This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:

Miller, Melinda G. & Petriwskyj, Anne(2013)New directions in intercultural early education in Australia.International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(2), pp. 251-266.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/62037/

c© Copyright 2013 Springer

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-013-0091-4

1

New directions in intercultural early education in Australia

Melinda G. Miller

Queensland University of Technology

Anne Petriwskyj

Queensland University of Technology

Abstract

Early education in Australia encompasses both early education and care (ECEC) and

the early years of school. Educational approaches to cultural and linguistic diversity

have varied not only by sector, but also by jurisdiction based on distinct curriculum

frameworks and policies. In Australian early education, provision for cultural and

linguistic diversity has been framed largely by multicultural discourse, as defined by a

complex history of progressive, yet often superficial reforms. Current initiatives serve

to change this trajectory and the positioning of stakeholders. The incorporation of

intercultural rather than multicultural approaches offers new possibilities for early

education and directs attention to real challenges for ECEC. They re-position

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Australians, and direct attention to

both Australia’s social cultural and linguistic diversity and to the role of early

childhood educators in enacting more inclusive pedagogies. Challenges yet to be

addressed include the cultural understanding of Australian early childhood educators,

particularly those who identify as Anglo-Australian, deeper policy enactment in

pedagogic practice and negotiation with diverse families and communities.

This paper will address the historical and current policy contexts of

intercultural early education in Australia, the development of intercultural initiatives,

and emerging issues as national policies are introduced. The discussion draws on

responses to intercultural early education in New Zealand and Canada to consider

approaches to intercultural priorities in Australia. The paper will attend predominantly

to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives as a core element of change in

Australian early childhood policy, focussing on ECEC.

Keywords: Cultural competence, Indigenous, intercultural, critical.

2

Résumé

L'éducation de la petite enfance en Australie comprend à la fois l’éducation

préscolaire et les services de garde ainsi que les premières années de l'école primaire.

Les approches éducatives de la diversité culturelle et linguistique ont varié non

seulement selon le secteur mais aussi selon la juridiction, sur la base d'orientations de

programmes et de politiques différentes. Dans l'éducation australienne de la petite

enfance, la réponse à la diversité culturelle et linguistique a principalement été

structurée par le discours multiculturel et définie par une histoire complexe de

réformes progressistes, mais souvent superficielles. Les initiatives actuelles ont pour

but de modifier cette trajectoire ainsi que les positions des partis intéressés.

L'inclusion d'approches interculturelles plutôt que multiculturelles offre de nouvelles

possibilités pour l'éducation de la petite enfance et met en exergue de réels défis pour

les services d’éducation et de garde. Ces approches rendent aux aborigènes et aux

indigènes du détroit de Torres leur place de premiers australiens et dirigent l'attention

tant sur la diversité sociale, culturelle et linguistique australienne que sur le rôle des

éducateurs de la petite enfance dans la mise en place de pédagogies plus inclusives.

Parmi les enjeux qui restent en suspens, on trouve la compréhension culturelle des

éducateurs australiens de la petite enfance, en particulier de ceux qui s'identifient en

tant qu'anglo-australiens, la mise en œuvre plus en profondeur de la politique dans la

pratique pédagogique, ainsi que la négociation avec différentes familles et

communautés.

Cet article traite des contextes historiques et actuels de la politique de

l'éducation interculturelle de la petite enfance en Australie, du développement des

initiatives interculturelles et des problèmes émergeant avec l'introduction de

politiques nationales. L'argumentation fait appel aux réponses apportées à l'éducation

interculturelle de la petite enfance en Nouvelle-Zélande et au Canada pour envisager

des approches aux priorités interculturelles en Australie. L'article s'intéresse surtout

aux perspectives des aborigènes et des indigènes du détroit de Torres comme élément

central du changement de la politique australienne de la petite enfance, en se

concentrant sur les services d’éducation et de garde.

Mots clés: compétence culturelle, indigène, interculturel, critique.

3

Resumen

La educacion inicial en Australia abarca tanto la Educación Inicial y Cuidado (EIYC),

como los primeros años de la escuela. Los enfoques educativos en la diversidad

cultural y lingüística han variado no solo por sector sino también por jurisdicción,

basados en los distintos marcos y competencias de los currículum y las políticas. En

Australia la provisión de la diversidad lingüística y cultural ha estado fuertemente

marcada por el discurso multicultural definido como una compleja historia de

reformas progresistas, a menudo superficiales. Las iniciativas actuales sirven para

cambiar esta trayectoria y el posicionamiento de las partes interesadas (stakeholders).

La incorporación de la interculturalidad en vez de los enfoques multiculturales ofrece

nuevas posibilidades para la educación inicial, y dirige la atención a los desafíos

reales en la EIYC. Se reposiciona a los Aborígenes e Isleños de Torres Strait como los

Primeros australianos-as, canalizando la atención hacia la diversidad sociocultural y

lingüística de Australia y al rol de los educadores-as en el sentido de establecer

pedagogías más inclusivas. Entre los desafíos pendientes se incluyen una

comprensión cultural de los educadores-as de infancia inicial australianos,

especialmente aquellos que se identifican como anglo-australianos; la promulgación

de políticas más profundas en la práctica pedagógica; y negociaciones con las

diversas familias y comunidades.

Este artículo abordará contextos políticos históricos y actuales de la educacion

inicial intercultural en Australia, el desarrollo de iniciativas interculturales y los temas

emergentes ante la introducción de políticas nacionales. El análisis está basado en

reacciones a la educación inicial intercultural de Nueva Zelandia y Canadá,

utilizándolas como posibles enfoques en las prioridades interculturales de Australia.

Como elemento de cambio fundamental en las políticas australianas de educación

inicial, este documento se ocupará mayormente de las perspectivas aborígenes e

isleñas de Torres Strait, enfocándose en Educación Inicial y Cuidado (EIYC).

4

New directions in intercultural early education in Australia

Introduction

Intercultural education and multicultural education share goals of equity and

social justice in education yet differ in their emphasis. Intercultural education

arose from concerns that multicultural education failed to address entrenched

deficit assumptions about minority groups. It is distinguished from multicultural

education by its focus on deep engagement with diverse cultures and worldviews

to enrich children and the society, rather than the celebration of differences and

the co-existence of various cultural groups (Gundara & Portera, 2011). Thus, it

goes beyond education about cultural and linguistic diversity to engage

educators and children in challenging stereotypes and racism in order to develop

more inclusive attitudes and behaviours (Gorski, 2008). The key differences lie

in the emphasis of intercultural education on resistance to unequal power

relations, which can be supported in practice by engagement with theoretical

frameworks including critical and post-structuralist theories (Pacini-Katchabaw,

2007; Vandenbroek, 2007). In contrast with additive practices that frame

multicultural education, approaches to intercultural education imply

transformation of power relations between people, and in the ways curriculum is

envisaged and implemented (Keith 2010; Pratas, 2010).

This paper will address the context of intercultural early education in

Australia, particularly in early childhood education and care [ECEC]. The

emergence of intercultural education policy initiatives, and issues yet to be

addressed as national curriculum documents and inclusive policies are

introduced, provide the focus for discussion. The gap between policy formation

and its implementation will be explored, with reference to responses to

intercultural education in New Zealand and Canada. Recommendations for

practice are considered by drawing attention to theoretical frameworks that

support deeper examination of issues around intercultural education, including

how educators in ECEC and teachers in the early years of school enact

intercultural priorities.

5

Australian context of intercultural early education

Intercultural early education in Australia spans several educational settings, each

arising from different historical pathways and facing differing expectations and

pressures. However, they share some socio-political influences and challenges to

implementation of culturally inclusive policy directions.

In Australia, early education spans both the early years of primary school and

the ECEC sector including childcare, school-aged care and preschool education. Early

childhood educators have varied preparation, ranging from vocational training to early

childhood teaching degrees. While the ideological perspectives of cultural and

linguistic diversity for each of these teachers varies according to their differing

professional preparation, some provision for diversity education has been a shared

response to socio-political pressures and international trends (Petriwskyj, 2010a).

Attention to cultural issues in early education in Australia has emerged slowly

across the past 50 years in response to a number of socio-political pressures such as

the influence of the Civil Rights movement in the USA, concern about academic

outcomes for Indigenous Australian children, the integration of migrant groups and

the impact of waves of refugees (Petriwskyj, 2010a). While the initial response in

Australia to migrants and refugees was assimilation, multicultural education emerged

during the 1970s as a response to concern regarding the rights of cultural minorities.

Multicultural education focused mainly on cultural awareness, yet incorporated anti-

bias strategies to assist educators and children to reduce racial discrimination. The

uptake of a liberal form of multicultural and anti-bias education in the United States

and other western contexts attracted critique because of limitations in scope to address

racism and distancing from a sociologically derived understanding about the

multitude of ways racism is reproduced in educational contexts (McLaren, 1997;

Sleeter, 1994; Sleeter & Grant, 2007). Australian scholarship has critiqued

multicultural education for its focus on deficiencies in cultural and home

backgrounds, and enactment as tokenistic or tourist curricula (Edmundson, 2009;

Kalantzis, 2005; Martin, 2007). This reflects similar concerns to those identified in

Europe, where application of the anti-bias approach has been criticised for its

emphasis on racial identity and its failure to address reciprocal power relations and

6

the broader diversity of marginalised groups (Pratas, 20120; Vandenbroek, 2007). The

emergence of intercultural education was one outcome of such criticism.

The international Guidelines on Intercultural Education developed by

UNESCO (2006) attempted to address these concerns. The core principles of the

UNESCO guidelines on intercultural education are that it respects the cultural identity

of the learner through the provision of culturally appropriate and responsive quality

education; provides every learner with the cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills

necessary to achieve active and full participation in society; and enables learners to

contribute to respect, understanding and solidarity among ethnic, social, cultural and

religious groups. The Guidelines encompass a rights based approach to education,

critical awareness of the role of education in combating racism and discrimination,

provision for the heterogeneity of learners and learning in children’s home languages.

The implementation of these principles in ECEC in Australia requires a shift

in thinking, not just a minor change in practices. The evidence on intercultural

education in Australia points to continuing challenges, including cultural

understanding amongst teachers, recognition of Indigenous worldviews, reliance on

specialist teachers of English as an additional language or cultural teaching assistants,

and limited attention to enactment of contemporary notions of social justice involving

critical reflection (Martin, 2009; Miller, Knowles & Grieshaber, 2012; Petriwskyj,

2010b), similar concerns to those evident in early education internationally

(Loveridge, Rosewarne, Shuker, Barker & Nager, 2012). Keith (2010) identifies the

challenge as one of moving from a pedagogy of cordial relations or respect for the

cultural ideas of others, to a pedagogy for difference involving critical reflection on

institutionalised ways of doing things in order to be more socially just. Inclusive early

education is, as Taylor and Giugni (2012) argue, a profoundly political question that

requires both thoughtful policy development and effective policy implementation.

Australian policy initiatives and emerging issues in the implementation of policy will

be addressed separately.

Policy initiatives to advance intercultural early education

In Australia, both the National Statement for Culturally Inclusive Schooling for the

21st Century (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and

7

Youth Affairs (MCEEDYA), 2000) and the Melbourne Declaration of Educational

Goals for Young Australians (MCEEDYA, 2008) address equity goals, including

respect for the specific cultural knowledges of Indigenous peoples. Goal two (2) of

the Melbourne Declaration is supported broadly in the recently implemented national

learning framework for Australian early years services, catering for children aged

birth – 5 years. Titled Being, Belonging, Becoming: The Early Years Learning

Framework for Australia (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations (DEEWR), 2009), the framework supports that all children become

successful learners, and that outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young

people are improved. Further, the new Australian National Professional Standards for

Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2011)

require teacher competencies in promoting reconciliation and demonstrating

knowledge, understanding and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

histories, cultures and languages. In ECEC, the National Quality Framework

(Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2012)

indicates that children’s current knowledge and culture as well as their ideas, abilities

and interests should form the foundation for their educational program, that the

dignity and rights of all children should be maintained at all times, and that families

share in decision-making. Cultural support programs delivered through the

Multicultural Development Association and the Professional Support and Indigenous

Support units (DEEWR, 2011) assist ECEC educators to provide cultural information

and build capacity for practices inclusive of children from diverse backgrounds.

In addition to broader cultural policy settings, specific policies regarding the

education of Indigenous Australian children have been developed in line with

governmental strategies to address the imbalance between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous retention and educational outcomes. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Policy and Action Plan 2010-2014 (MCEEDYA, 2010) includes provision

for culturally-inclusive high quality ECEC programs, support during transition to

school, partnership with families and communities, and learning of Standard

Australian English while being recognised as multilingual learners. Integrated models

of early childhood service provision, such as Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s

Services integrating health, education and welfare services have also offered a

pragmatic means of addressing the broader requirements of Indigenous children,

8

families and communities (Sims, Saggers, Hutchins, Guilfoyle, Targowska &

Jackiewicz, 2008). While high quality early childhood programs can provide a strong

foundation for the future educational achievement of Indigenous children, questions

continue to be raised about the contextual bias of standardised academic assessment

tools and the facility of a national early childhood curriculum to address later school

disadvantage (Taylor, 2011).

Recent initiatives in Australia parallel the Canadian and New Zealand

experiences in culturally inclusive policy formation. These initiatives have been

characterised as “both/and” (Pence & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010, p. 16) indicating that

although established approaches may not be transformed, they are balanced by more

reflective and inclusive pedagogies. Pence and Pacini-Ketchabaw (2010) argue that

the shared socio-political histories of Australia, New Zealand and Canada offer

opportunities to share understandings with respect to Indigenous peoples. In Canada,

more flexible ECEC approaches that draw on varied cultural perspectives are being

explored (Pacini-Ketchbaw, 2007). In New Zealand, policy changes reflecting

increasing respect for Māori culture have included the introduction of Te Whāriki, the

early childhood curriculum premised on both-ways learning that upholds the viability

of both Indigenous perspectives and Pākehā (European) perspectives as a basis for

early childhood curriculum (May, 2002). Educator knowledge and attitudes required

for centralising Indigenous perspectives in the New Zealand and Canadian contexts

have presented similar challenges to those currently highlighted in Australian early

education, as discussed in later sections.

National curriculum documents

National curricula recently developed in Australia for the ECEC sector and for use in

school education share attention to intercultural education, but reflect varying views

on teacher roles with respect to cultural and linguistic diversity. Intercultural

education principles are explicitly addressed in the Early Years Learning Framework

for ECEC (DEEWR, 2009). This framework identified elements of inclusive program

design as equitable provision for children, respectful partnership with families and

critical reflection on educators’ decision-making and relationships (DEEWR, 2009).

The role of all educators in intercultural education is defined both through principles

of staff cultural competence and through core learning outcomes that include

9

children’s awareness of fairness and responding to diversity with respect. Cultural

competence is defined as awareness of one’s own worldview, knowledge of different

cultural practices and worldviews, positive attitudes towards cultural difference and

skills for communication and interaction across cultures. This reflects similar notions

to those of Perry and Southwell (2011) who define intercultural competence as the

ability to interact effectively and appropriately in an intercultural situation or context.

Priorities around intercultural early education are evident in both the Early

Years Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum for the early years of

school. In addition to the academic learning outcomes specified in the Australian

Curriculum for schools, cross-curricular priorities and general capabilities address

cultural diversity (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority

(ACARA), 2011a). The former incorporates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders

histories and cultures, and engagement with Asian cultures. The latter, including

intercultural and ethical understandings such as children’s knowledge of other

cultures, respect for diversity and awareness of fairness, reflect similar notions to the

Early Years Learning Framework for ECEC. Ensuring that intercultural principles

prioritised in policy are visible in practice requires staff capacity building (see Nakata,

2011). This influences children’s transition to school as alignment between sectors

supports seamless transitions.

Professional education programs and resourcing

One avenue to addressing concerns about the capacities of staff to implement

intercultural education policy is professional education to enhance cultural knowledge

(Rothstein-Fisch, Trumbull & Garcia, 2009), yet this is insufficient for intercultural

reform. In Australia, improvements to ECEC staff preparation encompass cultural

pre-service and in-service education for educators and for inclusion support

facilitators who guide educators’ cultural practice. In the early years of school,

priorities around intercultural education in the Australian Curriculum will likely

demand equivalent early years’ teacher education on cultural matters to support future

teachers to enact intercultural intentions. Shared professional understanding across

ECEC educators and teachers in the early years of school would reduce discontinuity

during transitions for children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

and their families.

10

In ECEC, practical application of revised policy has been facilitated through

the increasing availability of culturally relevant resources. The support documents

accompanying the Early Years Learning Framework such as the Educators Guide

(DEEWR, 2010), offer clarification regarding cultural competence, and examples of

the ways in which culturally inclusive approaches may be implemented. Children’s

literature and information technology applications in multiple languages and scripts,

and on themes of cultural relevance to a range of communities also offers the basis for

maintaining home languages while learning Standard Australian English. However,

surface level cultural provision is insufficient. The current priority of understanding

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures directs attention to the incorporation of

culturally relevant content and strategies into ECEC programs. Early childhood

pedagogies that are relational in character and are attuned to land and place are

deemed to be congruent with Indigenous conceptualisations (Martin, 2007; Taylor &

Giugni, 2012). Enhancing the understanding of all ECEC educators could be

facilitated through closer, respectful and reciprocal engagement with colleagues,

families and communities from Indigenous and other diverse backgrounds (Grace &

Trudgett, 2012).

The deeper understandings required for such involvement go beyond surface

knowledge. Intercultural competence comprises not only awareness of and knowledge

about other cultures, but also attitudes, language skills and behaviours that enhance

respectful interaction in a variety of cultural contexts (Perry & Southwell, 2011).

Perry and Southwell (2011) argue that such competence requires critical cultural self-

awareness. Critical reflection goes beyond consideration of practical issues to seek

insight into issues of power dynamics in educational decision-making with the aim of

framing social justice action plans.

Implementation of policy initiatives: Emerging issues

Despite a promising level of consistency in policy documents with respect to

intercultural education, a number of matters remain unresolved. Implementation of

policies sometimes reflects historical practices rather than current expectations. For

example, Miller, Knowles and Grieshaber (2011) found that some ECEC educators in

Australia continued to expect cultural support staff to offer learning support by

removing children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds from the

11

classroom, despite policies directed at ensuring the cultural support staff worked

primarily with the educators to build staff capacity for inclusive practices. Tokenistic

or tourist approaches to multicultural education and approaches that focus on deficit

(Gorski, 2008) or cultural awareness (Rothstein-Fisch et al., 2009) continue to remain

dominant internationally. Deeper attention to intercultural approaches is emerging,

supported by curriculum trends, yet implementation remains hampered by teacher

understanding and a tendency to operate at a surface level rather than engage in

socially re-constructive pedagogies.

The demographic of the teaching service in Australia is of concern for policy

implementation. A majority white, monolingual and middle-class teaching service

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2008; Reid, 2005) creates issues for intercultural

understanding, particularly in a colonising context. In Australia, prevailing colonial

views, a lack of content knowledge and fear of causing offense limit teacher capacity

to move beyond surface level readings of policy and resulting tokenistic approaches

in teaching practice (Lampert, 2012; Mundine, 2010; Taylor, 2011). Teachers’

practices reflect their interpretation of policy and how they negotiate intended

meanings in their specific educational context. As policy is itself a socio-historical

construct, teachers require a critical lens to read and interpret policy directives, both

in terms of new directions for intercultural education, and prevailing policy gaps and

silences.

One such gap in the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR,

2009) is the absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander terms and knowledge

frameworks as a basis for curriculum development and implementation. The

document outlines explicit recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples as the First Australians, and includes recommendations for practice including:

... value[ing] the continuity and richness of local knowledge shared by

community members, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders.

... respond[ing] to children’s expertise, cultural traditions and ways of

knowing, the multiple languages spoken by some children, particularly

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children ...

(DEEWR, 2009, pp. 13-14)

12

To achieve goals of intercultural education, educators need to apply deep and critical

thinking to how such recommendations are enacted. For example, inviting Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Elders into the classroom to share local knowledge is highly

valuable, but issues can develop dependent on the approach teachers employ. In some

cases, teachers may place stereotypical boundaries around what counts as knowledge

and how a visitor can contribute to classroom practice (e.g., only as a ‘storyteller’ or

‘artist’). Viewing visits by community members as a one-off or addition to the

existing program also draws from a multicultural education approach focussed on

‘adding’ diversity to the early childhood program. Building sustained, reciprocal

relationships with visitors is keystone to working cross-culturally, as is the need for

teachers to be constantly aware of the influence of their cultural background

(including whiteness) on their thinking and practices (Dudgeon, Wright & Coffin,

2010).

An intercultural education approach, drawing, for example, on critical and

post-structuralist theories, has greater facility to address issues around equity and

power relations between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people. Such an approach

requires teachers to attend to ongoing questions about how issues of power frame

their practice, such as:

Who decides how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may represent

themselves (e.g., only as a ‘storyteller’ or ‘artist’) within the classroom space?

How are the interests of invited guests incorporated into the planning of the

learning experience?

Who benefits most from the learning experience?

How do my own assumptions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples and cultures impact how I imagine the learning experience?

How does my cultural background and related experiences influence what I

‘know’ about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?

Such questions can support teachers to reflect critically on issues of equity and power

in curriculum design and professional relationships, as well as more broadly. While

the centralising of (localised) Indigenous perspectives is fundamental to inclusive

13

practice, educators require tools for deep, critical thinking if they are to meet and,

more importantly, exceed policy recommendations, such as those outlined above. This

work is made more difficult by the tendency in Australia (and Canada) to borrow

starting points for curriculum development from overseas models (e.g., Reggio

Emilia) despite the scholarship of Indigenous educators, researchers and communities

(Martin, 2009; Pence & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010).

Frameworks and tools for developing a critical lens and engaging in self-

reflective practices are articulated in the Early Years Learning Framework for the

ECEC sector. A concern for intercultural education is the couching of these skills in a

“cultural competence” (DEEWR, 2009, p. 16) framework. Cultural competence is

viewed broadly as a set of skills that enable professionals and organisations to work

effectively in cross-cultural situations. Relevant skills include the development of

behaviours and attitudes that are self-reflective and promote cultural safety (Diller,

2011). However, a focus on individual competencies and attitudes in a cultural

competence framework can leave professionals ill-equipped to address institutional

forms of racism, including silences in policy (Abrams & Moio, 2009). Further, a

skills-based approach focussed on developing awareness separate from social action,

may not fully capture cultural competence as a concept (Ridley, Baker & Hill, 2001).

In reference to the Australian context, Dudgeon et al. (2010) draw attention to

challenges for non-Indigenous people to adopt a political standpoint in cultural

competence work that acknowledges colonial effects and the complexities of racism

and privilege in colonising societies. While professional development around cultural

competence has long been offered in Australia, traditional modes of delivery

including one-off workshops may be ill-suited to the facilitation of deeper and more

difficult conversations around issues including whiteness and racism (MacNaughton

& Hughes, 2007). This understanding is beginning to be reflected in innovative

capacity building programs within the early childhood profession in Australia that

address deep critical reflection as well as cultural knowledge, such as professional

conversations, yarning circles and action research.

Shifts in educator consciousness are cited frequently in the Early Years

Learning Framework as being critical to more inclusive practice, although this is

reflected less directly in examples of education for ethical behaviour in the Australian

14

Curriculum for the early years of school. Knowledge and application of a range of

theories, including critical and post-structuralist theories, is said to support educators

to “challenge traditional ways of seeing children, teaching and learning” (DEEWR,

2009, p. 11). Further, educators draw upon a range of perspectives in their work to ...

“find new ways of working fairly and justly” and recognise how theories used to

make sense of their work ... “also limit their actions and thoughts” (p. 11). Despite

initiatives focussed on up-skilling the teaching service in the before-school sector,

vocationally-defined early education preparation focussed on practical competencies

underpinned by developmental theories continues to limit access to abstract,

theoretical knowledge (Wheelahan, 2011). Traditional developmental theories have

been critiqued in early childhood scholarship in terms of normative assumptions about

children’s capacities that position some children as being ‘in deficit’ (Grieshaber,

2009; Lubeck, 1996). Limited access to a range of theoretical frameworks and the

couching of intercultural education in a cultural competence framework raise

questions about how educators can understand community and society in different

ways, particularly when guiding theories and frameworks for inclusive practices

marginalise real issues of diversity and racism.

Despite the inclusive intentions represented in policy documents and

education literature, Gorski (2008) argues that intercultural education does not yet go

far enough in challenging asymmetrical power relations and deficit constructions of

minorities. For example, rather than recognising the broader anti-racist inclusion

agenda, teachers tend to construct learning English as the sole issue for children from

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and to construct that issue as a

deficit in the children (Gundara & Portera, 2011; Petriwskyj, 2010b; Taylor, 2011).

This issue was evident in a teacher-as-researcher study reported by Miller, Knowles

and Grieshaber (2011). The study focussed on the role of a Cultural Support Worker

(CSW) in an early childhood classroom, with the findings showing that the (white)

teacher required explicit and sustained professional support to become aware of how

she positioned the CSW and children from minority backgrounds in deficit ways.

Becoming aware of whiteness as an ethnicity and racialising practice was central to

the teacher effecting change in relations with self and others in her daily work.

Pedagogic changes to support intercultural goals must address such deeper cultural

perspectives on ways of knowing and related approaches to teaching and learning

15

(Martin, 2007; Nakata, 2011). Vandenbroek (2007) explains this as a fundamental

shift in pedagogy, away from defining educational norms, towards debating who

decides curricula approaches and outcomes and what power relations occur within

this debate.

Since reflection on practice is promoted in the Early Years Learning

Framework, tools for collaborative reflection such as the British Index of Inclusion

(Booth, Ainscow & Kingston, 2006) have potential. These tools support inclusive

practices such as use of home languages and incorporation of familiar daily care

routines, and the establishment of service cultures and service-level policies that

support cultural inclusion. However, there is a difference between these generic

reflective frameworks and critical reflection on educators’ own practices, together

with collaborative critical reflection at a centre or school level. Although educators

may genuinely try to show respect for cultural diversity, they may unintentionally

engage in surface level practices that are not reflective of family and community

values and professional expectations (Grieshaber, 2009). Thus, collaborative critical

reflection across school/centre staff groups and intercultural dialogue between

relevant stakeholders may be essential elements of change.

Reciprocity in skilled dialogue with families and communities

Partnerships with families and communities offer insights into both cultural values

and into practices based on these values (Ashton, Woodrow, Johnston, Wangmann,

Singh, & James, 2008). For example, teachers’ expectations of individual

independence in children may be at odds with expectations of interdependence in

group-oriented communities, so adjustments in teaching strategies to embed

opportunities for interdependence are indicated (McLachlan, Fleer & Edwards, 2010).

Assumptions by educators that parents want one type of education or that bilingual

education is the best for children from diverse backgrounds may not reflect family

preferences, indicating the importance of considering who decides and how educators

understand alternate points of view (Vandenbroek, 2007). Intercultural dialogue

(Pratas, 2010) and negotiation of pedagogies with families offers greater coherence

between home and early childhood programs, supporting more seamless transition

between homes and ECEC and school.

16

The implementation of partnership requires the establishment of reciprocity in

relationships and sharing in decision-making. In Belgium, Vandenbroek (2007)

identifies the emerging role of educators in engaging in empathetic discussion or

skilled dialogue with families from diverse social and cultural backgrounds to

establish mutually agreed pedagogies in ECEC. This shift in professionalism from

expertise in working with children, to engagement with families in a manner that is

reciprocal, demands change in educators’ preparation. Higher levels of

professionalism are required if educators are expected to undertake complex and

sophisticated negotiation and shared decision-making working with heterogeneous

viewpoints. One implication for Australia is that the content of educators’ preparation

should include not only inclusive ways of working with a range of children, but also

skilled, reciprocal dialogue with diverse families and communities.

Respectfully addressing emerging cultural matters

The primary importance of developing more effective and reciprocal approaches to

working with Indigenous children, families, and communities has been discussed.

However, appropriate ECEC provision for a range of children from culturally diverse

backgrounds, including children with refugee and detention centre experience also

warrants attention (Grieshaber & Miller, 2010).

Since the experience of separation and trauma that forms part of the fabric of

refugee family lives has flow-on impacts on children’s educational adjustment,

specific provision for the resilience and wellbeing of these children is indicated

(Lewig, Arney, Salverton & Barredo, 2010). The mental health of children and

families who experienced refugee detention following unauthorised arrival in

Australia represents a further area for consideration (Garvis & Austen, 2007). This is

a matter of international concern not only in Australia but also in Europe and New

Zealand where refugees represent an ongoing social and educational pressure

(Loveridge et al., 2012; Vandenbroek, 2007). These groups include religious

minorities for whom educational provision that takes into account their religious

concerns is still developing. Combating religious intolerance is an aspect of

intercultural education that has received inadequate attention internationally (Gundara

& Portera, 2011; Rhedding-Jones, 2001). For example, in New Zealand, the

increasing diversity of family backgrounds has prompted modification to some ECEC

17

practices (e.g., religious celebrations) yet the dilemma of balancing diverse cultural

and religious expectations with policy requirements to honour Maori traditions

remains (Loveridge et al., 2012).

Intercultural perspectives in research

Incorporating intercultural perspectives in research requires consideration of how the

participant group features in the research design, process and reporting (Grieshaber,

2010). In Australia, the involvement of Indigenous researchers in investigation of

topics of Indigenous early childhood development represent an effort to demonstrate

respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the research process (see

for example Footprints in Time: Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children).

However, the promotion of the notion of Indigenist research (Martin, 2003) and

incorporation of Indigenous ways of knowing into research on Indigenous matters

(Tur, Blanch & Wilson, 2010) reflect an emerging consciousness of differences in

worldview of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Thus, research involving

Indigenous ECEC must incorporate both involvement of Indigenous researchers and

incorporation of diverse Indigenous perspectives as a means of achieving deeper

understanding of issues and future directions for Indigenous children, families and

communities. Similar research involving other culturally and linguistically diverse

groups is a further avenue for consideration.

Conclusion

The introduction of national policies that address intercultural education explicitly has

shifted the focus of Australian early education. Despite recent reforms, clearer support

for the centralising of Indigenous perspectives in early childhood education practice

remains a critical concern. As identified in this paper, greater emphasis on

professional education, tools for reflective practice, intercultural dialogue, and deeper

engagement with goals of intercultural education is also critical to supporting the

application of current policy reforms in practice. Based on these areas of need,

recommendations for teacher preparation and practice include:

addressing gaps in professional cultural understanding and current theoretical

knowledge;

18

ensuring professional education and professional development focus on

capacity building for critical and reflective practice;

adopting collaborative critical reflection as a decision-making tool;

engaging in intercultural dialogue with a range of families;

appreciating intercultural education as a site for transformation, rather than

surface adjustments to practice alone.

These suggestions are not exhaustive, but address emerging issues with the enactment

of intercultural education in Australian early education settings as national policies

are introduced.

References Abrams, L. S., & Moio, J. A. (2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence

dilemma in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245-261.

Ashton, J., Woodrow, C., Johnston, C., Wangmann, J., Singh, L., & James, T. (2008). Partnerships in learning: Linking early childhood services, families and schools for optimal development. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 10- 16.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011a). The

shape of the Australian curriculum version 3.0. Accessed March 29, 2012, at: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_V3.pdf

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQUA). (2012).

National quality framework. Accessed August 7, 2012, at: http://acecqa.gov.au Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). National

professional standards for teachers. Accessed September 1, 2012, at: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/_resources/AITSL_National_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers.pdf

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston. (2006). Index for inclusion: Developing

learning, participation and play in early years and childcare. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2008). Staff in Australia’s schools 2007. Retrieved

September 3, 2011, from: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1246540B-6D4A-4734-85FB-0C2C2D6D7F13/19904/SiASsurveydatareport2007.pdf

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009).

Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

19

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2010). Educators’ guide to the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2011).

The future of the inclusion and professional support program for childcare services. Accessed May 29, 2012, at: www.deewr.gov.au/earlychildhood/programs/childcareforservices/supportfamilyccs/pages/inclusionsupportprogram.aspx

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

(FaHCSIA). (2009). Footprints in time – the longitudinal study of Indigenous children (LSIC). Canberra: FaHCSIA. Accessed August 11, 2012, at: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/progserv/famchild/Isic/Pages/default.aspx

Diller, J. V. (2011). Cultural diversity: A primer for the human services (4th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

Dudgeon, P., Wright, M., & Coffin, J. (2010). Talking it and walking it: Cultural competence. Journal of Indigenous Studies Press, 13(3-4), 31-47.

Edmundson, A. (2009). But where are you really from? The ‘crisis’ of multiculturalism examined through the work of four Asian-Australian artists. Humanities Research, 15(2), 93-114.

Garvis, S., & Austin, L. (2007). The forgotten children in Australian detention centres before 2005. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 19-23.

Gorski, P. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonising intercultural

education, Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515-525. Grace, R., & Trudgett, M. (2012). It’s not rocket science: The perspectives of

Indigenous early childhood workers on supporting the engagement of Indigenous families in early childhood settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 10-18.

Grieshaber, S. (2009). Equity and quality in the early years of schooling. Curriculum Perspectives, 30(3), 91- 97.

Grieshaber, S. (2010). Equity and research design. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe,

& I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 177-191). Allen and Unwin: New South Wales.

Grieshaber, S., & Miller, M. G. (2010). Migrant and refugee children, their families

and early childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education: Language and cultural diversity (pp. 167-190). United States: Information Age Publishing.

Gundara, J., & Portera, A. (2011).Theoretical reflections on intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), 463-468.

20

Kalantzis, M. (2005). Conceptualising diversity – defining the scope of multicultural policy, education and research. Australian Mosaic, 10(2), 6-9.

Keith, N. (2010). Getting beyond anaemic love: From the pedagogy of cordial relations to a pedagogy for difference. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(4), 539-572.

Lampert, J. (2012). Becoming a socially just teacher: Walking the talk. In J. Phillips & J. Lampert (Eds.), Introductory Indigenous studies in education: Reflection and the importance of knowing (pp. 81-96). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.

Lewig, K., Arney, F., Salverton, M., & Barredo, M. (2010). Parenting in a new culture: Working with refugee families In F. Arney & D. Scott (Eds.), Working with vulnerable families: A partnership approach (pp. 157-186). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Loveridge, J., Rosewarne, S., Shuker, S., Barker, A., & Nager, A. (2012). Responding

to diversity: Statements and practices in two early childhood contexts. European Childhood Research Journal, 20(1), 99- 113.

Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing 'child development knowledge' and 'teacher

preparation'. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 147-167.

MacNaughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2007). Teaching respect for cultural diversity in Australian early childhood programs: A challenge for professional learning. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(2), 189-204.

Martin, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and

methods for Indigenous and Indigenist research Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203-214.

Martin, K. (2007). Ma(r)king tracks and reconceptualising Aboriginal early childhood

education: An Aboriginal Australian perspective. Childrenz Issues, 11(1), 15-20.

Martin, K. (2009). Aboriginal worldview, knowledge and relatedness: Re-conceptualising Aboriginal schooling as a teaching-learning and research interface. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 12(1), 66-78.

May, H. (2002). Early childhood care and education in Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. Accessed September 10, 2011, at: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Ec/HMayspeech.pdf

McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2010). Early childhood curriculum. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

McLaren, P. (1997). Decentering whiteness: In search of a revolutionary

multiculturalism. Multicultural Education, 5(1), 4-11.

21

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). (2010). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy and action plan 2010-2014. Accessed August 10, 2012, at: http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/a100945_ieap_web_version_final2.pdf

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs

(MCEECDYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Accessed August 10, 2012, at: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Miller, M. G., Knowles, M., & Grieshaber, S. (2011). Cultural support workers and

long day care. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(3), 275-291. Mundine, K. (2010). Flower girl. In M. Giugni & K. Mundine (Eds.), Talkin’ up and

speakin’ out: Aboriginal and multicultural voices in early childhood (pp. 11-22). New South Wales: Pademelon Press.

Nakata, M. (2011). Pathways for Indigenous education in the Australian Curriculum

framework. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 40, 1-8.

Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2007). Child care and multiculturalism: A site of governance marked by flexibility and openness. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(3), 222-232.

Pence, A., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2010). Both/and: Reflections on recent Anglo-Western early childhood curriculum statements. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(2), 15-24).

Perry, L., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills:

Models and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453-466. Petriwskyj, A. (2010a). Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early

childhood programs. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(4), 342-352. Petriwskyj, A. (2010b). Diversity and inclusion in the early years. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(2), 195-212. Pratas, M. H. (2010). Interculturality and intercultural education in Portugal: Recent

developments. Intercultural Education, 21(4), 317-327. Pratas, M. (2012). Interculturality and intercultural education in Portugal: Recent

developments. Intercultural Education, 21(4), 317-327.

Reid, C. (2005). Global teachers with global cases. Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 251-263.

Rhedding-Jones, J. (2001). Shifting ethnicities: ‘Native informants’ and other theories from/for early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(2), 135-156.

22

Ridley, C. R., Baker, D. M., & Hill, C. L. (2001). Critical issues concerning cultural competence. The Counselling Psychologist, 29(6), 822-832.

Rothstein-Fisch, C., Trumbull, E., & Garcia, S. (2009). Making the implicit explicit: Supporting teachers to bridge cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), 474-486.

Sims, M., Saggers, S., Hutchins, T., Guilfoyle, A., Targowska, A., & Jackiewicz, S.

(2008). Indigenous child care: Leading the way. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 56-60.

Sleeter, C. E. (1994). A multicultural educator views white racism. The Education

Digest, 59(9), 33-36. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Taylor, A. J. (2011). Coming, ready or not: Aboriginal children’s transition to school

in urban Australia and the policy push. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(2), 145-161.

Taylor, A., & Giugni, M. (2012). Common worlds: Reconceptualising inclusion in early childhood communities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 108-119.

Tur, S., Blanch, F., & Wilson, C. (2010). Developing a collaborative approach to

standpoint in Indigenous Australian research. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 58-67.

UNESCO (2006). Guidelines on intercultural education. Accessed 30th May, 2012,

at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147878e.pdf Vandenbroek, M. (2007). Beyond anti-bias education: Changing conceptions of

diversity and equity in European early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(1), 21-35.

Wheelahan, L. (2011). Vocational qualifications and access to knowledge. In G.

Ivinson, B. Davies and J. Fitz (Eds.), Knowledge and identity: Concepts and applications in Bernstein’s sociology (pp. 124-139). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.