summary
Democracy, caring and competence: values perspectives in ECEC curricula in the Nordic countries
Johanna Einarsdottira*, Anna-Maija Purolab, Eva Marianne Johanssonc, Stig Broströmd
and Anette Emilsone
aSchool of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland; bFaculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; cFaculty of Arts and Education, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway; dDepartment of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark; eFaculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden
(Received 8 June 2014; accepted 25 September 2014)
The aim of the study is to explore how Nordic Early Childhood Education and Care policies frame values education in preschools with a special focus on the values of democracy, caring and competence. The study is part of a larger Nordic project, Values education in Nordic preschools: Basis of education for tomorrow, the aim of which is to explore values education from various perspectives, policy levels, institutional levels and personal levels. The study applies Habermas’s theoretical ideas of communicative actions, lifeworld, and the system. Here the focus is on the system level, namely, values in national curriculum guidelines that serve as the basis of pedagogical practices in preschools in the Nordic countries. Thematic research analysis described by Braun and Clarke inspired the qualitative analysis of the documents. In addition, a quantitative language-based approach was applied to the study. Keywords related with democratic, caring and competence values were selected. The findings reveal different dimensions and meanings of the three value fields, such as democracy as being and/or becoming; care as fulfilment of basic needs and an ethical relationship; and competence values as learning for sociality and academic skills.
Keywords: democracy; ECEC curricula; Nordic countries
Introduction
This study explores how Nordic early childhood educational policies frame values education in preschools. The study is part of a larger Nordic project, Values education in Nordic preschools: Basis of education for tomorrow, the aim of which is to explore values education from various perspectives, policy levels, institutional levels and personal levels. We define values as principles that guide human actions and by which actions are judged to be good or desirable (Halstead and Taylor 2000). Values education as a concept refers to educational practices through which children are assumed to learn values as well as norms and skills grounded in those values (Halstead and Taylor 2000; Thornberg 2008).
On a global scale, the shared cultural heritage and ideological basis of the Nordic countries have often been highlighted (Eydal and Rostgaard 2011; Wagner and Einarsdóttir 2008). It has been proposed that two central aspects define Nordic childhoods: the Nordic
*Corresponding author. Email: joein@hi.is
International Journal of Early Years Education, 2015 Vol. 23, No. 1, 97–114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2014.970521
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
welfare model and pervasive child-centeredness. Within the Nordic welfare model, a high priority is given to the values of social inclusion, according to which every citizen should have equal opportunities to participate in society (Kristjánsson 2006). Accordingly, the idea of universal ECEC services is embedded in Nordic educational policies (Karila 2012). The Nordic ideal of child-centeredness includes the following tenets concerning the good childhood: the naturalness of childhood, equality and egalitarianism, democracy, freedom, emancipation, warm and cooperative social relationships and solidarity with Nordicness (see Wagner and Einarsdóttir 2008; Wagner 2006).
These Nordic ideals have shaped the approaches and practices of ECEC in the Nordic countries. Two distinct approaches to early childhood education and care were identified in the OECD reviews of early childhood education and care in 20 countries (OECD 2001, 2006) and are also described in detail in a recent Nordic study (Vallberg Roth 2013), the early education approach and the social pedagogy approach. The early education approach generally results in a more centralising and academic strategy towards curriculum content and methodology, while the social pedagogy tradition remains more local, child-centred and holistic. Whereas the first approach is related to most European countries, the social pedagogy approach has been identified as the so-called Nordic Model.
Earlier, the Nordic Model emphasised, to a large extent, play and children’s own activities. There are, however, indications that this might be changing as individual plans and standardised assessments seem to become increasingly popular in Nordic ECEC contexts (Haug 2013; Karila 2012). Recently, a new emergent paradigm in early childhood education and care has also been introduced. Departing from a traditional perspective of social pedagogy, the concepts of care, upbringing and teaching have been merged into a critical framework oriented towards education to democracy (Broström 2006a, 2012). Such approaches are in accordance with early childhood education and care policies adopted in the Nordic countries (Pramling Samuelsson and Sheridan 2003).
Regardless of the basis notions of common Nordic values, we know relatively little about how these values are articulated in Nordic ECEC policies, or how values are communicated and prioritised in the daily lives of the children in Nordic preschools. Recent research literature also highlights the different political, geographic and economic histories of the Nordic countries and challenges to take variations into account when analysing ECEC policies (Karila 2012). The aim of the present study is to gain an understanding about values education in the context of Nordic preschools as constructed in central policy documents from the Nordic countries.
Theoretical approach
This study is part of a larger project that, ontologically, applies Jürgen Habermas’s social philosophical perspective and the way he views the world from a double perspective, that is, as both lifeworld and system perspective. Lifeworld refers to the meaningful context that helps people to understand and interpret their environments. The system perspective refers to those aspects of society that have been disconnected from people’s immediate cultural contexts and that follow a more-independent, objectified logic, for example, economics, administration and partly politics. These two concepts are used to show different perspectives of society (Habermas 1995). While the lifeworld is related to an inside perspective, that is, the participant’s point of view, the system relates to an outside perspective, that is, the spectator’s point of view (Fritzén 1998).
In this study, we take the spectator’s point of view and explore values in national curriculum guidelines. This means that these documents are formulated within the system
98 J. Einarsdottir et al.
and are directed by political decisions and laws to guarantee a particular upbringing and maintaining of order in the name of society. In this way, practitioners in preschools are expected to represent society’s interests, and their commission is to mediate specific values. From a system perspective, values education might be understood as an effective ‘forming’ or shaping of the child in a given direction, a direction that is outlined and formulated as goals in curricular guidelines. It is also reasonable to propose that curricular guidelines (the system) not only advocate a reproduction of specific values but might also contribute to new experiences that can reconstruct ideas concerning values.
The system perspective of values education in this study aims to highlight societal directed goals for values and values education in Nordic preschools focused on both commonalities and variations among the Nordic countries.
Previous research
Although values constitute a central part of education, values education remains one of the most neglected areas. While there is a strong focus on the subject areas and academic learning, there is a tendency to overlook values in both curricula and educational practice (Bae 2009; Biesta 2010; Østrem et al. 2009). However, preschools serve as a societal platform where values are communicated both consciously and unconsciously in everyday pedagogical practices (Emilson and Johansson 2009; Johansson 2011a). Strangely enough, systematic and conscious values education in early childhood education has been vague and has only recently been addressed in research. Emilson and Johansson (2009) focused on values education in Sweden, and in their study, they found that preschool children are met with caring, democratic and disciplinary values.
Recently, Nordic researchers have carried out studies related to the value of democracy with a special interest on the perspective of children’s rights and a focus on children’s participation and influence, through which children can construct power for self-determination and solidarity (Bae 2009; Broström 2006b, 2012; Einarsdottir 2005, 2010; Emilson 2007, 2008; Jensen 2013; Puroila, Estola, and Syrjälä 2012). The findings have shown that children’s opportunities for participation and influence seem to be rather limited and depend on a variety of dimensions, such as practitioners’ attitudes, communication between children and practitioners, institutional practices and cultural routines of preschools (Emilson 2007).
Nordic researchers have pointed out that practitioners in early education consist mainly of women who base their work on values of care (Broström and Hansen 2010; Dahlberg and Moss 2005). Hence, it is expected that preschool teachers create a caring, affirming and nurturing ethos (Gannerud and Rönnerman 2006). Studies have shown that educational practices hold values such as children’s care for each other, showing others compassion, sharing emotional intentions and giving comfort (Broström 2006a; Emilson 2008; Hansen 2013; Johansson 2007; Thronton and Goldstein 2006). During the last decade, Nordic preschools have been moving towards combining care and education (Johansson and Pramling Samuelsson 2001; Broström 2006a).
The values of competencies, which concern ideas and aims for what and how children learn, have been more visible during the last decade. There has been a move towards a more-structured preschool education. Furthermore, an increasing number of tools for management have been implemented, for example, educational standards, language testing and quality report in order to evaluate the quality of the educational activities (Jensen 2012). As an example, in Denmark, the Ministry of Finance has developed
International Journal of Early Years Education 99
universal ECEC quality indicators to inspire and assist municipalities concerning the mandatory quality assurance of preschool services (Finansministeriet 2009).
Studies focusing on values in early childhood education policy documents are limited. Alvestad and Pramling Samuelsson’s (1999) study on Norwegian and Swedish curricula showed many similarities between those and also variations according to the value perspective. While the Norwegian plan was built upon a Christian orientation, the Swedish plan was built upon a more democratic perspective. A similar analysis was conducted by Soler and Miller (2003) focusing on the way visions for early childhood were expressed through curricula from England, New Zealand (Te Whàriki) and Reggio Emilia. Although the comparison did not focus on the value dimension, interesting differences were found. The English Foundation Stage Curriculum was narrowly focused on children’s preparation for school, whereas the values in the Te Whàriki curriculum were related to cultural diversity and biculturalism, and the Reggio Emilia curriculum emphasised the child as an active partner with his or her own rights. Another comparison of the Danish curriculum and the Te Whàriki curriculum pointed out the distinct focus on democracy in the Danish curricula as opposed to the vague formulation of democracy in the Te Whàriki (Broström 2013).
Values in early childhood education are mentioned in international policy documents, which endorse several important values. In 1990, the policy document Education for All (UNESCO 1990), which was endorsed by most governments, highlighted the value of reducing gender disparities. Starting Strong 2 (OECD 2006) alerted educators about a purely market system which ‘moves away from the principle of universality in education, that is, of providing equal opportunity for all children within a universal system in which values of citizenship are inculcated, and a democratic and multicultural mixing of children is practiced’ (118). The report mentioned democratic values several times and explicitly framed the Nordic tradition focusing on democracy: ‘Centre goals are to support child development and learning and provide experience of democratic values’ (143).
Research questions
Previous research has identified several value fields connected with early childhood education policies and practices, such as security, caring, democracy, discipline, self- enhancement and competence (e.g., Broström 2012; Einarsdottir 2008; Emilson 2008; Emilson and Johansson 2009; Fugelsnes, Röthle, and Johansson 2013; Johansson 2011a, 2011b). However, studies on early childhood educational policy documents are scarce, and the value dimension has been overlooked. This study will add to previous studies on values education in early childhood education by examining the underlying values in educational policy documents for Nordic preschools. A closer look will be taken at three value fields within the curriculum documents: the values of democracy, caring and competence. These values have been chosen because they have been identified in previous research as important values in educational practice and as part of the Nordic ideal. Democratic values are seen as directed towards children’s rights and their possibilities to participate in and influence a community. Values of care are reflected by concern for the well-being of others. The values of competence concern ideas and aims for what and how children learn.
The following research questions guide the inquiry:
In relation to young children, how are values of democracy, caring and competence constructed in Nordic early childhood education policy documents?
100 J. Einarsdottir et al.
How do the documents illustrate children’s rights and responsibilities in the community of preschool? How do the documents portray caring between children and other people? What kind of competencies and learning processes do the documents emphasise?
Method
The aim of the study was to examine how the values of democracy, caring and competence in relation to children were constructed in the documents. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the analysis. Thematic research analysis described by Braun and Clarke (2006) inspired the qualitative analysis of the documents. Thematic analysis is characterised by flexibility and involves searching across a data-set to identify, analyse and report patterns. A theme captures important aspects of the data in relation to the research questions and represents some level of meaning within the data-set. An inductive analysis was also employed, that is, the themes identified were strongly linked to the data and the coding (Braun and Clarke 2006, 82–83).
The thematic analysis was carried out in separate but interrelated steps. Thus, the process was not a linear one of simply moving from one phase to the next. Rather, it was a recursive process, where the researchers went back and forth as needed throughout the phases (Braun and Clarke 2006). First, documents and texts that provided insights into the public policies of early childhood education were selected. Relevant documents varied slightly among the Nordic countries. However, because national curriculum guidelines for early childhood education were available in every country, they were used in all cases. Table 1 illustrates the material that was analysed.
The second step was reading and rereading the documents in order to become familiar with the data. Researchers in each of the Nordic countries read the documents produced by their own countries and, at the same time, took notes and jotted down ideas for coding. Tables with three columns were then created for each value field: first column for excerpts from the documents, second for themes and the third for interpretations. During the third step, the texts were systematically examined from the perspectives of democracy, caring and competence. A paragraph was used as a unit of analysis. Paragraphs that mentioned at least one of the three value fields and were related to children were copied and saved in the table.
The fourth step was to read through the paragraphs and produce initial codes to capture various themes through which the values of democracy, caring and competence were constructed in the texts. In the fifth step, different codes were sorted and combined
Table 1. Analysed documents.
Denmark Executive order on daycare act (2011); Executive order on themes and aims in curriculum (2003). Copenhagen: Ministry of Social Affairs
Finland National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland (2003/2005, translation 2004).Helsinki: Stakes
Iceland National Curriculum Guidelinesfor Preschool (2011, translation 2012). Reykjavik: Ministry of Culture and Education
Norway Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens (2006/2011). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research
Sweden Curriculum for preschool ([1998] 2011). Stockholm: The Swedish National Agency for Education
International Journal of Early Years Education 101
into themes that were listed in the next column of the table. In the third column, the researchers made their initial interpretations and listed discrepancies and tensions appearing in the texts. Each researcher then prepared summaries including direct quotes based on the data analysis and interpretation in their tables. The sixth step entailed reflecting on the national-level findings within a Nordic framework in order to deepen the understanding of the values of democracy, caring and competence constructed in the curriculum texts in the Nordic countries.
In addition to a thematic analysis of the documents, a quantitative language-based approach was applied to the study. According to Hyatt (2005), the use of language, including the choice of words, plays an active role in constructing, understanding and representing reality. Laugharne and Baird (2009) suggest that the quantitative analysis of keywords provides a potential means of analysing educational policies: ‘Although words are not absolute and can usually be interpreted in several ways, frequencies of reference and reference gaps tell us something about not only policy, but also the context in which policy is created’ (238). Inspired by these ideas, keywords related to democratic, caring and competence values were selected. Moreover, several additional words were chosen that were relevant to our research questions, such as words connected to different learning areas and values education. The researchers from each of the Nordic countries examined their country’s curriculum guidelines and counted the selected words using the word- search feature of MS Word. Both the frequencies of the words and the proportion of the words in relation to the total number of words in each document were identified. The national-level findings were compared and interpreted within the Nordic framework.
Findings
The study reveals that democracy, caring and competence are embedded as value fields in the educational policies of all the Nordic countries. Table 2 shows the frequencies and the proportion of the keywords in the Nordic curriculum guidelines.
Thus, the policies guide actors within ECEC to provide young children with an environment that is based on democratic principles, is caring and facilitates children’s learning. However, the value fields of democracy, caring and competence comprise multiple dimensions and meanings, and there are also variations among the Nordic countries.
Democracy
How the values of democracy are articulated varies among the Nordic curriculum guidelines. In the Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish curriculum frameworks, democracy is explicitly defined as one of the fundamental pillars that the guidelines are based on, and thus, the term is used frequently throughout the documents. The Finnish curriculum guidelines are unique in that they do not use the term democracy. However, basic notions of democracy, such as children’s participation and influence, are stressed in all the documents and form a foundation for pedagogical practice. The Swedish guidelines say, for instance:
Each child should have the opportunity of forming their own opinion and making choices in the light of their personal circumstances. Full participation and belief in their own ability should thus be established and grow. (Sweden: Curriculum for preschool [1998] 2011, 4)
102 J. Einarsdottir et al.
T ab le
2. F re qu en ci es
an d pr op or ti on
of ke yw
or ds
co nn ec te d w it h th e va lu e fi el ds
of de m oc ra cy , ca ri ng
an d co m pe te nc e.
V al ue
fi el ds
D en m ar k
F in la nd
Ic el an d
N or w ay
S w ed en
D em
oc ra cy
(k ey w or ds : de m oc ra cy , ri gh ts , pa rt ic ip at io n,
so li da ri ty , eq ua li ty ,
in fl ue nc e an d re sp on si bi li ty )
21 (0 .2 9%
) 38
(0 .3 6%
) 15 7 (0 .8 7%
) 14 4 (0 .9 2%
) 70
(1 .4 1%
)
C ar in g (k ey w or ds : ca ri ng , w el l- be in g,
em pa th y,
re sp ec t an d pr ot ec ti on )
13 (0 .1 8%
) 10 3 (0 .9 8%
) 65
(0 .3 7%
) 13 0 (0 .8 3%
) 28
(0 .5 7%
) C om
pe te nc e (k ey w or ds : co m pe te nc e, le ar ni ng , de ve lo pm
en t, gr ow
th , pl ay
an d
fo rm
at io n/ bi ld un g)
82 (1 .1 2%
) 21 9 (2 .0 8%
) 23 9 (1 .3 3%
) 42 3 (2 .6 9%
) 15 9 (3 .2 1%
)
T ot al
nu m be r of
w or ds
73 17
10 ,5 04
17 ,9 09
15 ,7 27
49 51
International Journal of Early Years Education 103
Democratic values are presented as the responsibility of the institutions. That is, the preschools and the preschool educators are responsible for providing the children with an environment and opportunity to exercise and understand democracy. The focus is on teaching or developing democracy where the emphasis is on the future. That is, the children are viewed as future decision-makers, and the goal is to teach children to act as competent members of democratic communities:
Gradual build-up of autonomy aims to help children grow up into adults who are able to take care of themselves and their close people and to make decisions and choices concerning their own life. (Finland: National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2003/2005, translation 2004, 14)
The focus is also on lived democracy, where the meaningful context of here and now is emphasised. That is, what can be done in everyday life in preschool to promote democracy?
Democratic preschool practices are based on equality, diversity, shared responsibility, solidarity, and acceptance of different views … Preschool is a place where emphasis is to be put on values and practices on which democratic society is based. (Iceland: National Curriculum Guidelines for Preschool, 2011, translation 2012, 35) Preschool should give children co-determination, joint responsibility and understanding of democracy. (Denmark: Ministry of Social Affairs, 2011, 2)
The democratic value field in the curriculum guidelines is presented for both the collective and the individual. Democracy is expressed as a characteristic of a preschool community. Collective issues have to do with enhancing cooperation and equality between individuals, appreciating diversity and respecting others.
Democratic preschool practices are based on equality, diversity, shared responsibility, solidarity, and acceptance of different views. At preschool, children are to feel that they are part of a group and a community where justice and respect characterize relations. (Iceland: National Curriculum Guidelines for Preschool, 2011, translation 2012, 35) The activities of the preschool should be carried out democratically and thus provide the foundation for a growing responsibility and interest on the part of children to actively participate in society. (Sweden: Curriculum for preschool [1998] 2011, 3)
The individual aspect of democracy, on the other hand, has to do with the individual’s rights to have a choice, to participate and to influence decisions, as well as the individual’s responsibilities. All the documents place children’s rights in a prominent position. Children are viewed as ‘rights holders’ who have rights that educators in the preschool should respect. Participation and influence are dominant rights. Children are presented as active participants, competent to influence the planning and evaluation of pedagogical practice by taking initiatives and making decisions:
Children can participate in planning the spaces and equipment as part of the implementation of various content areas and themes. (Finland: National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2003/2005, translation 2004, 17)
Explicit responsibilities required of the individual child in relation to the community are rare in the documents. The Norwegian curriculum, however, describes responsibility
104 J. Einarsdottir et al.
developing step by step and the children gradually taking greater responsibility for themselves and the group:
Kindergartens shall offer children an environment that is characterised by joy, hum-our, creativity and consideration for the group. Good care enhances the ability of children to develop self-confidence, confidence in others, good relationships, and to gradually take greater responsibility for themselves and the group. (Norway: Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens, 2006/2011, 10)
Care
Providing children with care is enunciated as an important institutional function of preschool in all the Nordic preschool curriculum guidelines:
In cooperation with parents, preschools should give children care which supports their comprehensive development and self-esteem and contributes to children’s good and healthy childhood. (Denmark: Ministry of Social Affairs, 2011, 2)
Care in the curriculum guidelines is often connected to the fulfilment of children’s basic needs, the purpose of which is to promote children’s physical and emotional health, nutrition, movement and rest. Care is also attributed as important for children’s learning and development. In the Norwegian curriculum plan, care is stated as a prerequisite for learning, and it is said that learning must be connected to care. Care, learning, play and formation are dimensions that must be intertwined:
Care has an intrinsic value. Care is closely related to upbringing, health and security, and is also an important requisite for the development, learning of children. (Norway: Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens, 2006/2011, 25)
Moreover, care is addressed as an ethical and emotional relationship between the child and other people within the community. According to the curriculum guidelines, it is the preschool educator’s responsibility and obligation to provide the children with care, and it is one of the rights of children to experience care. For instance, the Finnish curriculum states that the child’s well-being is fostered by warm and stable relationships and the sense of togetherness and belonging to a peer group. The curriculum challenges educators to be empathetic, committed and sensitive, to react to children’s feelings and needs, and to listen to children:
At an early age, children need an educator who is regularly nearby and knows their individual way of communicating. The educator reacts empathetically when the child initiates contact, thus encouraging the child to interact. (Finland: National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2003/2005, translation 2004, 17)
In addition, children should learn and develop compassion for other people, and they should experience receiving compassion from others. In the Norwegian curriculum, care is referred to as ‘both the relationship between staff and children and to the care children show to each other’ (27). The Icelandic and Swedish curricula also state:
In everyday preschool activities, the emphasis should be on caring, consideration and mutual assistance for everyone. When the occasion arises, solidarity and compassion for other people should be discussed. Respect for uniqueness and the opinions of every individual
International Journal of Early Years Education 105
should be respected and children encouraged in their daily relations. (Iceland: National Curriculum Guidelines for Preschool, 2011, translation 2012, 35) Preschool should aim to develop the child’s sense of empathy and concern for others, as well as an openness and respect for differences in people’s views and ways of life. (Sweden: Curriculum for preschool [1998] 2011, 3)
Competences
Words related to competence values, such as development and learning, are frequently used in all of the Nordic curricula. When the curriculum guidelines were analysed with the aim of identifying the competencies that they articulate as important, many commonalities were evident. Social competence is highly valued and prioritised, and sociality is frequently mentioned in all the curricula. Social competence is about interacting and cooperating with others, participating in the community and understand- ing social situations and processes. Furthermore, it is about solidarity, empathy and being able to appreciate and understand the perspectives of others.
The Norwegian framework describes social competence in terms of interacting in a positive manner:
Social competence is about interacting with other people in a positive manner in different situations. This competence is expressed and learned by children through interaction with each other and with adults. It is reflected in children’s abilities to show initiative and to maintain friendships. Understanding social situations and processes and acquiring social competence require experience of and participation in the community. Social competence is constantly developed through actions and experiences. (Norway: Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens, 2006/2011, 30)
Social competence is learned through everyday interactions, and the community is regarded as important. Although the curricula put the community and the group in the forefront, they do not lose sight of the development of self-concept in the individual child. Socio-emotional factors related to the individual, such as development of self-esteem, self-image and self-confidence, are also mentioned:
The preschool should give children support to develop a positive picture of themselves as learning and creative individuals. (Sweden: Curriculum for preschool [1998] 2011, 6)
Learning areas or content areas of the preschool are described in the curriculum texts, and an emphasis is placed on integration and meeting the interests of individual children. In addition to social competences and developing self-concept, all the curricula list are as follows:
. Language, literacy and communication competence
. Health, physical and emotional well-being
. Nature, environment and science
. Mathematical concepts: numbers, signs, patterns, etc.
. Culture
. Creativity and the arts
From the perspective of values education, it is interesting that there are variations in how ethical and religious content areas are addressed in the curricula. In the Norwegian and the Finnish curricula, there is a section on ethics, religions and philosophy. The
106 J. Einarsdottir et al.
quantitative analysis reveals, however, that words such as ‘ethics’ and ‘religion’ do not get high frequencies of use in any of the curricula, and in the Danish curriculum, they are not used at all. In terms of religion, the Norwegian and Icelandic curricula mention Christianity, whereas the Finnish, Danish and Swedish curricula do not. For instance, the Finnish curriculum emphasises the parents’ choices and preferences in children’s religion education:
The content of the religious-philosophical orientation is agreed on with each child’s parents in drawing up the individual ECEC plan. (Finland: National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2003/2005, translation 2004, 26)
The knowledge formation strived for in the curricula is described in the curricula not only as content areas (the ‘what’ aspect) but also as children’s learning processes (the ‘how’ aspect). Words such as play, creativity and expression are more frequently mentioned in all of the curricula than words expressing so-called academic learning (literacy, letters, mathematical concepts and numbers). Learning through play is emphasised in all the curriculum guidelines. Play is described as inseparable from childhood and natural to children. The Swedish curriculum states, for instance:
Play is important for the child’s development and learning. Conscious use of play to promote the development and learning of each individual child should always be present in preschool activities. (Sweden: Curriculum for preschool [1998] 2011, 6)
The Icelandic curriculum similarly states that through play children learn from each other and from the adults who support their play:
In play, children can develop and experiment with its ideas and gain new understanding and knowledge. In play questions arise and children solve problems on their own terms. In play cognitive and artistic factors are strengthened. Play requires varied use of language, movement, social communication and emotional relations. Play may stimulate children’s creativity and their desire to learn and acquire knowledge (Iceland: National Curriculum Guidelines for Preschool, 2011, translation 2012, 37)
Children’s learning through interaction with peers and the preschool staff are also described in the other curricula:
Through interaction with each other they [children] form the foundation for learning and social competence. (Norway: Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens, 2006/2011, 32) The educational personnel shall support, lead and challenge children’s learning, in which they are co-constructers. Learning happens through spontaneous experiences and play, and when adults create and support situations in which children get opportunities for renewal, absorption, change and stimulation. (Denmark: Ministry of Social Affairs, 2003, 1)
A holistic view of children’s learning is presented, and learning is understood as an active process characterised by children’s own activities, exploration and initiatives. The Finnish guidelines say, for instance:
Children are naturally curious, wanting to learn new things, to redo and repeat. They learn in a holistic way. They practice and learn various skills, and when encountering new things, they make use of all their senses in the process of learning. Interacting with the environment and people, children combine things and situations with their own experiences, feelings and
International Journal of Early Years Education 107
conceptual structures. They learn best when active and interested. When they act in a meaningful and relevant way, they can experience the joy of learning and feelings of success. (Finland: National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2003/2005, translation 2004, 17)
All the curricula are open and give much leeway to the preschool professionals to decide on the methods they choose to utilise in order to achieve the curricular goals.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate how the values of democracy, caring and competence are constructed in Nordic early childhood policy documents. The study contributes to early childhood education research by revealing different dimensions and meanings of the three value fields. Here these dimensions are discussed in terms of Democracy as being and/or becoming, care as fulfilment of basic needs and an ethical relationship and competence values as learning for sociality and academic skills. Finally, we discuss the values, constructed in the curricula, from a system perspective with reference to Habermas’s theory as well as the methodological limitations of the study.
Democracy as being and/or becoming
The findings indicate an emphasis on democracy as a fundamental value. Democracy is explicitly described in all the Nordic curricula, apart from the Finnish document where the concept of democracy is not included. Meanings of democracy are embedded in the Finnish curriculum, however, in terms of children’s rights and participation. The reason for this difference can be that the Finnish curriculum is older than the other Nordic ones. In the past few years, discussion on children’s rights and participation has increased both in Finnish society and in early childhood education research (e.g., Karila 2012; Puroila, Estola, and Syrjälä 2012; Venninen et al. 2014). Yet, this Nordic study calls for further research and discussion on democratic values in Finnish early childhood education.
Different and even contradictory dimensions of democracy appear in the Nordic curricula. On the one hand, democracy refers to teachers’ responsibility for teaching and developing democratic values. The emphasis is on the future and implies a perspective of the child as becoming democratic. On the other hand, democracy can be viewed as lived and refers to the meaningful context here and now (Korsgaard 2013). In these descriptions, the child appears as a democratic being. This indicates a societal ambition to not only allow children to experience democracy here and now but also to educate children to become democratic citizens.
Tensions can also be noted between children as active participants, influencing decisions and taking part in planning and evaluating their education, and educational values emphasising staffs’ evaluations of whether children have attained particular learning objectives. For instance, in Denmark, all three-year-old preschool children are offered to take a language test. In the Norwegian framework, children’s participatory rights are, on the one hand, highlighted as obligatory, but, on the other hand, teachers are to interpret and decide when and how children can be given such rights. Thus, the rights are, according to the curricula, conditional on children’s maturity, age and ability.
Other dimensions of democracy concern the relationship between the individual and the collective. From the individual viewpoint, democracy refers to children’s personal rights and opportunities to make their own choices, participate and influence everyday
108 J. Einarsdottir et al.
practice, while the collective is connected to the preschool community, cooperation and diversity. The latter indicates a societal concern to address the individual child as part of a group and involve not only his or her own rights but also his or her responsibilities to others. However, responsibilities are seldom explicitly described in the documents, apart from the Norwegian curriculum where responsibilities for self and others are thought to grow out of caring relationships. A recent study by Emilson and Johansson (forthcoming) identifies a shift in the understanding and practice of democracy in Nordic ECEC institutions. The definition of democracy appears to shift from individual rights towards a more collectively oriented perspective of democracy. The neo-liberal view connected with autonomy and individual freedom has recently been both discussed and questioned as an instrumental way of defining democracy. This has been followed by a new tendency to relate democracy to shared life with others (Emilson and Johansson, forthcoming).
Care as the fulfilment of basic needs and as an ethical relationship
The quantitative analysis shows that words related to care dominate in the Finnish curriculum compared with the curricula in the other Nordic countries. In all the documents, however, the responsibility for creating caring relationships is highlighted and explicitly described as the adults’ responsibility. These findings are in line with previous studies on the Nordic ECEC. A recent Norwegian study shows that care appears to be the most prioritised value by practitioners and is more often communicated towards the individual child, rather than as a value of importance for the child community (Johansson et al. 2014). Other Nordic studies have also shown care as an important value in early childhood education (Estola 2003; Gannerud and Rönnerman 2006; Johansson et al. 2014).
This study reveals that dimensions of care are connected not only to the fulfilment of children’s basic needs but also to an ethical and emotional relationship between individuals. Both basic care and caring relationships are viewed as prerequisites for children’s well-being and development in the Nordic curricula. Moreover, care is stressed as an important value for children’s learning, emphasising that preschool activity is based not only on childcare but also on learning. This is congruent with Johansson and Pramling Samuelsson (2001), who find it impossible to distinguish between the concepts of care and education. The study thus challenges broadening the view of caring beyond basic care activities to a holistic approach of education that is based on the relational moral (see Estola 2003). In view of the relational moral, caring values underscore the need to take into account other people; to foster interpersonal relationships, emotions and attitudes; and to encounter others in a situation-by-situation basis (Estola 2003).
Competence values: learning for sociality and academic skills
Competence values are highly prioritised and are the most frequently emerging values in all Nordic curricula. The competence values concern both a how aspect and a what aspect of children’s learning and development. The how aspect seems to be open and flexible in all Nordic curricula. The educational process is based on the view of children as active and competent as well as developing and learning in a lifelong perspective. The children are not interpreted as competent enough to deal with the world on their own, but rather are viewed as active co-constructors in their everyday lives.
What children should learn in preschool is related to the contents of competence values (the what aspect). The tendency to place academic competences in the forefront of
International Journal of Early Years Education 109
ECEC curriculum has been discussed by several researchers in the field (e.g., Broström 2012). The focus on skills and outcomes early in children’s lives is also often related to public management and a culture of measurement (Biesta 2010; Broström 2012; Karila 2012). In this study, the content areas appear quite similar in the different Nordic curricula. Instead of focusing on academic skills, the Nordic curricula bring to the forefront values related to children’s evolving social competence and self-concept.
Only the Norwegian curriculum mentions the overarching concept of formation (bildung/danning), covering and extending the concepts of learning, play and care. The definition of formation in the Norwegian curriculum appears, however, both general and vague, and does not explicitly relate to the traditional ways of defining the concept (see, for example, Klafki 1998). Yet, it is interesting to find such a concept in a curriculum for young children, and it could indicate alternative ways to look upon values education for young children. Formation may, for example, prioritise children’s learning (understand- ing) of values in a broad and holistic way and be intertwined with critical thinking and reflection (Broström 2014).
It is also interesting to note that ethics, religion and philosophy are addressed as a particular content area in the Norwegian and the Finnish curricula but not in the other countries’ curricula. This might be for historical and societal reasons, where, for example, Christian values may be taken for granted as part of the Norwegian culture. Such values are often talked about as cultural rather than religious values. Nevertheless, the study is in line with previous studies, revealing an emphasis on the other subject areas at the expense of values (see Bae 2009; Biesta 2010; Østrem et al. 2009).
Values in policy documents from a system perspective
From a system perspective, the fostering of values can be understood as an effective forming of children in a given direction. In this study, we have illustrated how this direction is outlined in the different Nordic curricula. Thus, presented values are formulated within the system and belong, according to Habermas (1995), to goal- oriented logic. The goals work as a societal guaranty to provide children with equal opportunities to quality education. In the educational systems, the practitioners of ECEC represent the society, with a task of instilling societally accepted values to children. From the perspective of the system, the practitioners’ actions should be goal-oriented, which in this context means to teach and foster young children effectively with a starting point in the curriculum. According to Habermas (1995), goal-oriented rationality is connected to strategic action. Studies have shown that strategically acting teachers may objectify children, and educational processes may become formal and disciplined (e.g., Emilson 2007; Emilson and Johansson 2009; Fugelsnes, Röthle, and Johansson 2013). These previous studies also show that discipline, obedience and adaptation are encouraged values in preschools.
Discipline and/or strategic action are, however, not recommended in the Nordic curricula. Instead, there are similarities in concordance with a lifeworld perspective (Habermas 1995), where the child is described as an active and competent co-constructor. Values of care and community appear to be important in all the Nordic curricula even though the dominance may differ. Respect is frequently described simply as the child’s right to care and to influence. It appears that (at least) two discourses may be prominent in the curricula – one where children are viewed as subjects and rights holders here and now, and another where children are viewed as objects for learning for the future.
110 J. Einarsdottir et al.
Limitations of the study: challenges of doing cross-cultural research
The study offers insights into the similarities and differences in the values embedded in Nordic early childhood curricula. The methodological limitations of the study, however, need to be acknowledged. In the quantitative analysis, several keywords were selected in relation to each value field in focus. Although the frequencies and reference gaps can tell something about the policies and the contexts, the words should not be viewed as absolute, as they can be interpreted in different ways (Laugharn and Baird 2009). The meanings of the curriculum texts are constructed not only through the choice of words but also through how these words are used in different contexts. The conceptual and linguistic equivalence appears as one of the methodological challenges of the present study, as it has likewise been considered as one of the basic problems in cross-cultural and comparative research in general. As Osborn (2004) notes, concepts are more or less culturally specific, and there can be particular terms that have no counterparts in all cultures. In this study, the analysis focused on the translated versions of the curricula rather than on the original curriculum texts. However, it cannot be ensured that the literally equivalent words have the same meanings in different Nordic countries. Therefore, the findings of the study are suggestive and call for further research.
Funding This study is created with financial support from the NordForsk research programme ‘Education for Tomorrow’ (project no. 53381). The Finnish part is also funded by the Academy of Finland (project no. 264370).
References Alvestad, M., and I. Pramling Samuelsson. 1999. “A Comparison of the National Preschool
Curricula in Norway and Sweden.” Early Childhood Research and Practice 1 (2). http://ecrp. uiuc.edu/v1n2/alvestad.html.
Bae, B. 2009. “Children’s Right to Participate – Challenges in Everyday Interactions.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17 (3): 391–406. doi:10.1080/13502930903101594.
Biesta, G. J. J. 2010. Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Broström, S. 2006a. “Care and Education: Towards a New Paradigm in Early Childhood Education.” Child and Youth Care Forum 35 (5–6): 391–409.
Broström, S. 2006b. “Children’s Perspectives on Their Childhood Experiences.” In Nordic Childhoods and Early Education. Philosophy, Research, Policy and Practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, edited by J. Einarsdottir and J. T. Wagner, 223–255. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Broström, S. 2012. “Curriculum in Preschool. Adjustment or a Possible Liberation?” Nordisk Barnehageforskning 5 (7): 1–14.
Broström, S. 2013. “Understanding Te Whâriki from a Danish Perspective.” In Aotearoa New Zealand’s Early Childhood Curriculum Document in Theory and Practice, edited by J. Nutall, 240–258. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Broström, S. 2014. “Veien mot en barnehagedidaktik? [The Road towards a Preschool Didaktik].” In Barnehagedidaktikk. En dynamisk og flerfaglig tilnærming [Preschool Didaktik. A Dynamic and Interdisciplinary Approach], edited by S. Broström, M. A. Latnes, and T. Lafton, 27–45. Oslo: Akademikaforlaget.
Broström, S., and O. H. Hansen. 2010. “Care and Education in Danish Crèche.” International Journal of Early Childhood 42 (2): 87–100.
International Journal of Early Years Education 111
Dahlberg, G., and P. Moss. 2005. Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Einarsdottir, J. 2005. “We can Decide What to Play! Children’s Perception of Quality in an Icelandic Playschool.” Early Education and Development 16 (4): 469–488. doi:10.1207/ s15566935eed1604_7.
Einarsdottir, J. 2008. “Children’s and Parents’ Perspectives on the Purposes of Playschool in Iceland. International Journal of Educational Research 47 (5): 265–269.
Einarsdottir, J. 2010. “Children’s Experiences of the First Year of Primary School.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18 (2): 163–180. doi:10.1080/13502931003784370.
Emilson, A. 2007. “Young Children’s Influence in Preschool.” International Journal of Early Childhood 39 (1): 11–38. doi:10.1007/BF03165946.
Emilson, A. 2008. Detönskvärda barnet. Fostranuttryckt i vardagligakommunikationshandlin- gar mellan lärareoch barn i förskolan [The Desirable Child. Fostering of Values Expressed in Everyday Interactions between Teachers and Children in Preschool]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Emilson, A., and E. Johansson. 2009. “Communicated Values in Teacher and Toddler Interactions in Preschool.” In Participatory Learning and the Early Years, edited by D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, and E. Johansson, 61–77. New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.
Emilson, A., and E. Johansson. Forthcoming. “Values in Nordic Early Childhood Education – Democracy and the Child’s Perspective.” In International Handbook on Early Childhood Education and Development, edited by M. Fleer and B. van Oers. Dordrecht: Springer.
Estola, E. 2003. In the Language of the Mother – Re-storying the Relational Moral in Teachers’ Stories. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis E62. Oulu: University of Oulu.
Eydal, G., and T. Rostgaard. 2011. “Gender Equality Revisited – Changes in Nordic Child Care Policies in the 2000s.” Social Policy and Administration 45 (2): 161–179. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9515.2010.00762.x.
Finansministeriet. 2009. Om projektfagligekvalitetsoplysninger på dagtilbudsområdet [On Project Quality Information in the Day-care Sector]. http://www.fm.dk/Arbejdsomraader/Offentlig% 20modernisering/Kvalitet%20og%20styring/Faglige%20kvalitetsoplysninger/~/media/Files/Off entlig%20modernisering/Kvalitetsreformen/Projektbeskrivelse%20paa%20dagtilbudsomraadet.ashx
Fritzén, L. 1998. Den pedagogiska praktikens janusansikte. Om detkommunikativahandlandetsdi- daktiskavillkorochkonsekvenser [Pedagogical Practice – The Face of Janus. The Didactic Conditions and Consequences of Communicative Action]. Lund: Lund University Press.
Fugelsnes, K., M. Röthle, and E. Johansson. 2013. “Values at Stake in Interplay between Toddlers and Teachers.” In Varied Perspectives on Play and Learning, edited by O. F. Lillemyr, S. Dockett and B. Perry, 109–126. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Gannerud, E., and K. Rönnerman. 2006. Innehåll och innebörd i lärares arbeite i förskola och skola. Enfallstudieurgenusperspektiv [Content in Teacher’s Work in Preschool and School. A Case Study with Equality Perspective]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, p. 246.
Habermas, J. 1995. Kommunikativthandlande. Texteromspråk, rationalitetochsamhälle [Commun- icative Action. Texts about Language, Rationality and Society]. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Halstead, J. M., and M. J. Taylor. 2000. “Learning and Teaching about Values: A Review of Recent Research.” Cambridge Journal of Education 30 (2): 169–202. doi:10.1080/713657146.
Hansen, O. H. 2013. Detvedviomvuggestuen som læringsmiljø [What We Know about Crèche as Learning Environment]. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.
Haug, P. 2013. “From Indifference to Invasion: The Relationship from a Norwegian Perspective.” In Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the Relationship, edited by P. Moss, 112–130. New York: Routledge.
Hyatt, D. 2005. “A Critical Literacy Frame for UK Secondary Education Contexts.” English in Education 39 (1): 43–59. doi:10.1111/j.1754-8845.2005.tb00609.x.
Jensen, A. S. 2012. “Didaktik i dagtilbud og indskoling. Tomodtræk til detmålbarebørneliv [Two Countermoves against the Measurable Childhood].” In Cursiv. Didaktikogsocialiseringidagin- stitution og skole [Cursiv. Special Issue on Curriculum and Socialization in Preschool and School Start], edited by N. F. Poulsen, 31–46. Copenhagen: Department of Education, Aarhus University.
Jensen, A. S. 2013. “Didaktik on Postmodernism’s Doorstep.” Doctoral dissertation. Copenhagen: Aarhus University.
112 J. Einarsdottir et al.
Johansson, E. 2007. “Etiska överenskommelser i förskolebarns världar [Moral Agreements in Preschool Children’s Worlds].” Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences No. 251. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Johansson, E. 2011a. “Moral Discoveries and Learning in Preschool.” In Educational Encounters: Nordic Studies in Early Childhood Didactics, edited by N. Pramling and I. Pramling Samuelsson, 127–139. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.
Johansson, E. 2011b. “Investigating Morality in Toddler’s Worlds.” In Educational Research with our Youngest: Voices of Infants and Toddlers, edited by E. Johansson and J. White, 127–140. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.
Johansson, E., K. Fugelsnes, E. I. Mørkeseth, M. Röthle, B. Tofteland, and B. Zachrisen. 2014. Verdier i barnehagen:Mellomideal og realiteter. Et utviklings- og forskningsprosjekt [Values in Preschool: Ideals and Reality. A Developmental and Research Project]. Rapporter fra Universitetet i Stavanger, No 43 [Report from University of Stavanger, No 43]. Stavanger: Universitetet i Stavanger.
Johansson, E., and P. Pramling Samuelsson. 2001. Omsorg. En central aspekt av förskolepedago- gikken. Exemplet måltiden. [Care. A Central Aspect of Preschool Education. The Meal as Example]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 6 (2): 81–101.
Karila, K. 2012. “A Nordic Perspective on Early Childhood Education and Care Policy.” European Journal of Education 47 (4): 584–595. doi:10.1111/ejed.12007.
Klafki, W. 1998. “Characteristics of Critical-constructive Didaktik.” In Didaktik and/or Curriculum. An International Dialogue, edited by B. B. Gundem and S. Hopmann, 307–330. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang Lang.
Korsgaard, O. 2013. Demokrati i pædagogikken [Democracy in education]. Leksikon for det 21. århundrede. http://www.leksikon.org/art.php?n=5227.
Kristjánsson, B. 2006. “The Making of Nordic Childhoods.” In Nordic Childhoods and Early Education, edited by J. Einarsdottir and J. T. Wagner, 13–42. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Laugharne, J., and A. Baird. 2009. “National Conversations in the UK: Using a Language-based Approach to Interpret Three Key Education Policy Documents (2001–2007) from England, Scotland and Wales.” Cambridge Journal of Education 39 (2): 223–240. doi:10.1080/ 03057640902902278.
OECD. 2001. Starting Strong: Early Education and Care. Paris: OECD. OECD. 2006. Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD. Osborn, M. 2004. “New Methodologies for Comparative Research? Establishing ‘Constants’ and
‘Contexts’ in Educational Experience.” Oxford Review of Education 30 (2): 265–285. doi:10.1080/ 0305498042000215566.
Østrem, S., H. Bjar, L. R. Føsker, H. D. Hogsnes, S. Nordtømme, and K. Tholin. 2009. Alle teller mer. EnvurderingavhvordanRammeplan for barnehagensinholdogoppgaverblirinnført, brugt og erfart [Everyone is Counting More. An Evaluation of How the Framework Plan Is Implemented, Used, and Experienced]. Tønsberg: Høgskoleni Vestfold.
Pramling Samuelsson, I., and S. Sheridan. 2003. Delaktighetsomvärderingochpedagogik [Participa- tion as Value and Pedagogy].” PedagogiskforskningiSverige 8 (1–2): 70–84.
Puroila, A.-M., E. Estola, and L. Syrjälä. 2012. “Having, Loving, and Being: Children’s Narrated Well-being in Finnish Day Care Centres. Special Issue: Early Child Care and Education in Finland.” Early Child Development and Care 182 (3–4): 345–362.
Soler, J., and J. Miller. 2003. “The Struggle for Early Childhood Curricula: A Comparison of the English Foundation Stage Curriculum, TeWhäriki and Reggio Emilia.” International Journal of Early Years Education 11 (1): 57–68. doi:10.1080/0966976032000066091.
Thornberg, R. 2008. “Values Education as the Daily Fostering of School Rules.” Research in Education 80 (1): 52–62. doi:10.7227/RIE.80.5.
Thronton, C. D., and L. Goldstein. 2006. “Feminist Issues in Early Childhood Scholarship.” In Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children, edited by B. Spodek and O. N. Saracho, 515–531. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
UNESCO. 1990. World Declaration on Education for All and Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs. New York: UNESCO.
Vallberg Roth, A.-C. 2013. Nordisk komparativanalysavriktlinjerförkvalitetochinnehålliförskola [Nordic Comparative Analysis of Guidelines for Quality and Content in Early Childhood Education]. Oslo: Nordiska Ministerrådet.
International Journal of Early Years Education 113
Venninen, T., J. Leinonen, L. Lipponen, and M. Ojala. 2014. “Supporting Children’s Participation in Finnish Child Care Centers.” Early Childhood Education Journal 42 (3): 211–218. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0590-9.
Wagner, J. T. 2006. “An Outsider’s Perspective: Childhoods and Early Education in the Nordic Countries.” In Nordic Childhoods and Early Education, edited by J. Einarsdottir and J. T. Wagner, 280–306. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Wagner, J. T., and J. Einarsdóttir. 2008. “The Good Childhood: Nordic Ideals and Educational Practice.” International Journal of Educational Research 47 (5): 265–269. doi:10.1016/j. ijer.2008.12.005.
114 J. Einarsdottir et al.
Copyright of International Journal of Early Years Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.