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]

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]