Search

In early childhood education and care policy, there are two dominant discourses: 'investment and outcomes' and 'children's rights'. There is little research on how these discourses play out in educators' accounts. In this article, the authors examine the case of discourse pertaining to children's relaxation in early childhood education and care. They demonstrate that Australian relaxation policy for children in early childhood education and care constructs children as passive and incompetent subjects. Some educators reproduce early childhood education and care policy tensions by vacillating between investment-outcomes and children's rights discourse in their accounts, while other educators deviate from the policy constructions and adopt children's rights discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THE NATIONAL QUALITY FRAMEWORK for Early Childhood Education and Care (NQF) in Australia identifies the need for services to make provision for each child's sleep, rest and relaxation within a national early years' policy framework. The framework also requires that opportunities for learning and physical health are optimised, and that the agency of each child and their family is respected. Against this background, the scheduling of a standard sleep time in early childhood education and care (ECEC) centres remains a common practice, even in rooms catering for older children for whom daytime sleep may no longer be necessary. This article draws upon existing scholarship to explore the issues and tensions associated with sleep/rest, in the context of Australian curriculum and quality standards documents. We review accounts from educators, parents and children and contemporary views regarding high-quality practice in ECEC, with an aim of supporting critical reflection on practice and continuous quality improvement in ECEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent times concerns about possible adverse effects of early separation and advocacy for individual rights have resulted in a movement away from organizational level policies about the separation of twin children as they enter school. Instead, individualized approaches that focus on the twin children’s characteristics and family perspectives have been proposed. This study, conducted in Australia where all but a few families had choice about the class placement of their twin children, questioned parents (N = 156) about their placement decisions. Results indicated that most parents opted for placement together in the early years of schooling. The choice to separate twins at school entry was associated with parent identification of risk in the twin relationship, while being kept together was associated with parent identification of absence of such risk. The findings are discussed in light of the current evidence against separation, and suggest that parent choices regarding the separation of twin children in the early years are informative to educational policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]