Upload
vuongtram
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:
Miller, Melinda G. & Petriwskyj, Anne(2013)New directions in intercultural early education in Australia.International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(2), pp. 251-266.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/62037/
c© Copyright 2013 Springer
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-013-0091-4
1
New directions in intercultural early education in Australia
Melinda G. Miller
Queensland University of Technology
Anne Petriwskyj
Queensland University of Technology
Abstract
Early education in Australia encompasses both early education and care (ECEC) and
the early years of school. Educational approaches to cultural and linguistic diversity
have varied not only by sector, but also by jurisdiction based on distinct curriculum
frameworks and policies. In Australian early education, provision for cultural and
linguistic diversity has been framed largely by multicultural discourse, as defined by a
complex history of progressive, yet often superficial reforms. Current initiatives serve
to change this trajectory and the positioning of stakeholders. The incorporation of
intercultural rather than multicultural approaches offers new possibilities for early
education and directs attention to real challenges for ECEC. They re-position
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Australians, and direct attention to
both Australia’s social cultural and linguistic diversity and to the role of early
childhood educators in enacting more inclusive pedagogies. Challenges yet to be
addressed include the cultural understanding of Australian early childhood educators,
particularly those who identify as Anglo-Australian, deeper policy enactment in
pedagogic practice and negotiation with diverse families and communities.
This paper will address the historical and current policy contexts of
intercultural early education in Australia, the development of intercultural initiatives,
and emerging issues as national policies are introduced. The discussion draws on
responses to intercultural early education in New Zealand and Canada to consider
approaches to intercultural priorities in Australia. The paper will attend predominantly
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives as a core element of change in
Australian early childhood policy, focussing on ECEC.
Keywords: Cultural competence, Indigenous, intercultural, critical.
2
Résumé
L'éducation de la petite enfance en Australie comprend à la fois l’éducation
préscolaire et les services de garde ainsi que les premières années de l'école primaire.
Les approches éducatives de la diversité culturelle et linguistique ont varié non
seulement selon le secteur mais aussi selon la juridiction, sur la base d'orientations de
programmes et de politiques différentes. Dans l'éducation australienne de la petite
enfance, la réponse à la diversité culturelle et linguistique a principalement été
structurée par le discours multiculturel et définie par une histoire complexe de
réformes progressistes, mais souvent superficielles. Les initiatives actuelles ont pour
but de modifier cette trajectoire ainsi que les positions des partis intéressés.
L'inclusion d'approches interculturelles plutôt que multiculturelles offre de nouvelles
possibilités pour l'éducation de la petite enfance et met en exergue de réels défis pour
les services d’éducation et de garde. Ces approches rendent aux aborigènes et aux
indigènes du détroit de Torres leur place de premiers australiens et dirigent l'attention
tant sur la diversité sociale, culturelle et linguistique australienne que sur le rôle des
éducateurs de la petite enfance dans la mise en place de pédagogies plus inclusives.
Parmi les enjeux qui restent en suspens, on trouve la compréhension culturelle des
éducateurs australiens de la petite enfance, en particulier de ceux qui s'identifient en
tant qu'anglo-australiens, la mise en œuvre plus en profondeur de la politique dans la
pratique pédagogique, ainsi que la négociation avec différentes familles et
communautés.
Cet article traite des contextes historiques et actuels de la politique de
l'éducation interculturelle de la petite enfance en Australie, du développement des
initiatives interculturelles et des problèmes émergeant avec l'introduction de
politiques nationales. L'argumentation fait appel aux réponses apportées à l'éducation
interculturelle de la petite enfance en Nouvelle-Zélande et au Canada pour envisager
des approches aux priorités interculturelles en Australie. L'article s'intéresse surtout
aux perspectives des aborigènes et des indigènes du détroit de Torres comme élément
central du changement de la politique australienne de la petite enfance, en se
concentrant sur les services d’éducation et de garde.
Mots clés: compétence culturelle, indigène, interculturel, critique.
3
Resumen
La educacion inicial en Australia abarca tanto la Educación Inicial y Cuidado (EIYC),
como los primeros años de la escuela. Los enfoques educativos en la diversidad
cultural y lingüística han variado no solo por sector sino también por jurisdicción,
basados en los distintos marcos y competencias de los currículum y las políticas. En
Australia la provisión de la diversidad lingüística y cultural ha estado fuertemente
marcada por el discurso multicultural definido como una compleja historia de
reformas progresistas, a menudo superficiales. Las iniciativas actuales sirven para
cambiar esta trayectoria y el posicionamiento de las partes interesadas (stakeholders).
La incorporación de la interculturalidad en vez de los enfoques multiculturales ofrece
nuevas posibilidades para la educación inicial, y dirige la atención a los desafíos
reales en la EIYC. Se reposiciona a los Aborígenes e Isleños de Torres Strait como los
Primeros australianos-as, canalizando la atención hacia la diversidad sociocultural y
lingüística de Australia y al rol de los educadores-as en el sentido de establecer
pedagogías más inclusivas. Entre los desafíos pendientes se incluyen una
comprensión cultural de los educadores-as de infancia inicial australianos,
especialmente aquellos que se identifican como anglo-australianos; la promulgación
de políticas más profundas en la práctica pedagógica; y negociaciones con las
diversas familias y comunidades.
Este artículo abordará contextos políticos históricos y actuales de la educacion
inicial intercultural en Australia, el desarrollo de iniciativas interculturales y los temas
emergentes ante la introducción de políticas nacionales. El análisis está basado en
reacciones a la educación inicial intercultural de Nueva Zelandia y Canadá,
utilizándolas como posibles enfoques en las prioridades interculturales de Australia.
Como elemento de cambio fundamental en las políticas australianas de educación
inicial, este documento se ocupará mayormente de las perspectivas aborígenes e
isleñas de Torres Strait, enfocándose en Educación Inicial y Cuidado (EIYC).
4
New directions in intercultural early education in Australia
Introduction
Intercultural education and multicultural education share goals of equity and
social justice in education yet differ in their emphasis. Intercultural education
arose from concerns that multicultural education failed to address entrenched
deficit assumptions about minority groups. It is distinguished from multicultural
education by its focus on deep engagement with diverse cultures and worldviews
to enrich children and the society, rather than the celebration of differences and
the co-existence of various cultural groups (Gundara & Portera, 2011). Thus, it
goes beyond education about cultural and linguistic diversity to engage
educators and children in challenging stereotypes and racism in order to develop
more inclusive attitudes and behaviours (Gorski, 2008). The key differences lie
in the emphasis of intercultural education on resistance to unequal power
relations, which can be supported in practice by engagement with theoretical
frameworks including critical and post-structuralist theories (Pacini-Katchabaw,
2007; Vandenbroek, 2007). In contrast with additive practices that frame
multicultural education, approaches to intercultural education imply
transformation of power relations between people, and in the ways curriculum is
envisaged and implemented (Keith 2010; Pratas, 2010).
This paper will address the context of intercultural early education in
Australia, particularly in early childhood education and care [ECEC]. The
emergence of intercultural education policy initiatives, and issues yet to be
addressed as national curriculum documents and inclusive policies are
introduced, provide the focus for discussion. The gap between policy formation
and its implementation will be explored, with reference to responses to
intercultural education in New Zealand and Canada. Recommendations for
practice are considered by drawing attention to theoretical frameworks that
support deeper examination of issues around intercultural education, including
how educators in ECEC and teachers in the early years of school enact
intercultural priorities.
5
Australian context of intercultural early education
Intercultural early education in Australia spans several educational settings, each
arising from different historical pathways and facing differing expectations and
pressures. However, they share some socio-political influences and challenges to
implementation of culturally inclusive policy directions.
In Australia, early education spans both the early years of primary school and
the ECEC sector including childcare, school-aged care and preschool education. Early
childhood educators have varied preparation, ranging from vocational training to early
childhood teaching degrees. While the ideological perspectives of cultural and
linguistic diversity for each of these teachers varies according to their differing
professional preparation, some provision for diversity education has been a shared
response to socio-political pressures and international trends (Petriwskyj, 2010a).
Attention to cultural issues in early education in Australia has emerged slowly
across the past 50 years in response to a number of socio-political pressures such as
the influence of the Civil Rights movement in the USA, concern about academic
outcomes for Indigenous Australian children, the integration of migrant groups and
the impact of waves of refugees (Petriwskyj, 2010a). While the initial response in
Australia to migrants and refugees was assimilation, multicultural education emerged
during the 1970s as a response to concern regarding the rights of cultural minorities.
Multicultural education focused mainly on cultural awareness, yet incorporated anti-
bias strategies to assist educators and children to reduce racial discrimination. The
uptake of a liberal form of multicultural and anti-bias education in the United States
and other western contexts attracted critique because of limitations in scope to address
racism and distancing from a sociologically derived understanding about the
multitude of ways racism is reproduced in educational contexts (McLaren, 1997;
Sleeter, 1994; Sleeter & Grant, 2007). Australian scholarship has critiqued
multicultural education for its focus on deficiencies in cultural and home
backgrounds, and enactment as tokenistic or tourist curricula (Edmundson, 2009;
Kalantzis, 2005; Martin, 2007). This reflects similar concerns to those identified in
Europe, where application of the anti-bias approach has been criticised for its
emphasis on racial identity and its failure to address reciprocal power relations and
6
the broader diversity of marginalised groups (Pratas, 20120; Vandenbroek, 2007). The
emergence of intercultural education was one outcome of such criticism.
The international Guidelines on Intercultural Education developed by
UNESCO (2006) attempted to address these concerns. The core principles of the
UNESCO guidelines on intercultural education are that it respects the cultural identity
of the learner through the provision of culturally appropriate and responsive quality
education; provides every learner with the cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills
necessary to achieve active and full participation in society; and enables learners to
contribute to respect, understanding and solidarity among ethnic, social, cultural and
religious groups. The Guidelines encompass a rights based approach to education,
critical awareness of the role of education in combating racism and discrimination,
provision for the heterogeneity of learners and learning in children’s home languages.
The implementation of these principles in ECEC in Australia requires a shift
in thinking, not just a minor change in practices. The evidence on intercultural
education in Australia points to continuing challenges, including cultural
understanding amongst teachers, recognition of Indigenous worldviews, reliance on
specialist teachers of English as an additional language or cultural teaching assistants,
and limited attention to enactment of contemporary notions of social justice involving
critical reflection (Martin, 2009; Miller, Knowles & Grieshaber, 2012; Petriwskyj,
2010b), similar concerns to those evident in early education internationally
(Loveridge, Rosewarne, Shuker, Barker & Nager, 2012). Keith (2010) identifies the
challenge as one of moving from a pedagogy of cordial relations or respect for the
cultural ideas of others, to a pedagogy for difference involving critical reflection on
institutionalised ways of doing things in order to be more socially just. Inclusive early
education is, as Taylor and Giugni (2012) argue, a profoundly political question that
requires both thoughtful policy development and effective policy implementation.
Australian policy initiatives and emerging issues in the implementation of policy will
be addressed separately.
Policy initiatives to advance intercultural early education
In Australia, both the National Statement for Culturally Inclusive Schooling for the
21st Century (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and
7
Youth Affairs (MCEEDYA), 2000) and the Melbourne Declaration of Educational
Goals for Young Australians (MCEEDYA, 2008) address equity goals, including
respect for the specific cultural knowledges of Indigenous peoples. Goal two (2) of
the Melbourne Declaration is supported broadly in the recently implemented national
learning framework for Australian early years services, catering for children aged
birth – 5 years. Titled Being, Belonging, Becoming: The Early Years Learning
Framework for Australia (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (DEEWR), 2009), the framework supports that all children become
successful learners, and that outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young
people are improved. Further, the new Australian National Professional Standards for
Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2011)
require teacher competencies in promoting reconciliation and demonstrating
knowledge, understanding and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
histories, cultures and languages. In ECEC, the National Quality Framework
(Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2012)
indicates that children’s current knowledge and culture as well as their ideas, abilities
and interests should form the foundation for their educational program, that the
dignity and rights of all children should be maintained at all times, and that families
share in decision-making. Cultural support programs delivered through the
Multicultural Development Association and the Professional Support and Indigenous
Support units (DEEWR, 2011) assist ECEC educators to provide cultural information
and build capacity for practices inclusive of children from diverse backgrounds.
In addition to broader cultural policy settings, specific policies regarding the
education of Indigenous Australian children have been developed in line with
governmental strategies to address the imbalance between Indigenous and non-
Indigenous retention and educational outcomes. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Policy and Action Plan 2010-2014 (MCEEDYA, 2010) includes provision
for culturally-inclusive high quality ECEC programs, support during transition to
school, partnership with families and communities, and learning of Standard
Australian English while being recognised as multilingual learners. Integrated models
of early childhood service provision, such as Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s
Services integrating health, education and welfare services have also offered a
pragmatic means of addressing the broader requirements of Indigenous children,
8
families and communities (Sims, Saggers, Hutchins, Guilfoyle, Targowska &
Jackiewicz, 2008). While high quality early childhood programs can provide a strong
foundation for the future educational achievement of Indigenous children, questions
continue to be raised about the contextual bias of standardised academic assessment
tools and the facility of a national early childhood curriculum to address later school
disadvantage (Taylor, 2011).
Recent initiatives in Australia parallel the Canadian and New Zealand
experiences in culturally inclusive policy formation. These initiatives have been
characterised as “both/and” (Pence & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010, p. 16) indicating that
although established approaches may not be transformed, they are balanced by more
reflective and inclusive pedagogies. Pence and Pacini-Ketchabaw (2010) argue that
the shared socio-political histories of Australia, New Zealand and Canada offer
opportunities to share understandings with respect to Indigenous peoples. In Canada,
more flexible ECEC approaches that draw on varied cultural perspectives are being
explored (Pacini-Ketchbaw, 2007). In New Zealand, policy changes reflecting
increasing respect for Māori culture have included the introduction of Te Whāriki, the
early childhood curriculum premised on both-ways learning that upholds the viability
of both Indigenous perspectives and Pākehā (European) perspectives as a basis for
early childhood curriculum (May, 2002). Educator knowledge and attitudes required
for centralising Indigenous perspectives in the New Zealand and Canadian contexts
have presented similar challenges to those currently highlighted in Australian early
education, as discussed in later sections.
National curriculum documents
National curricula recently developed in Australia for the ECEC sector and for use in
school education share attention to intercultural education, but reflect varying views
on teacher roles with respect to cultural and linguistic diversity. Intercultural
education principles are explicitly addressed in the Early Years Learning Framework
for ECEC (DEEWR, 2009). This framework identified elements of inclusive program
design as equitable provision for children, respectful partnership with families and
critical reflection on educators’ decision-making and relationships (DEEWR, 2009).
The role of all educators in intercultural education is defined both through principles
of staff cultural competence and through core learning outcomes that include
9
children’s awareness of fairness and responding to diversity with respect. Cultural
competence is defined as awareness of one’s own worldview, knowledge of different
cultural practices and worldviews, positive attitudes towards cultural difference and
skills for communication and interaction across cultures. This reflects similar notions
to those of Perry and Southwell (2011) who define intercultural competence as the
ability to interact effectively and appropriately in an intercultural situation or context.
Priorities around intercultural early education are evident in both the Early
Years Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum for the early years of
school. In addition to the academic learning outcomes specified in the Australian
Curriculum for schools, cross-curricular priorities and general capabilities address
cultural diversity (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority
(ACARA), 2011a). The former incorporates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
histories and cultures, and engagement with Asian cultures. The latter, including
intercultural and ethical understandings such as children’s knowledge of other
cultures, respect for diversity and awareness of fairness, reflect similar notions to the
Early Years Learning Framework for ECEC. Ensuring that intercultural principles
prioritised in policy are visible in practice requires staff capacity building (see Nakata,
2011). This influences children’s transition to school as alignment between sectors
supports seamless transitions.
Professional education programs and resourcing
One avenue to addressing concerns about the capacities of staff to implement
intercultural education policy is professional education to enhance cultural knowledge
(Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull & Garcia, 2009), yet this is insufficient for intercultural
reform. In Australia, improvements to ECEC staff preparation encompass cultural
pre-service and in-service education for educators and for inclusion support
facilitators who guide educators’ cultural practice. In the early years of school,
priorities around intercultural education in the Australian Curriculum will likely
demand equivalent early years’ teacher education on cultural matters to support future
teachers to enact intercultural intentions. Shared professional understanding across
ECEC educators and teachers in the early years of school would reduce discontinuity
during transitions for children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
and their families.
10
In ECEC, practical application of revised policy has been facilitated through
the increasing availability of culturally relevant resources. The support documents
accompanying the Early Years Learning Framework such as the Educators Guide
(DEEWR, 2010), offer clarification regarding cultural competence, and examples of
the ways in which culturally inclusive approaches may be implemented. Children’s
literature and information technology applications in multiple languages and scripts,
and on themes of cultural relevance to a range of communities also offers the basis for
maintaining home languages while learning Standard Australian English. However,
surface level cultural provision is insufficient. The current priority of understanding
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures directs attention to the incorporation of
culturally relevant content and strategies into ECEC programs. Early childhood
pedagogies that are relational in character and are attuned to land and place are
deemed to be congruent with Indigenous conceptualisations (Martin, 2007; Taylor &
Giugni, 2012). Enhancing the understanding of all ECEC educators could be
facilitated through closer, respectful and reciprocal engagement with colleagues,
families and communities from Indigenous and other diverse backgrounds (Grace &
Trudgett, 2012).
The deeper understandings required for such involvement go beyond surface
knowledge. Intercultural competence comprises not only awareness of and knowledge
about other cultures, but also attitudes, language skills and behaviours that enhance
respectful interaction in a variety of cultural contexts (Perry & Southwell, 2011).
Perry and Southwell (2011) argue that such competence requires critical cultural self-
awareness. Critical reflection goes beyond consideration of practical issues to seek
insight into issues of power dynamics in educational decision-making with the aim of
framing social justice action plans.
Implementation of policy initiatives: Emerging issues
Despite a promising level of consistency in policy documents with respect to
intercultural education, a number of matters remain unresolved. Implementation of
policies sometimes reflects historical practices rather than current expectations. For
example, Miller, Knowles and Grieshaber (2011) found that some ECEC educators in
Australia continued to expect cultural support staff to offer learning support by
removing children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds from the
11
classroom, despite policies directed at ensuring the cultural support staff worked
primarily with the educators to build staff capacity for inclusive practices. Tokenistic
or tourist approaches to multicultural education and approaches that focus on deficit
(Gorski, 2008) or cultural awareness (Rothstein-Fisch et al., 2009) continue to remain
dominant internationally. Deeper attention to intercultural approaches is emerging,
supported by curriculum trends, yet implementation remains hampered by teacher
understanding and a tendency to operate at a surface level rather than engage in
socially re-constructive pedagogies.
The demographic of the teaching service in Australia is of concern for policy
implementation. A majority white, monolingual and middle-class teaching service
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2008; Reid, 2005) creates issues for intercultural
understanding, particularly in a colonising context. In Australia, prevailing colonial
views, a lack of content knowledge and fear of causing offense limit teacher capacity
to move beyond surface level readings of policy and resulting tokenistic approaches
in teaching practice (Lampert, 2012; Mundine, 2010; Taylor, 2011). Teachers’
practices reflect their interpretation of policy and how they negotiate intended
meanings in their specific educational context. As policy is itself a socio-historical
construct, teachers require a critical lens to read and interpret policy directives, both
in terms of new directions for intercultural education, and prevailing policy gaps and
silences.
One such gap in the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR,
2009) is the absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander terms and knowledge
frameworks as a basis for curriculum development and implementation. The
document outlines explicit recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples as the First Australians, and includes recommendations for practice including:
... value[ing] the continuity and richness of local knowledge shared by
community members, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders.
... respond[ing] to children’s expertise, cultural traditions and ways of
knowing, the multiple languages spoken by some children, particularly
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children ...
(DEEWR, 2009, pp. 13-14)
12
To achieve goals of intercultural education, educators need to apply deep and critical
thinking to how such recommendations are enacted. For example, inviting Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Elders into the classroom to share local knowledge is highly
valuable, but issues can develop dependent on the approach teachers employ. In some
cases, teachers may place stereotypical boundaries around what counts as knowledge
and how a visitor can contribute to classroom practice (e.g., only as a ‘storyteller’ or
‘artist’). Viewing visits by community members as a one-off or addition to the
existing program also draws from a multicultural education approach focussed on
‘adding’ diversity to the early childhood program. Building sustained, reciprocal
relationships with visitors is keystone to working cross-culturally, as is the need for
teachers to be constantly aware of the influence of their cultural background
(including whiteness) on their thinking and practices (Dudgeon, Wright & Coffin,
2010).
An intercultural education approach, drawing, for example, on critical and
post-structuralist theories, has greater facility to address issues around equity and
power relations between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people. Such an approach
requires teachers to attend to ongoing questions about how issues of power frame
their practice, such as:
Who decides how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may represent
themselves (e.g., only as a ‘storyteller’ or ‘artist’) within the classroom space?
How are the interests of invited guests incorporated into the planning of the
learning experience?
Who benefits most from the learning experience?
How do my own assumptions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples and cultures impact how I imagine the learning experience?
How does my cultural background and related experiences influence what I
‘know’ about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?
Such questions can support teachers to reflect critically on issues of equity and power
in curriculum design and professional relationships, as well as more broadly. While
the centralising of (localised) Indigenous perspectives is fundamental to inclusive
13
practice, educators require tools for deep, critical thinking if they are to meet and,
more importantly, exceed policy recommendations, such as those outlined above. This
work is made more difficult by the tendency in Australia (and Canada) to borrow
starting points for curriculum development from overseas models (e.g., Reggio
Emilia) despite the scholarship of Indigenous educators, researchers and communities
(Martin, 2009; Pence & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010).
Frameworks and tools for developing a critical lens and engaging in self-
reflective practices are articulated in the Early Years Learning Framework for the
ECEC sector. A concern for intercultural education is the couching of these skills in a
“cultural competence” (DEEWR, 2009, p. 16) framework. Cultural competence is
viewed broadly as a set of skills that enable professionals and organisations to work
effectively in cross-cultural situations. Relevant skills include the development of
behaviours and attitudes that are self-reflective and promote cultural safety (Diller,
2011). However, a focus on individual competencies and attitudes in a cultural
competence framework can leave professionals ill-equipped to address institutional
forms of racism, including silences in policy (Abrams & Moio, 2009). Further, a
skills-based approach focussed on developing awareness separate from social action,
may not fully capture cultural competence as a concept (Ridley, Baker & Hill, 2001).
In reference to the Australian context, Dudgeon et al. (2010) draw attention to
challenges for non-Indigenous people to adopt a political standpoint in cultural
competence work that acknowledges colonial effects and the complexities of racism
and privilege in colonising societies. While professional development around cultural
competence has long been offered in Australia, traditional modes of delivery
including one-off workshops may be ill-suited to the facilitation of deeper and more
difficult conversations around issues including whiteness and racism (MacNaughton
& Hughes, 2007). This understanding is beginning to be reflected in innovative
capacity building programs within the early childhood profession in Australia that
address deep critical reflection as well as cultural knowledge, such as professional
conversations, yarning circles and action research.
Shifts in educator consciousness are cited frequently in the Early Years
Learning Framework as being critical to more inclusive practice, although this is
reflected less directly in examples of education for ethical behaviour in the Australian
14
Curriculum for the early years of school. Knowledge and application of a range of
theories, including critical and post-structuralist theories, is said to support educators
to “challenge traditional ways of seeing children, teaching and learning” (DEEWR,
2009, p. 11). Further, educators draw upon a range of perspectives in their work to ...
“find new ways of working fairly and justly” and recognise how theories used to
make sense of their work ... “also limit their actions and thoughts” (p. 11). Despite
initiatives focussed on up-skilling the teaching service in the before-school sector,
vocationally-defined early education preparation focussed on practical competencies
underpinned by developmental theories continues to limit access to abstract,
theoretical knowledge (Wheelahan, 2011). Traditional developmental theories have
been critiqued in early childhood scholarship in terms of normative assumptions about
children’s capacities that position some children as being ‘in deficit’ (Grieshaber,
2009; Lubeck, 1996). Limited access to a range of theoretical frameworks and the
couching of intercultural education in a cultural competence framework raise
questions about how educators can understand community and society in different
ways, particularly when guiding theories and frameworks for inclusive practices
marginalise real issues of diversity and racism.
Despite the inclusive intentions represented in policy documents and
education literature, Gorski (2008) argues that intercultural education does not yet go
far enough in challenging asymmetrical power relations and deficit constructions of
minorities. For example, rather than recognising the broader anti-racist inclusion
agenda, teachers tend to construct learning English as the sole issue for children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and to construct that issue as a
deficit in the children (Gundara & Portera, 2011; Petriwskyj, 2010b; Taylor, 2011).
This issue was evident in a teacher-as-researcher study reported by Miller, Knowles
and Grieshaber (2011). The study focussed on the role of a Cultural Support Worker
(CSW) in an early childhood classroom, with the findings showing that the (white)
teacher required explicit and sustained professional support to become aware of how
she positioned the CSW and children from minority backgrounds in deficit ways.
Becoming aware of whiteness as an ethnicity and racialising practice was central to
the teacher effecting change in relations with self and others in her daily work.
Pedagogic changes to support intercultural goals must address such deeper cultural
perspectives on ways of knowing and related approaches to teaching and learning
15
(Martin, 2007; Nakata, 2011). Vandenbroek (2007) explains this as a fundamental
shift in pedagogy, away from defining educational norms, towards debating who
decides curricula approaches and outcomes and what power relations occur within
this debate.
Since reflection on practice is promoted in the Early Years Learning
Framework, tools for collaborative reflection such as the British Index of Inclusion
(Booth, Ainscow & Kingston, 2006) have potential. These tools support inclusive
practices such as use of home languages and incorporation of familiar daily care
routines, and the establishment of service cultures and service-level policies that
support cultural inclusion. However, there is a difference between these generic
reflective frameworks and critical reflection on educators’ own practices, together
with collaborative critical reflection at a centre or school level. Although educators
may genuinely try to show respect for cultural diversity, they may unintentionally
engage in surface level practices that are not reflective of family and community
values and professional expectations (Grieshaber, 2009). Thus, collaborative critical
reflection across school/centre staff groups and intercultural dialogue between
relevant stakeholders may be essential elements of change.
Reciprocity in skilled dialogue with families and communities
Partnerships with families and communities offer insights into both cultural values
and into practices based on these values (Ashton, Woodrow, Johnston, Wangmann,
Singh, & James, 2008). For example, teachers’ expectations of individual
independence in children may be at odds with expectations of interdependence in
group-oriented communities, so adjustments in teaching strategies to embed
opportunities for interdependence are indicated (McLachlan, Fleer & Edwards, 2010).
Assumptions by educators that parents want one type of education or that bilingual
education is the best for children from diverse backgrounds may not reflect family
preferences, indicating the importance of considering who decides and how educators
understand alternate points of view (Vandenbroek, 2007). Intercultural dialogue
(Pratas, 2010) and negotiation of pedagogies with families offers greater coherence
between home and early childhood programs, supporting more seamless transition
between homes and ECEC and school.
16
The implementation of partnership requires the establishment of reciprocity in
relationships and sharing in decision-making. In Belgium, Vandenbroek (2007)
identifies the emerging role of educators in engaging in empathetic discussion or
skilled dialogue with families from diverse social and cultural backgrounds to
establish mutually agreed pedagogies in ECEC. This shift in professionalism from
expertise in working with children, to engagement with families in a manner that is
reciprocal, demands change in educators’ preparation. Higher levels of
professionalism are required if educators are expected to undertake complex and
sophisticated negotiation and shared decision-making working with heterogeneous
viewpoints. One implication for Australia is that the content of educators’ preparation
should include not only inclusive ways of working with a range of children, but also
skilled, reciprocal dialogue with diverse families and communities.
Respectfully addressing emerging cultural matters
The primary importance of developing more effective and reciprocal approaches to
working with Indigenous children, families, and communities has been discussed.
However, appropriate ECEC provision for a range of children from culturally diverse
backgrounds, including children with refugee and detention centre experience also
warrants attention (Grieshaber & Miller, 2010).
Since the experience of separation and trauma that forms part of the fabric of
refugee family lives has flow-on impacts on children’s educational adjustment,
specific provision for the resilience and wellbeing of these children is indicated
(Lewig, Arney, Salverton & Barredo, 2010). The mental health of children and
families who experienced refugee detention following unauthorised arrival in
Australia represents a further area for consideration (Garvis & Austen, 2007). This is
a matter of international concern not only in Australia but also in Europe and New
Zealand where refugees represent an ongoing social and educational pressure
(Loveridge et al., 2012; Vandenbroek, 2007). These groups include religious
minorities for whom educational provision that takes into account their religious
concerns is still developing. Combating religious intolerance is an aspect of
intercultural education that has received inadequate attention internationally (Gundara
& Portera, 2011; Rhedding-Jones, 2001). For example, in New Zealand, the
increasing diversity of family backgrounds has prompted modification to some ECEC
17
practices (e.g., religious celebrations) yet the dilemma of balancing diverse cultural
and religious expectations with policy requirements to honour Maori traditions
remains (Loveridge et al., 2012).
Intercultural perspectives in research
Incorporating intercultural perspectives in research requires consideration of how the
participant group features in the research design, process and reporting (Grieshaber,
2010). In Australia, the involvement of Indigenous researchers in investigation of
topics of Indigenous early childhood development represent an effort to demonstrate
respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the research process (see
for example Footprints in Time: Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children).
However, the promotion of the notion of Indigenist research (Martin, 2003) and
incorporation of Indigenous ways of knowing into research on Indigenous matters
(Tur, Blanch & Wilson, 2010) reflect an emerging consciousness of differences in
worldview of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Thus, research involving
Indigenous ECEC must incorporate both involvement of Indigenous researchers and
incorporation of diverse Indigenous perspectives as a means of achieving deeper
understanding of issues and future directions for Indigenous children, families and
communities. Similar research involving other culturally and linguistically diverse
groups is a further avenue for consideration.
Conclusion
The introduction of national policies that address intercultural education explicitly has
shifted the focus of Australian early education. Despite recent reforms, clearer support
for the centralising of Indigenous perspectives in early childhood education practice
remains a critical concern. As identified in this paper, greater emphasis on
professional education, tools for reflective practice, intercultural dialogue, and deeper
engagement with goals of intercultural education is also critical to supporting the
application of current policy reforms in practice. Based on these areas of need,
recommendations for teacher preparation and practice include:
addressing gaps in professional cultural understanding and current theoretical
knowledge;
18
ensuring professional education and professional development focus on
capacity building for critical and reflective practice;
adopting collaborative critical reflection as a decision-making tool;
engaging in intercultural dialogue with a range of families;
appreciating intercultural education as a site for transformation, rather than
surface adjustments to practice alone.
These suggestions are not exhaustive, but address emerging issues with the enactment
of intercultural education in Australian early education settings as national policies
are introduced.
References Abrams, L. S., & Moio, J. A. (2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence
dilemma in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245-261.
Ashton, J., Woodrow, C., Johnston, C., Wangmann, J., Singh, L., & James, T. (2008). Partnerships in learning: Linking early childhood services, families and schools for optimal development. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 10- 16.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011a). The
shape of the Australian curriculum version 3.0. Accessed March 29, 2012, at: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_V3.pdf
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQUA). (2012).
National quality framework. Accessed August 7, 2012, at: http://acecqa.gov.au Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). National
professional standards for teachers. Accessed September 1, 2012, at: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/_resources/AITSL_National_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers.pdf
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston. (2006). Index for inclusion: Developing
learning, participation and play in early years and childcare. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2008). Staff in Australia’s schools 2007. Retrieved
September 3, 2011, from: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1246540B-6D4A-4734-85FB-0C2C2D6D7F13/19904/SiASsurveydatareport2007.pdf
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009).
Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
19
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2010). Educators’ guide to the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2011).
The future of the inclusion and professional support program for childcare services. Accessed May 29, 2012, at: www.deewr.gov.au/earlychildhood/programs/childcareforservices/supportfamilyccs/pages/inclusionsupportprogram.aspx
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FaHCSIA). (2009). Footprints in time – the longitudinal study of Indigenous children (LSIC). Canberra: FaHCSIA. Accessed August 11, 2012, at: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/progserv/famchild/Isic/Pages/default.aspx
Diller, J. V. (2011). Cultural diversity: A primer for the human services (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Dudgeon, P., Wright, M., & Coffin, J. (2010). Talking it and walking it: Cultural competence. Journal of Indigenous Studies Press, 13(3-4), 31-47.
Edmundson, A. (2009). But where are you really from? The ‘crisis’ of multiculturalism examined through the work of four Asian-Australian artists. Humanities Research, 15(2), 93-114.
Garvis, S., & Austin, L. (2007). The forgotten children in Australian detention centres before 2005. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 19-23.
Gorski, P. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonising intercultural
education, Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515-525. Grace, R., & Trudgett, M. (2012). It’s not rocket science: The perspectives of
Indigenous early childhood workers on supporting the engagement of Indigenous families in early childhood settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 10-18.
Grieshaber, S. (2009). Equity and quality in the early years of schooling. Curriculum Perspectives, 30(3), 91- 97.
Grieshaber, S. (2010). Equity and research design. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe,
& I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 177-191). Allen and Unwin: New South Wales.
Grieshaber, S., & Miller, M. G. (2010). Migrant and refugee children, their families
and early childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education: Language and cultural diversity (pp. 167-190). United States: Information Age Publishing.
Gundara, J., & Portera, A. (2011).Theoretical reflections on intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), 463-468.
20
Kalantzis, M. (2005). Conceptualising diversity – defining the scope of multicultural policy, education and research. Australian Mosaic, 10(2), 6-9.
Keith, N. (2010). Getting beyond anaemic love: From the pedagogy of cordial relations to a pedagogy for difference. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(4), 539-572.
Lampert, J. (2012). Becoming a socially just teacher: Walking the talk. In J. Phillips & J. Lampert (Eds.), Introductory Indigenous studies in education: Reflection and the importance of knowing (pp. 81-96). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Lewig, K., Arney, F., Salverton, M., & Barredo, M. (2010). Parenting in a new culture: Working with refugee families In F. Arney & D. Scott (Eds.), Working with vulnerable families: A partnership approach (pp. 157-186). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Loveridge, J., Rosewarne, S., Shuker, S., Barker, A., & Nager, A. (2012). Responding
to diversity: Statements and practices in two early childhood contexts. European Childhood Research Journal, 20(1), 99- 113.
Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing 'child development knowledge' and 'teacher
preparation'. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 147-167.
MacNaughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2007). Teaching respect for cultural diversity in Australian early childhood programs: A challenge for professional learning. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(2), 189-204.
Martin, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and
methods for Indigenous and Indigenist research Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203-214.
Martin, K. (2007). Ma(r)king tracks and reconceptualising Aboriginal early childhood
education: An Aboriginal Australian perspective. Childrenz Issues, 11(1), 15-20.
Martin, K. (2009). Aboriginal worldview, knowledge and relatedness: Re-conceptualising Aboriginal schooling as a teaching-learning and research interface. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 12(1), 66-78.
May, H. (2002). Early childhood care and education in Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. Accessed September 10, 2011, at: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Ec/HMayspeech.pdf
McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2010). Early childhood curriculum. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
McLaren, P. (1997). Decentering whiteness: In search of a revolutionary
multiculturalism. Multicultural Education, 5(1), 4-11.
21
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). (2010). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy and action plan 2010-2014. Accessed August 10, 2012, at: http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/a100945_ieap_web_version_final2.pdf
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs
(MCEECDYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Accessed August 10, 2012, at: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
Miller, M. G., Knowles, M., & Grieshaber, S. (2011). Cultural support workers and
long day care. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(3), 275-291. Mundine, K. (2010). Flower girl. In M. Giugni & K. Mundine (Eds.), Talkin’ up and
speakin’ out: Aboriginal and multicultural voices in early childhood (pp. 11-22). New South Wales: Pademelon Press.
Nakata, M. (2011). Pathways for Indigenous education in the Australian Curriculum
framework. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 40, 1-8.
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2007). Child care and multiculturalism: A site of governance marked by flexibility and openness. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(3), 222-232.
Pence, A., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2010). Both/and: Reflections on recent Anglo-Western early childhood curriculum statements. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(2), 15-24).
Perry, L., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills:
Models and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453-466. Petriwskyj, A. (2010a). Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early
childhood programs. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(4), 342-352. Petriwskyj, A. (2010b). Diversity and inclusion in the early years. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(2), 195-212. Pratas, M. H. (2010). Interculturality and intercultural education in Portugal: Recent
developments. Intercultural Education, 21(4), 317-327. Pratas, M. (2012). Interculturality and intercultural education in Portugal: Recent
developments. Intercultural Education, 21(4), 317-327.
Reid, C. (2005). Global teachers with global cases. Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 251-263.
Rhedding-Jones, J. (2001). Shifting ethnicities: ‘Native informants’ and other theories from/for early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(2), 135-156.
22
Ridley, C. R., Baker, D. M., & Hill, C. L. (2001). Critical issues concerning cultural competence. The Counselling Psychologist, 29(6), 822-832.
Rothstein-Fisch, C., Trumbull, E., & Garcia, S. (2009). Making the implicit explicit: Supporting teachers to bridge cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), 474-486.
Sims, M., Saggers, S., Hutchins, T., Guilfoyle, A., Targowska, A., & Jackiewicz, S.
(2008). Indigenous child care: Leading the way. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 56-60.
Sleeter, C. E. (1994). A multicultural educator views white racism. The Education
Digest, 59(9), 33-36. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Taylor, A. J. (2011). Coming, ready or not: Aboriginal children’s transition to school
in urban Australia and the policy push. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(2), 145-161.
Taylor, A., & Giugni, M. (2012). Common worlds: Reconceptualising inclusion in early childhood communities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 108-119.
Tur, S., Blanch, F., & Wilson, C. (2010). Developing a collaborative approach to
standpoint in Indigenous Australian research. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 58-67.
UNESCO (2006). Guidelines on intercultural education. Accessed 30th May, 2012,
at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf Vandenbroek, M. (2007). Beyond anti-bias education: Changing conceptions of
diversity and equity in European early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(1), 21-35.
Wheelahan, L. (2011). Vocational qualifications and access to knowledge. In G.
Ivinson, B. Davies and J. Fitz (Eds.), Knowledge and identity: Concepts and applications in Bernstein’s sociology (pp. 124-139). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.