In Search of Social Justice

John Bennett's Lifetime Contribution to Early Childhood Policy and Practice

Nóirín Hayes, Mathias Urban

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138204959
• eBook ISBN: 9781315468112
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Commemorating the life and work of Dr John Bennett; his lifelong contribution to Early Childhood Education and Care, and his ongoing influence on policy, research and practice in this field, In Search of Social Justice is a tribute to a preeminent scholar and his vision for an equitable and high-quality start for all children.

Working tirelessly to raise the profile of Early Childhood Education and Care, and prioritise the rights and well-being of children and families in national and international policy, John Bennet played an invaluable role in improving the position of young children globally. In Search of Social Justice takes John's legacy as a starting point for critical examination of the changing discourse on Early Childhood Education, and argues for the continued relevance of his approach. Drawing on personal reflections, vignettes and testimonials from eminent authors who shared their professional lives with him, the book foregrounds John's insistence that we must continue to shape policy and provision through inquiry, high-quality evidence, passion and persistence, improving the early experiences of all young children.

As much a celebration of John's work and achievements, as a call to collective action towards achieving his vision for equitable, quality early childhood education and care, this is a fascinating read for students, researchers and activists in the field of Early Childhood Education and Care.

Chapter 1

Early childhood education and care

Where so much begins

Nóirín Hayes and Mathias Urban

This book celebrates the life and work of Dr John Bennett, who passed away in April 2015. John’s lifelong contribution to the field and discipline of early childhood education and care has had an enormous influence on policy, research and practice globally. John probably came to the attention of a wider global audience through his work for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in his role as coordinator and lead author of the two Starting Strong reports (OECD, 2001, 2006). These comparative studies of early childhood policies in 20 countries remain the benchmark for comparative studies in the field. However, before joining the OECD, John had already made major contributions to global early childhood research and policy through his work as Head of the UNESCO Early Childhood and Family Unit (1989–1997). During this time, he was the official representative to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the UN Committee for the International Year of the Family.

Following his involvement with the OECD, John coordinated further ground-breaking work with a specific focus on the situation of young children and their families living in disadvantaged or marginalised contexts, particularly the Roma communities across Europe. Throughout his professional career John has shown how the rights and well-being of children and families can be brought onto national and international policy agendas through expertly conducted inquiry, high quality evidence and personal passion and persistence. His legacy is an exemplar of committed critical inquiry providing the ‘evidence base’ for policies aiming at making a real difference for children and families, including those most marginalised.

Early childhood education and care has gained a prominent place on international and national policy agendas in recent years. International agencies including the European Union, the World Bank, UNICEF and UNESCO now share a broad consensus that providing high quality services for young children and their families is key to achieving highly ambitious macro-political goals related to economic and social development, social cohesion, peace and reconciliation, and other critical aspects of human society. John Bennett’s work has been a major contributing factor to forming this consensus that is manifest in many high level policy documents and strategies. In their reflection, Santo Pais and Jespersen expand on how John’s belief in the dignity of the child informed his work and influenced this ‘reinvigorated global vision for early childhood development’.

John was an unassuming radical and an egalitarian with a core commitment to child rights and social justice. From early on he saw the importance of early childhood education to the life of children, their parents and society in general. I [NH] first met John in the late 1990s when Ireland presented its first national and shadow reports on the UNCRC to the UN Committee on Children’s Rights. Our common interest in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and Ireland provided a point of contact and we met on many occasions from then on. When the Centre for Social and Educational Research at the Dublin Institute of Technology held a seminar series on Early Childhood Care and Education for policy makers, practitioners and academics I [NH] was delighted when John accepted our invitation to speak at the inaugural event in November 2006. In his paper ‘Early Childhood Education and Care Financing in Ireland’, he drew on his extensive knowledge of the international ECEC scene positioning Ireland within an OECD frame. He did not shirk from presenting some unpopular observations concluding that Ireland’s delay in investing in ECEC seemed to spring from ambivalent attitudes towards the role of women in contemporary Irish society and to a distrust of ‘socialised’ childcare linked to a lack of examples of affordable, high quality, centre-based services. He identified examples of policy incoherence and suggested that underinvestment seemed to derive from an under-estimate of the importance of early childhood education and from treating the sector as if were a junior primary school with a pedagogy and child: staff ratio at odds with the ‘natural learning strategies of young children’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 13). He characterised the natural learning strategies of children from 1 to 6 years as ‘warm inter-personal relationships and communication with both peers and caring adults (based on an ethics of care); personal investigation of their surrounding environment, including outdoors; much personal and social play; and (in early education centres) participation with peers in interesting, well-designed project work’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 13). And with his light touch and insightful mind he suggested, off the record, that Irish policy makers might look to our Viking roots when developing ECEC strategy … an observation that has currency even today as we still await that strategy!

John fundamentally believed in the value and importance of early childhood to the learning and development of all children and to its potential to contribute to a democratic and egalitarian society. He held a rich view of ECEC services, recognising them as contributing to ‘child health, well-being, social development and education in the broad sense … that is education as both self-actualisation and knowledge acquisition (the former being especially important in the early childhood years)’ (Bennett, 2013, pp. 52/53). He further believed that society owed it to children to ensure that wherever they spent their early childhood should be a place of high quality. Guided by this underlying belief and supported by facts, figures and research evidence he focused his energy on strengthening the argument and shaping it in a way that might lead to change for young children (Bennett, 2012).

Well able to recognise the complexities of transforming policy approaches, John exhibited clarity of thought with measured and pragmatic argument when making his case, either in writing or orally. He used his keen skills to untangle complex issues and careful use of language to guide discussion. Rather than overstate the importance of ECEC alone, he tended to locate his discussions about ECEC within the broader context of contemporary cultures and childhoods, child rearing and early learning and always with the child as the central focus. He was also unafraid to use forceful language to make a point. For instance, suggesting strategies for improved ECEC policy and writing under the heading ‘defence of equal opportunity and the labour force participation of women’ he wrote:

It would be helpful if research on women’s earnings were to become better known, and linked to the issue of the availability of affordable early childhood support services. Societies cannot have their loaf and eat it. If the participation of women in the labour force in maximum numbers is now indispensable for economies, and if women have custody of children nine times out of ten in the event of divorce, separation or the like, then their work needs to be protected, for the good of society. Attachment to the labour force at the best possible level is often a necessary precaution for mothers and children, for example in case of family breakdown, illness or other unforeseeable events. To ensure this attachment, in conditions favourable for women and young children, clear public policies on care as well as on education are necessary.

(Bennett, 2003, p. 43)

Drawing on the extensive information garnered from the extensive OECD Starting Strong project, described in detail in the chapter by Michelle Neuman, John identified eight policy elements as the foundational requirements for any coherent and functioning system of Early Childhood Education. Building on these elements in Starting Strong II, John concluded that report with a set of proposed ‘policy areas for consideration by governments’ (OECD, 2006, p. 4) when developing and supporting ECEC systems. These are presented and discussed in more detail in the essay by Peter Moss. Over the years, John crystalised discussion of the foundational policy elements into two structural/systemic challenges at the heart of his work: (i) the split system and (ii) the relationship and alignment between ECEC and compulsory primary school. Failing to overcome these barriers, he argued, compromised the potential of ECEC for positive impact, particularly with populations who experienced disadvantage and marginalisation. Using these two policy challenges as a starting point, one can distil many of the central aspects of John’s thinking and his modus operandi and learn from his experiences to guide future actions to continue his ambition of improving the ECEC experiences of all children.

(i) The split system

Writing in the first issue of the Journal of Early Childhood Research in 2003, which reported on the findings from the Starting Strong I report, John identified the first key policy element as the need for a

[…] systematic and integrated approach to policy development and implementation [which] calls for a clear vision for children, from birth to eight, underlying ECEC policy, and coordinated policy frameworks at centralised and decentralised levels. A lead ministry that works in cooperation with other departments and sectors can foster coherent and participatory policy development to cater for the needs of diverse children and families. Strong links across services, professionals, and parents also promote coherence for children.

(Bennett, 2003, p. 24)

While recognising the historical provenance of the split between education and care so common in ECEC policies, he highlighted the negative consequences of this deep-rooted division resulting in:

• (i) A great imbalance of investment and supply of services for the under-threes and the over-threes
• (ii) The relative neglect of care in education, including after-school places
• (iii) The continued weak position of women in the labour market

Furthermore, he argues, the fragmentation that arises from the split system limits the potential of ECEC to contribute in efforts to:

• Reduce poverty
• Promote gender equity
• Improve education systems
• Value diversity
• Increase quality of life

He identifies the benefits of an integrated system of ECEC with one lead ministry as including a universal entitlement, affordable access, a well-educated workforce and smoother transitions across the education sectors (Bennett and Kaga, 2010, p. 40).

John was neither overly idealistic nor ambitious regarding the potential of ECEC to combat disadvantage and marginalisation. Recognising that social conditions, poverty and family dysfunction all impact on children’s overall health, functioning and development he does point out that early childhood settings, schools and their curricula can make a difference to children’s lives. However, he identifies major challenges for ECEC setting enrolling large number of children from low-income and immigrant families particularly around providing secure, accessible learning environments that were safe and staffed by well qualified and certified staff who had a holistic approach to young children and reached out to parents. He argued that to achieve equity for children and families across all spheres of society a radical approach to policy commitments and investment was necessary where early childhood systems would be supported ‘by a broader welfare system that links policies across many sectors – employment, education, health and social services – and which presupposes a cultural and political commitment to democratic rights, equality and solidarity’ (EC, 2012, p. 56).

John realised that the structural and conceptual split between care and education evident in many of the Starting Strong countries with weak, fragmented services of questionable quality ‘remains a formidable barrier to forging a strong identity for the early childhood sector’ (Bennett, 2013, p. 52). A consequence of this is evident in the often the invisible nature of ECEC as a player in discussions and strategies on broader educational and societal developments.

A liberal, inclusive and broad education has always been central to the tradition of ECEC. John strongly identified the potential contribution of ECEC to guide thinking and reform – emphasising the necessity to have respectful and constructive communication and co-operation with on-going dialogue. He was not unaware, however, of the dangers of the lamb of a fragile, emerging ECEC system lying with lion of strong, well-established structures and influences! The findings from both Starting Strong I and II (OECD, 2001 and 2006) convinced John of the possibility of having an early childhood system with a strong identity, able to act independently. In her chapter on the Australian experience Collette Tayler traces the influence of John’s work on the policy developments towards strengthening and enhancing a quality ECEC system.

(ii) The relationship and alignment between ECEC and compulsory primary school

ECEC cover only a brief period in the educational life of a child when relationships, interactions, learning environments and personal meaning making are paramount. John appreciated the importance of this critical period when children are forging a personal identity and recognised it as one that required professionals who know how ‘to conduct a nurturing pedagogical relationship with young children … understand how young children learn … model social behaviour … respond to the many developmental tasks of importance … at this moment’ (2013, p. 62). He recognised that by nurturing the social and emotional development of young children at this time, a strong base is established and strengthened from which children quickly master the more academic skills of literacy and numeracy. The concept of nurturing pedagogy is a powerful one as it creates an integrating space for strengthening the relationship between care and education with powerful implications for quality ECEC practice (Hayes, 2007; Hayes and Kernan, 2008; Hayes and Filipovic, 2017).

Locating ECEC within the broad concept of education, which he characterised as comprising self-actualisation and knowledge acquisition, John saw ECEC as bridging the public and private sphere and, as such, holding a unique place in the lives of young children and their families. Through his exposure to multiple policy and practice approaches to ECEC across the countries of the OECD and beyond, John was particularly impressed by the quality and status of ECEC systems within the Nordic countries, which he noted catered comprehensively and in an integrated way for children from 12 months to 6 years of age. The pedagogy which so impressed John, found also in other exemplary ECEC approaches such as seen in the Reggio Emilia region of Italy, was one that valued relationships and the personal interests of children as the learning sites within which knowledge originates and where pedagogy brought together notions of care, upbringing and learning in an interconnected way. Quality ECEC settings applied an integrated and integrating approach to learning, which placed great emphasis on supporting children in their immediate interests towards enriching their current development.

He was further impressed by Nordic ECEC policy, which saw this level of education as primarily about introducing children to society and fostering key social dispositions as well as attitudes to learning rather than concentrating on school readiness. He noted that the goal of Nordic ECEC settings was far wider than school readiness and ‘included developmental readiness, heath and motor development, behaviour and self-regulation, learning to live together, language development with expression and communication the hundred languages of children, learning to learn through play and other natural learning strategies of young children’ (2013, p. 55). Furthermore, careful attention was given to the transitions children make into the school setting with close communication between the ECEC system and Compulsory School Education (CSE).

In his writing, his research and his policy presentations, John was unafraid to challenge orthodoxy, remaining principled and always diplomatic. While calling for a strong and equal partnership between ECEC and CSE (OECD, 2001), John was well aware of the difficulties some countries experience in realising this in practice. In commenting on the presence of teachers in ECEC settings where ECEC and CSE are seen as separate and where, within ECEC, care and education are seen as separate he noted that ‘such teachers, though admirable in many respects, are generally not trained in the family, health and social dimensions of educating young children’ (Bennett, 2013, p. 57). For instance, he was critical of what he termed schoolified ECEC and, without pointing to particular countries or settings, he described features of it as ‘either characterised by age segregation; personnel trained as teachers; large numbers of young children in one group; neglect of child play, family outreach and the social dimensions of play’ (Bennett, 2013, p. 58). He pointed out that a schoolified ECEC system could also be seen where settings and staff had limited expectations and ambitions for young children and focused mainly on keeping children safe and well while parents work. His point was that neither system sufficiently took account of the needs, capacities and interests of young children and the goal, where there was one, was a compliant child attuned to listening to the teacher towards achieving specified goals or outcomes!

Despite these observed realities, John remained optimistic that the power and potential of ECEC could be unlocked if the policy focus could shift, where necessary, to recognising ECEC as primarily a system for all children rather than a service to either parents, marginalised or disadvantaged children or the future of society. In his loyalty to the tradition of ECEC and his conviction that this unique educational period is critical in a child’s life he argued that ECEC should draw more explicitly on its own tradition and revisit its basic goals, concepts and pedagogical approaches. By refocusing discussion in this way, he believed that the ECEC research community was not only capable of organising a ‘comprehensive and aligned early learning system for young children from 12 months to 6 years of age but also of c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• About the Contributors
• Preface
• 1 Early childhood education and care: where so much begins
• 2 Improving policies for young children through comparison and peer review
• 3 Education – a fundamental human right from birth
• 4 ‘To aspire toward ECEC systems that support broad learning, participation and democracy’: reflections on John Bennett’s final words on Starting Strong
• 5 Social equity and the case of Australia’s early childhood education and care system reform
• 6 The life of a polymath: shared threads of thinking and action
• 7 Straggling behind: participation of Roma children and employment of Roma staff in early childhood education and care in Europe
• 8 Learning from John to inform the future development of early years services in Ireland
• 9 Start(ing) Strong’s vision – ECEC in Ireland
• 10 Unexpected meeting, lasting impact
• 11 Gentle, passionate and, most of all, persistent: John Bennett’s influence on European Union ECEC policy
• 12 Much has been achieved – but now is not the time for complacency
• Index