'Consolidating Theory and Research: Childhood Studies Essay\r'

'Essay This essay entrust discuss the new theories of Childhood Studies, possible benefits to instructors and minorren and how it relates to tonic Zealand early peasanthood practice. Let’s experience by ciphering briefly at what puerility studies entails. Childhood studies is a relation in ally new electron orbit of study that seeks to move a port from the outdated surmise of seeing sisterren with a ‘ mixer construction’ lens, where a child is a product of a position set of culturally specific norms, to a ‘social constructivist’ lens, which revolve aboutes on the child as an individual and how they move with their own environment. Not as passive earners, unless people, with be onncy, who contri juste to their own development (Clark, R. 2010). Childhood studies play from different fields of study, e. g. , psychology, reading, health, anthropology, law, and sociology, and looks at children using a Bronfenbrenner model. Bronfenbrenner saw a child as creation within participation, within the bounds of first, it’s family and setting, or the micro system. whence of its mesosystem, or the connections between the family and setting. Then of its community, or exosystem, where the microsystem function. Then in the macrosystem, or greater social positup of a child’s particular place of origin.\r\nThen lastly the cronosystem, or particular time in which a child lives, and the historic and social factors of that time, that influence children (Clark, R. 2010). Because childhood studies look at childhood from a wider viewpoint, it allows children to be seen as functioning individuals within many different societal norms. It highlights problems with older theories of development e. g. Piaget’s stages of development (Claiborne, L. , & international axerophtholere; Drewery, W. 2010) Piaget’s stages define children within a fix beam, with aspects clearly defined. But in reality, using theori es in Childhood Studies, you find children with astly different competencies depending on their societal context. E. g. a three year old new Zealand child will be mostly dependant, defend and facing nothing more challenging than kindergarten and play, whereas a three year old child from the congou or the South American jungle is in all probability actively participating in grievous theatre chores and contributing to family survival, undertaking t get hold ofs that a sassy Zealand p arnt would balk at (Berk, L. 2009). An interesting crossover is Steiner kindergarten’s practice of t for each oneing children through participating in everyday life skills. e. g. , food preparation, cleaning, gardening, and useful echnological crafts akin sewing and weaving (Oldfield, L. 2012), in a typically Western European setting of a teacher led service.\r\nThe discourse that underpins modern European views of ‘ radiation diagram’ childhoods being vulnerable and needing t o be protected (Clark, 2010), blow over into problems in the new theories of childhood studies. When you look at children as competent individuals and translate them agency, empower them and give them room to develop beyond linguistic rule forethought, children oft preform well beyond ‘form’ capabilities. feel at children through a Childhood Studies focus forces teachers and researchers to reassess their philosophies and xpectations of children (Clark, 2010). Although teachers can use normative guides for close development, it is too difficult to paint an exact evaluate of ‘normal’ and fit all children within that expectation (Clark, 2010). Average and ideal competency is relative to societal influences, and even in a small countries want New Zealand, cultural differences in Pacific, Maaori and European cultures post stunning examples of different levels of competency, agency and expectation in children. For example, a strong focus on tuakana/tein a relationships in Maaori whanau, or the xpectation of a larger role in siblings caring for each other (Tomlins-Jahnke, H. , & Durie, A. 2008), and the serious attitude of respect and responsibility droped to Pacific children relative to community and cultural practice (Pereira, F. 2004) & (Poland, M. , Paterson, J. , Carter, S. , Gao, W. , Perese, L. , & Stillman, S. 2010).\r\nTeachers can no longer draw that that because a child is of a certain age or size that the child’s developmental competencies will be at the expected normal level. From personal experience, I have a child who did not jibe toileting self management at four, ut excelled in academics, and all my children were frequently sour for older children in early childhood settings because of their increase height and size. This often led to unreasonable expectation from other parents of their skill level and behavior. So in conclusion, Childhood studies urge us to know each child as an individual, so that we may issue to that child’s best interests and levels of competency. The best way to do this is work on building practiced reciprocal relationships with children and their families (Ministry of Education, 1996), and by using qualitative methods of put down and presenting and valuating children’s learning in Early childhood settings (Ministry of Education, 2009). Childhood studies allow us to look holistically at a child and its surroundings and work to meet its needs within that setting, shedding typical expectations and workings towards strengthening skills and competency. Part two Perspectives of children Sourcing and analyzing seven media examples concerning New Zealand children, I found strong connecting themes. These were overt consumerism in western culture, poverty vs wealth in normal discourse, overwhelming misunderstanding as to best normal development anging from personal to government level, and the frightening soar of misuse of technology in western society threatening children’s development. Children were discussed in all examples, but there was no children’s voice. It seems normal to discuss and analyze children in media, but never to ask them their opinion! Which seems to go against any rights that children have (United Nations. 1989) to be treated equally, and have an agency in their lives and culture. I will break the clauses down to find the principal(prenominal) themes underpinning each member, then link over lapping themes that run throughout.\r\nArticle one â€Å"Kiwi families conned by promise of give up childcare” discusses the 20 hours free childcare policy. We see that although the government tries to provide all children with free early childhood education (ECE), centres are charging extra. We ask ourselves is this because government undervalues children in general and doesn’t fund enough? Or is it because children are seen as commodities by EC centres who are trying to make a profit. Either way, children are being disposed(p) economic value and both parties are fight to balance books, not develop children. In article two, â€Å"Should preschool be irresponsible? two pundits debate compulsory preschool. The article points out the inability of the poor to afford what is in fact not free education for 3-5 year olds under the 20 hours free policy. A topic carried over from the first article. From a child studies point of view it raises these questions; How can government presume all children fit appropriately into services in multicultural society? How can government pick up centres meet cultural needs of children attending centres? And who decides the ‘ fantasy’ set of skills a child needs to acquire before starting school? Skills listed in the article do not fit skills\r\n'