Early Years Teachers and young children’s rights: the need for critical dialogue

The absence of knowledge about children’s rights is frequently associated with ineffective implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); this directly impacts on children’s lives and the ways they are viewed by adults (Freeman 1998; Pugh 2015). Recent research (Jerome et al. 2015) has highlighted the lack of focus on children’s rights in the initial training of teachers and other education practitioners. In this paper I analyse the status of children’s rights in the standards for Early Years Teachers (EYTs) introduced in 2013 in England. Informed by the findings from research in sites of early years practice, I suggest possibilities for a critical dialogue that repositions the UNCRC as a visible and explicit framework of reference for EYTs’ work with young children.

Dealing with uncertainty: challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession

In many countries, strategies to further develop services and institutions for the education and care of young children are linked to a discourse on professionalism. Ambitious policy goals, it is argued, can only be achieved by a skilled and qualified workforce whose practice is guided by a professional body of knowledge. This article argues that the prevailing conceptualisation of the early childhood professional is constructed out of a particular, hierarchical mode of producing and applying expert knowledge that is not necessarily appropriate to professional practice in the field of early childhood education. However, it is highly effective and contributes to forming a professional habitus that contradicts the relational core of early childhood practice. Drawing on the conceptual framework of hermeneutics, the article explores an alternative paradigm of a relational, systemic professionalism that embraces openness and uncertainty, and encourages co‐construction of professional knowledges and practices. Research, in this frame of thinking, is understood as a dialogic activity of asking critical questions and creating understandings across differences, rather than producing evidence to direct practice.