SILLA TAPIZADA

The policy and empirical analyses pointed to three factors related to the image of the child that supported a balanced relationship in Sweden. These factors were: (1) the strong preschool tradition that supports holistic pedagogy and preparation for life as its purpose; (2) the Swedish culture that supports democracy, equality and safeguarding of childhood; and (3) familiarity with the question of the image of the child.

Safeguarding the preschool tradition

The image of the child that underlies the policy regarding the relationship is most discernable in the 1996 reform integrating preschool within education, the curricular developments in 1998 and the education act in 2011. The 1996 reform took inspiration from the 1994 government investigation recommending a ‘child-mature’ Swedish school, i.e. a school that considers the whole child and that addresses the individual child’s learning needs and style. This lent support for the government vision of bringing preschool influence into the first years of compulsory school. In terms of curricular development, the 1998 preschool curriculum and the revised school curriculum in 1998 share a common view of the child – the whole child, as active, competent, constructing learning and understanding in interactions with others and the surrounding environment – and sharing some of the traditional preschool approaches, such as play and emphasis on different ways of self-expression. This is observed to have been influenced by Reggio Emilia, which shares with Sweden the notion of competent child and democratic values of education.

The 2010 revised preschool curriculum maintains the same image of the child as the original one. However, the new emphasis on subject matters and evaluation can pave the way to a less holistic understanding and approach to the child. Concerning the legal changes, the adoption of the new Education Act in 2011 was significant from the viewpoint of the image of

the child. Although the Education Act stresses preschool as a distinct form of school and supports the continuation of the traditional preschool approaches (e.g. holistic approach to the child, important place of parents in preschool), a symbolic change is that, officially, the concepts of ‘education’ and ‘teaching’ now apply to preschool – which has been resisted, sometimes fiercely, by preschool stakeholders. This could lead to possible interpretations that would support the adoption of schoolified approaches in preschool.

These suggest the existence of strong preschool tradition and consensus on safeguarding the uniqueness and strengths of the Swedish preschool, and on reinforcing its pedagogical task. The policy calling for a common view of the child for the preschool and school indicates a favourable view of cooperation between both levels of teacher. Thus, the policy analysis shows a close connection between the image of the child suggested in the policy documents and the preschool’s culture and tradition. Moreover, the empirical analysis demonstrated that the curriculum was at the centre of teachers’ consideration on the relationship, and that there is general agreement on the purpose of the preschool as preparation for life.

As presented in Chapter 6, the Swedish preschool and preschool classroom settings have a much less school-like character than the French settings. They are more home like, evident in the availability of larger spaces, comfortable furniture (such as sofas in both preschool and preschool class), large carpets on which to learn and play, different rooms in which children can choose to go and engage in activities of their interest. In the preschool group, there is one adult for 8 children aged 1-4. In the preschool class, there were two teachers – one qualified as preschool teacher and one as school teacher – having 24 children. Preschool is open from 6:30 until 18:00, enabling parents to bring children according to their work or study schedules, but the main preschool hours are between 9:00 and 14:00. Preschool class is from 8:00 until 14:00, and school-based care is offered outside of school hours, staffed by leisure time pedagogues. Compared to the French settings, the Swedish preschool and preschool classes have more open and flexible timetables. The Swedish settings project an image of the child as the child living and learning together with others, for whom comfort, freedom of movement, making choices and taking own initiative are important.

Strong school tradition

Interview responses suggested that the preschool and school are witnessing the same trend: from the image of the child as passive and empty vessel needing information to be poured into it, to the image of the child as active and competent, participating and constructing knowledge and learning and being investigative, as shown in Chapter 6. However, preschool is considered more capable of translating this image into reality, while school is constrained by its strong traditional school culture, where the teaching is teaching and having the

knowledge and not the student, using transmission pedagogy as the main approach. Also, it was considered due to the fact that the school sector is tied to the requirement that children have to produce results, unlike in preschool which has only goals to strive for. A possible factor with regard to the preschool sector is the influence of Reggio Emilia – whose philosophy and approaches have been disseminated to the Swedish stakeholders through various channels, including the work of the Reggio Emilia Institute in Stockholm established in the early 1990s – that gives inspiration to work with children in a manner faithful to the image of the rich and competent child.

Democracy, equality and safeguarding of childhood

The interview analysis suggests that culture and tradition exert a strong influence on which images of the child, learning and education (including preschool education) are held by individuals, which in turn affect the shape of the relationship they support. Democracy and equality are the fundamental values of Swedish society, which favours the ideas of cooperation and different groups being equal and deserving attention. This is reflected not only at the policy level but also at practice level: for example, the Swedish interviewees talked about teachers and children learning together and from each other. Also, comments from the interviewees regarding the relative unfamiliarity with the notion of school readiness suggest the perservance of the notion of ‘golden childhood’ (Lenz Taguchi and Munkhammar, 2002). Thus, altogether, this gives support for different kinds of relationship between preschool and school between Sweden and France.

Familiarity with the question of the image of the child

Compared to their French counterparts, the Swedish interviewees appeared more at ease when presented with the question of the image of the child in preschool and school. Most Swedish interviewees provided their own ideas about how they would represent children in preschool or school (e.g. a child as active and competent; a child as social; a child as nature; an investigative child and researcher; a child as being part of and constructing learning and knowledge). This gave the impression that there was more awareness among the Swedish interviewees about the relevance of the question in their own work with children. By contrast, the most frequent response from the French interviewees in relation to this question was that the image of the child in the école maternelle and élémentaire were necessarily different because of their different developmental levels, which emphasises a thinking dichotomy of younger/older, less competent/more competent, less autonomous/more autonomous, etc.