to understand (May, 2009; Scrivens, 2002). Many parents and primary school teachers, who are used to an outcomes-based assessment model, struggle to make sense of the broad learning dispositions and narrative assessments that are promoted in Te

:KƗULNL(May, 2009; Scrivens, 2002).

7H:KƗULNL

This section provides a contextual and theoretical understanding of Te

:KƗULNL: +H ZKƗULNL PƗWDXUDQJD Pǀ nga mokopuna o Aotearoa/The New Zealand early childhood education curriculum (MoE, 1996). Since it is a curriculum document, 7H:KƗULNL is also examined in the documentary review chapter, but from a different perspective than is offered in this section. The implementation of 7H:KƗUiki is a mandatory requirement for all licensed ECE

centres (McLachlan, 2011; MoE, 2008). As such, New Zealand ECE reflects Te

:KƗULNL¶V aspirations for children: “To grow up as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society” (MoE, 1996, p. 9).

In the early 1990s, two senior New Zealand ECE academics, Margaret Carr and Helen May, of the University of Waikato, were contracted by the government to coordinate the development of a national ECE curriculum. When the curriculum document, 7H :KƗULNL, was released in 1996, it was acknowledged positively, both nationally and internationally (May, 2009; Ritchie, 2012). It is “one of the first formal curriculum documents for early childhood education, not only in Aotearoa New Zealand, but throughout the Western world” (Farquhar, 2010, p. 77). It was the first bicultural and bilingual curriculum in New Zealand (Ritchie, 2012), reflecting the understanding that New Zealand is a bicultural nation which DFNQRZOHGJHV WKH FXOWXUDO KHULWDJHV RI ERWK 0ƗRUL WKH LQGLJHQRXV SHRSOH RI 1HZ =HDODQG DQG 3ƗNHKƗ 1HZ =HDODQGHUV RI

(XURSHDQ GHVFHQW 7KH VHFWLRQ ZULWWHQ LQ WH UHR 0ƗRUL Ueflects

FRQFHSWXDOLVDWLRQV RI WH DR 0ƗRUL WKH 0ƗRUL ZRUOG YLHZ DQG LW LV QRW D translation of the English version, even though it is based on the similar principles and goals (Scrivens, 2002). These principles and goals are to be explained on the next page.

7H :KƗULNLprovides a non-prescriptive framework for each ECE centre to develop its own curriculum that reflects its community’s aspirations (Nuttall, 2013; Ritchie, 2012). It also embraces a holistic approach that sees children as social beings who develop within strong family and community social networks

(Farquhar, 2010), and stresses child-centred and discovery-based learning strategies and responsive pedagogy that caters for the strengths, interests and needs of children (Ritchie, 2001, 2012). Hence, an integrated approach is suggested by 7H :KƗULNL to incorporate curriculum learning areas like mathematics, language and science into children’s daily routines and activities as interests emerge (Ritchie, 2012).

Interwoven throughout 7H:KƗULNL (literally translated as the woven mat) are four principles (empowerment/whakamana, holistic development/kotahitanga, IDPLO\DQGFRPPXQLW\ZKƗQDXWDQJDWDDQGUHODWLRQVKLSVQJƗKRQRQJDDQGILYH strands (well-being/mana atua, belonging/mana whenua, contribution/mana WDQJDWDFRPPXQLFDWLRQPDQDUHRDQGH[SORUDWLRQPDQDDRWnjURD([DPSOHVRI learning experiences to meet the learning outcomes of each strand and goal are categorised into three ‘stages’ of children’s development: infants, toddlers and young children (MoE, 1996).

These learning outcomes, however, are indicative not definitive (Lee et al, 2013; MoE, 1996), hence they only serve as guidelines but not as prescriptions for practice (Blaiklock, 2012; Nuttall, 2013; Ritchie, 2012). These learning outcomes and the particular mode of assessing and documenting children’s learning dispositions through narrative learning stories, as explained earlier, are endorsed by ERO (2012), and consequently there is a strong expectation that they are implemented by ECE teachers. Nevertheless, Blaiklock (2012) is critical of both, arguing that the outcomes are too broad and provide little support for ECE teachers to assess children’s learning. He also criticises Te

:KƗULNL for assigning little attention to the literacy skills that are so important for children’s development, and that nowhere “in the description of the principles,

strands, goals or learning outcomes is there any specific mention of letters or the alphabet” (Blaiklock, 2008, p. 13). The non-prescriptive nature of Te

:KƗULNL remains a challenge for the ECE sector (Nuttall, 2013), particularly when teachers are asked to explain what children are learning.

Finally, 7H:KƗULNLalso includes an entire section that describes connections with the essential learning areas and skills of the school curriculum, the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (MoE, 1993), which was later revised to the current New Zealand Curriculum(MoE, 2007a). During the development of the New Zealand Curriculum, ECE advocates pressed for “an alignment with Te

:KƗULNL” (Lee et al, 2013, p. 153), and thus the five key competencies of the New Zealand Curriculum are now aligned with the five strands of 7H :KƗULNL (Lee et al, 2013; MoE, 2007a). Some researchers, however, do not believe in positioning ECE as preparation for school (Alcock & Haggerty, 2013).

Theoretical underpinnings of 7H:KƗULNL

7H :KƗULNL is underpinned by four theoretical frameworks, metaphorically described by its authors as the “four tall kauri” (Carr & May, 1996, p. 103), which are the stage/age developmental theories of Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson, and the sociocultural theories of Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner. With its strong sociocultural nature (Ritchie, 2012), 7H :KƗULNL recognises the increasing cultural diversity of New Zealand, and also applies Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to emphasise the social and cultural influences on young children’s learning and development (Lee et al, 2013; MoE, 1996). While the three ‘stages’ of growth and development suggested in Te

developmental perspectives of Erikson and Piaget, other key concepts of these two developmental theories, such as the notion of identity (Erikson) and exploration (Piaget) are also evidenced in the curriculum.

Erik Erikson

Education policy, curriculum practice and advice to parents in New Zealand during the 1950s were strongly influenced by the stage theory of Erikson (May, 2001) in which the following first three stages apply to early childhood: infancy, early childhood and play age (Erikson, 1997). Following the same order, each stage is linked to a pair of “psychosocial crises”: trust versus mistrust, autonomy