{"title":"幼儿教育课程:新西兰奥特亚罗瓦和英格兰的全球政策论述和国家层面的回应","authors":"Elizabeth Wood, Helen Hedges","doi":"10.1002/curj.280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In early childhood education (ECE), global policy discourses influence national policy frameworks for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices. Although aspects of these discourses travel across national boundaries via policy borrowing, we argue that consideration is needed of the cultural–historical evolution of country‐level systems, their epistemological foundations and different goals or aspirations. We combine a cultural–historical perspective with critical policy text analysis to examine two curricular frameworks—England's Early Years Foundation Stage and Aotearoa New Zealand's Te Whāriki. Both nations share similar historical influences and timeframe for the development of ECE policies from the 1990s, but with different local responses, principles and values. Three questions about curriculum inform our policy text analysis: how are children are positioned and understood; what knowledge is valued and what outcomes are valued? The analysis indicates similar influences and discourses, but with dissimilar responses to these questions and distinctive ways of understanding curriculum in each country. We argue that although global discourses promote generic policy drivers and goals, country‐level policy responses need to be understood genealogically and locally in relation to cultures, contexts and values. Taking a global–local approach to policy analysis also raises critical questions about the opportunities and limitations of policy borrowing across international contexts and the importance of contextualisation.","PeriodicalId":508528,"journal":{"name":"The Curriculum Journal","volume":"122 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Curriculum in early childhood education: Global policy discourses and country‐level responses in Aotearoa New Zealand and England\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Wood, Helen Hedges\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/curj.280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In early childhood education (ECE), global policy discourses influence national policy frameworks for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices. Although aspects of these discourses travel across national boundaries via policy borrowing, we argue that consideration is needed of the cultural–historical evolution of country‐level systems, their epistemological foundations and different goals or aspirations. We combine a cultural–historical perspective with critical policy text analysis to examine two curricular frameworks—England's Early Years Foundation Stage and Aotearoa New Zealand's Te Whāriki. Both nations share similar historical influences and timeframe for the development of ECE policies from the 1990s, but with different local responses, principles and values. Three questions about curriculum inform our policy text analysis: how are children are positioned and understood; what knowledge is valued and what outcomes are valued? The analysis indicates similar influences and discourses, but with dissimilar responses to these questions and distinctive ways of understanding curriculum in each country. We argue that although global discourses promote generic policy drivers and goals, country‐level policy responses need to be understood genealogically and locally in relation to cultures, contexts and values. Taking a global–local approach to policy analysis also raises critical questions about the opportunities and limitations of policy borrowing across international contexts and the importance of contextualisation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Curriculum Journal\",\"volume\":\"122 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Curriculum Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.280\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Curriculum Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Curriculum in early childhood education: Global policy discourses and country‐level responses in Aotearoa New Zealand and England
In early childhood education (ECE), global policy discourses influence national policy frameworks for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices. Although aspects of these discourses travel across national boundaries via policy borrowing, we argue that consideration is needed of the cultural–historical evolution of country‐level systems, their epistemological foundations and different goals or aspirations. We combine a cultural–historical perspective with critical policy text analysis to examine two curricular frameworks—England's Early Years Foundation Stage and Aotearoa New Zealand's Te Whāriki. Both nations share similar historical influences and timeframe for the development of ECE policies from the 1990s, but with different local responses, principles and values. Three questions about curriculum inform our policy text analysis: how are children are positioned and understood; what knowledge is valued and what outcomes are valued? The analysis indicates similar influences and discourses, but with dissimilar responses to these questions and distinctive ways of understanding curriculum in each country. We argue that although global discourses promote generic policy drivers and goals, country‐level policy responses need to be understood genealogically and locally in relation to cultures, contexts and values. Taking a global–local approach to policy analysis also raises critical questions about the opportunities and limitations of policy borrowing across international contexts and the importance of contextualisation.