Search

The international quality-improvement agenda for Early Childhood Education (ECE) directs attention to maximising children's learning experiences. Yet routines, and particularly those relating to sleep-rest provision, are not well conceptualised as learning opportunities. Often children who no longer sleep in the daytime are required to lie down without alternative activity. Educator discourse frames these practices as 'teaching self-regulation', yet these experiences afford little opportunity for child-directed learning, and both observational and cortisol studies suggest the potential for negative learning experiences. Prior studies have examined children's emotional response and identified sleep-rest time as disliked, but have not examined children's accounts of learning. In this study, we analyse accounts of learning from 54 children (mean age = 56 months). Collectively, the children identified three learnings. Most children learned that adults regulate sleep-rest opportunities through instruction, reward, punishment and priveledge. Some children reported learning coping strategies including imagination and subversion. A rare few identitfied learning to self-regulate. The findings identify a discrepancy between policy aspiration and educator intent, that foreground self-regulation and the de facto lessons children draw from their sleep-rest experiences. Our findings identify standard sleep-rest provision as sub-optimal and the imperative to view care routines, such as sleep-rest, as opportunities for learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sleep and rest provision in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is commonly enacted as a routine – a standard time-period during which children are required to lie down even if they do not sleep. Yet contemporary ECEC policies emphasise responsive pedagogical practice that includes children in decision-making and respects each child's developmental and sociocultural context as appropriate pedagogical practice. To understand current practices, analyses of numeric data and textual accounts from a survey of Australian ECEC service providers, leaders and educators (N = 247) was undertaken. Two broad challenges to enabling responsive practice and inclusion of children in decision-making were identified: (1) Provisions – organisational interpretations of national policy and attendant resourcing set the structural parameters for achievement of responsive pedagogical practice. (2) Practices – individual and communal demands on educators and their professional philosophy set interactional parameters. Service leadership played a pivotal role in determining whether sleep–rest practices were Routine (84%) or Responsive (16%). Responsive leaders were characterised by strong professional advocacy for child rights and child-focused pedagogy. They instigated professional reflection and communication strategies within their service and removed expectation that educators could undertake alternative activity while providing for children's sleep and rest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]