de Industria,Turismo y Comercio
E L F ONDO DE A YUDA AL D ESARROLLO
5.1.1. The global and local dimensions
The emergence of neo-liberal ideology has led to a shift in policy formation, where policies are now located within a global system as well as a national context (Lingard and Rizvi, 2010). Consequently, education reform has moved from a state-centred public welfare tradition of educational provision, to a practice that is more greatly aligned to private sector organizations. This is exemplified by the Department for Education (DfE) who legitimise a working relationship between the state and private sector in England, which includes a clear message regarding how the relationship will be managed:
We are establishing a strong relationship between central government, commissioners and providers, and at a local level, based on effective collaboration, targeting of resources, and strong systems of accountability. (2011a, p.13)
The influences of the World Bank and other bodies such as UNICEF have resulted in an increased emphasis on a ‘needs centred’ discourse, which Mahon (2010) argues has
82 provided a justification for programmes that target disadvantage. The additional interest in neuro-scientific perspectives of child development has also drawn greater attention to notions of critical periods, neglect and the environmental impact on education. These global influences play out in distinctive ways within the policy framework in England. The Field Report (2011), for example, outlines the need to provide strategies to prevent “poor children from becoming poor adults” (p.6), and the Allen Report (2011) notes that society’s health, social and behavioural problems have not been addressed because of delayed intervention that “increases the cost of providing a remedy for these problems and reduces the likelihood of actually achieving one” (p.4). The Coalition government’s policy, Supporting Families in the Foundation Years (DfE, 2011a), illustrated how these principles have been translated into policy:
Our focus throughout is on children’s development, so that by the age of five children are ready to take full advantage of the next stage of learning and have laid down foundations for good health in adult life. (p.4)
Further, through consultation on the EYFS:
…the Government has made clear its view that teaching in the early years should be focused on improving children’s ‘school readiness’, guiding the development of children’s cognitive, behavioural, physical and emotional capabilities, so that children can take full advantage of the learning opportunities available to them in school.(p.62)
The investment of public money on improving children’s school readiness is clear, as is the desire to foster a sector which is“entrepreneurial, sustainable and socially responsible” that aims to “draw on the ideas of professionals from maintained, private, voluntary and
independent providers ….to stimulate its growth and culture of innovation” (DfE, 2011a, p.33).
Such a commitment to this new governance (Salamon, 2012) creates a conundrum for government, in terms of how to govern without government (Ozga, 2008). Through the allegiance with globalisation and dominance of the Anglo-American discourse concerned with positivist and technically instrumental ideals (Moss and Dahlberg, 2008), the draw to utilise tools or conditions that are concerned with standardisation, quality, benchmarking
83 and data harmonisation (Ozga, 2008, p.266), becomes the core policy lever. This is
particularly significant for the PVI sector as the government has limited power regarding the conditions that are forced on settings in receipt of public money (Penn, 2014, p.39), and so the only mechanism to assure a return on public investment is to regulate through
measurement of outcomes. Salamon (2002) would refer to this as a ‘coercive’ tool that, through systems of standardisation, restricts opportunities for practice which is sufficiently localised and culturally appropriate. Assessment policy and practice are thus implicated in these neo-liberal discourses as a means by which measurement of children’s progress and practitioner performance can be achieved.
Whilst the rationale for the key policy drivers seems to be derived from human capital theory, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has also been a further global policy driver and provides a contrary view to programmes that target
vulnerable children (Penn, 2011). The OECD has played a critical role in the formulation and dissemination of a paradigm that advocates public investment for social, rather than
economic, benefit (Mahon, 2010). The Starting Strong II (OECD, 2006) report highlights concern with treating ECE as an economic activity and consequently recognises a number of issues and limitations of the reliance on the private sector in providing ECE who, if they fail to deliver policy, could result in serious consequences for the development of young children (Farquhar, 2013, p.292) . Whilst the report does not advocate any particular curriculum model it does raise concerns about the ‘schoolification’ of ECE services. The Starting Strong report paid particular attention to ECE pedagogy, and offered an alternative social pedagogy approach that combines “care, upbringing and learning, without hierarchy” (OECD, 2006, p.59). This view is representative of the turn towards a curriculum approach that takes account of the socio-cultural context of learning where participation and voice are guiding concepts (Buchanan, 2013). The criticism of a school readiness approach is levelled at the English system, reflected in concerns expressed by numerous academic groups (British Educational Research Association (BERA)/TACTYC: Association for
Professional Development in Early Years, 2014; Early Childhood Action, 2012) who outline the potential detrimental effect on children’s learning and development as a result of such performative policy demands. This tension between competing views is apparent in much ECE curriculum and assessment policy, and the final reading of policy seeks to provide an
84 alternative reading that acknowledges the paradigmatic shift to a social pedagogic reading of assessment policy. It is also worth noting, however, that the ‘toolkit’ analogy associated with the most recent, and relevant, OECD Quality Matters report (Taguma, Litjens, and Makowiecki, 2012) is still concerned with discourses regarding measurement of quality. For example, one measure recommended by OECD to ensure quality was to create instruments which could be used to measure curriculum appropriateness and teacher competence (OECD, 2004, p.29). As Farquhar and Fitzsimons (2013) note, this therefore seems to be a mere rhetorical device in which the dominant discourses still portray education as a mechanical process which is subject to remedies and improvements of a technicist nature (p.48) to help solve the problems of underachievement and disadvantage.
5.1.2. Emerging dominant discourses
The ECE sector is seen as the solution to solving the wider economic and social problems that are impacting on educational outcomes, and consequently situates them as a
“producer of predetermined outcomes” (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005, p.5). The language of expediency, productivity and commodification are representative of the tools of governance that drive policy. Indeed, as Gammage (2003) notes, government agencies talk about the education “industry”, or “delivering” a curriculum (p.353) as if children were components in a factory. Closer examination of key policy texts produces an analogy of a production line, or a “delivery chain” (Ball et al., 2011, p.514) where children are constructed as commodities and settings form the beginning of the production line that is required to be quality controlled to ensure expedience in productivity.
Such an analogy sits with a scientific discourse of developmental psychology which sees development as an individual endeavour, and the child as an “isolated unit of development” (Burman, 2001) who needs to be ‘ready’ and fit for purpose for their role in society and contribute to the knowledge and information-based economy. Within this discourse, knowledge is devoid of social and cultural differences, therefore exacerbating social divisions rather than remedying them. Such a reductionist approach means that teaching and assessment techniques reinforce structures of individualism (Burman, 2007) and
85 standardisation. In addition, this discourse assumes development occurs in a predetermined manner, that is defined through surveillance and control (Canella, 1997).
The second reading of policy aims to identify specific policy texts that have been produced to inform assessment policy and reflect on these identified dominant discourses.