longitudinal study of changes in teachers’ views of early

VarhaiskasvatuksenTiedelehti JournalofEarlyChildhoodEducationResearch Volume5 Issue1 2016,202–222

©2016SuomenVarhaiskasvatusry.–EarlyChildhoodEducationAssociationFinland. Peer-reviewunderresponsibilityoftheeditorialboardofthejournal ISSN2323-7414; ISSN-L2323-7414 online

LongitudinalStudyofChangesinTeachers’ViewsofEarlyChildhoodEducationintheUSA,Russia,and

Finland

JanniinaVlasova,EevaHujalab,JessicaEssaryc&ElenaLenskayad

aUniversityofTampere,SchoolofEducation,Finland,correspondingauthor,e-mail:[email protected]

bUniversityofTampere,SchoolofEducation,Finland,cZayedUniversity,CollegeofEducation,Dubai,U.A.E.

dTheMoscowSchoolofEconomicandSocialSciences,EducationManagementDepartment,Moscow,Russian

ABSTRACT:Thisinvestigationexamineschangesinteachers’viewsoftheneedsofchildreninearlychildhoodeducation(ECE)contextintheUSA,Russia,andFinlandoverthepasttwodecades.Inaddition,itfocusesontheteachers’viewsabouttheirrole in the process of child-rearing within formal ECE institutions. Moreover, theprimarypurposeofdocumenting teachers’viewsonchildren’sneeds,professionalwork,andcentre-basedchildcare,between thesesocietal contexts from1991and2011,istobetterunderstandpointsofcomparativechange.Thedatawascollectedfromchild care centre teachersbyapplying thequalitativemethodof focusgroupdiscussions.TheresultssuggestgreatchangesbothonthemicroandmacrolevelsofECE in the contexts of investigation. Although the results suggest that individualencounters with children are idealized in each society, the economics and valuesbeyondthechildcaresettingdefine the limitsofresourcesavailable to implementtheirpedagogicalaspirations.

Keywords:childcarecontext,crossculturalstudy,change,society,casestudy

Introduction

Societal complexities, including cultural norm pressures, and other functionalexpectations,areaffectingtheearlychildhoodeducation(ECE)sector,andconsequentlytheprofessionals involvedin it (Rury,2016). International focusonECEhas increasedsincethe1990s,beginningwithglobalactions,suchasthe1990WorldDeclarationon

Vlasov,Hujala,Essary&Lensakya. VarhaiskasvatuksenTiedelehti — JECER 5(1) 2016202–222 http://jecer.org/fi

203

EducationforAllandthe1989ConventionontheRightsoftheChild(Mahon,2010).Associetiesevolve,theevolutionchallengesECEteachers–andtheteachers’professionalwork–toreacttothesechanges.

This international comparative investigation aims to understand changes in teachers’viewsoftheneedsofchildreninthreeECEcontextswithintheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA), Russia, and Finland over the past two decades. In addition, it examinesprofessionalism, focusing on teachers' views about their role in the process ofchild-rearing within formal ECE institutions. Instead of straightforward comparisonswithin one country of investigation, the diverse national orientations of the selectedsocieties provide interesting and contrasting contexts for conducting cross-culturalresearch due to the differences in their national orientations to family-child caredynamics. For instance, in Russia, society has traditionally had a strong ideologicalpowerover families (Gradskova, 2010;Taratukhina et al., 2006),whereas in theUSA,families have power over child care choices if they can afford them (Barnett, 2010;Bennett,2011;Scarr,1998).InFinland,accordingtothelegislation,childcareservicesmustbearrangedbythemunicipalitiesaccordingto theneedsof thechildrenandthefamilies(ActonEarlyChildhoodEducationandCare36/1973;Revisedin2015).

Thenatureofthestudyshouldbeunderstoodasmultiplecasestudies,andthereforetheresults cannot be overgeneralized to cover the entire socio-cultural context of eachcountryunderinvestigation.Inordertoimproveclaritywhenreportingtheresults,therespondents are referred to as “American”, “Finnish”, or “Russian” depending on theobtained sample. National generalizations are impossible to achieve and undesirable(i.e. create stereotypes). Instead, this study aims to yield information on how theideological andpolitical issuesof societies compareand contrast to the teachers’ ownviewsregardingchildren,upbringing,andchildcare.

TheoreticalFrameworkoftheInvestigation

Early childhood education has its roots in the cultural values of each society, and theimplementation of early child care programmes are seen to reflect these values(Bronfenbrenner,1992;Rosenthal,2003).Despitethewell-acceptedphilosophy,fromapsychological perspective, that children are perceived rather consistently from oneculturetoanother,differentsocietiesconceptualizethecultureofchildhoodinavarietyof ways (Tudge, 2008). The structures of a society, its boundaries and its policies,regulate the reality of childhood in private and public institutions, such as withinfamilies and in child care centres. The regulation of childhood also involves theregulation of the teachers’ professional work, and both are defined as beingculture-specific(Peterson,Veisson,Hujala,Sandberg&Johansson,2014).Cross-cultural


204

researchquestionstheself-evidentnatureofculturallyboundedECEpractices. Itmay,metaphorically speaking, hold up a mirror to one’s own educational system and itseverydaypractices.

In early education, the foundation for understanding children’s behaviour is theawarenessofcontextualgrowth(Hujala,1996)andtheunderstandingthateverychildisanintegralpartoftheirsocialenvironment.Theconceptsofthechildandchild-rearingpractices are included in formal ECE, moreover, maintaining a continuous impact onteachers’professionalworkwithinthefield.

The theoreticalapproachof this studyhas its foundations inBronfenbrenner’s (1979)ecological theory,which offers a contextually defined structure for approaching earlychildhoodeducation (Hujala, 1996;2013). It gives insight into theunderstanding thatchild care provisions, including its pedagogical models and the growth environment,reflect the society in which it is situated and functions within. Triandis (1994)emphasized that educational processes cannot be viewed separately from the societalcontext: in order to understand the phenomenon as a whole, societal and culturalinfluencesneedtobeconsideredaswell.

ChildCareSystemsintheUSA,Russia,andFinland

Children's growth and development, and the impact of interventions affecting them,havebeenstudiedextensivelyby researchers in theUnitedStates (e.g.Bennett,2011;Barnett, 2010; Burger, 2010; Halfon, Russ, Oberklaid, Bertrand & Eisenstadt, 2009;Kamerman & Gatenio-Gabel, 2007). However, systematically organized child care isunderdeveloped at best (e.g. the supermajority of teachers lack pedagogical training),anditsavailabilityandqualityvariesextensively.Furthermore,educationalservicesareoftendesignedandsupportedontheregionalorprivatelevelforchildrenunderschoolage.ECEprogrammesforyoungchildrenreceivelimitedfundingfromthefederallevel,andaffordability forparents canbean issue (Barnett,2010;Bennett,2011).Althoughanticipatedintheearly1990s(Kagan&Rivers,1991),acomprehensivenationalearlychildhood infrastructure has yet to emerge (Wortham, 2006). While a variety ofprograms exist on the market, limited options create high demand and prices, andfragmentedECEsystemsoftencreateprogrammechoiceinequality, i.e. thereisa largevariation in the type of quality early childhood education that families may pursue(Barnett,2010).

Russian early childhood education has a strong tradition and status in its society(Rubtsov & Yudina, 2010), and childhood is highly valued (UNESCO, 2010; Graves &Gargiulo, 1994).The functionofECE inRussia is dual: it serves the labourmarketby


205

enabling mothers to work, but the early educational and developmental aspects areemphasizedaswell(Taratukhinaetal.,2006).Theuniversalearlychildhoodeducationsystem is coordinated and financed on the national governmental level; however, thequalityofservicesvariesregionally(UNESCO,2010).

In Finland, child care services are integrated and universal systems, and designed toofferbothearlyeducationandcare.ThegovernanceofECEservicesiscentralizedonthestatelevel;thesystemisstronglysubsidizedanditisequitablyavailabletoallfamilies.Finnish ECE policy, including the child-adult ratios as well as staff qualifications, isestablished in detailed legislation (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care36/1973). Despite the highly integrated service model and pedagogically educatedworkforce, there is no systematic qualitymanagement on the national level, and thiscausesvariationinECEquality(Hujala,Fonsén&Elo,2012).

Researchquestions

Thepurposeofthestudywastoexamineandfollowhowteachers’viewsoftheneedsofchildreninECEhavechangedintheUSA,Russia,andFinlandbetween1991and2011.In addition, it focuses on the teachers’ views about their role in the process of childrearingwithin formal ECE institutions. The current study is part of a larger researchproject,“EducationinaChangingSociety”(Huttunen,1992).

With three different cultural and societal contexts in mind, the following researchquestionswereaddressed:

1.Howhaveteachers’viewsonchildren’sneedschangedintheUSA,Russia,andFinlandoverthelasttwodecades?

2.Howhasteachers’professionalworkinsupportingchildren’swell-beingchangedoverthepasttwodecadesinthestudiedsocieties?

DataCollectionandAnalysis

The qualitative data was obtained from child care centre teachers using focus groupdiscussions(Stewart&Shamdasani,1990).Theaimof the focusgroupmethodwastogenerate knowledge among the informants of ECE in their society. The teachers,includingalleducators(n=2–3)ofthesamegroup,wereinvitedtodiscusstogetherandformulate their joint answers to the questions asked. The questions under discussion


206

concerned children’s needs, the well-being and position of children in society, theimportanceofearlyeducation,andtheroleoftheteachers’professionalworkinECE.

The data consists of samples collected in twodifferent phases: the first roundwas in1991andthesecondin2011.IntheUSA,duetothefragmentedECEsystem,thestudywas conducted in two cities in two different North-Eastern states: Virginia and NewYork.TheRussiansamplewascollectedfromacitysituatednortheastfromtheMoscowmetropolitan area, and the Finnish sample was collected from a city located in theeasternpartofFinland.Allof theresearchcitiesarerelativelysmall,urban,universitycities.

Theparticipatingchildcarecentreswererequiredtomeetthecriteriaofprovidinganall-day programme for groups of 3–5-year-olds. Due to the differences in the ECEsystemswithin the societies, the amount of centres participating in the study varied.Altogether 17 different child care centres participated in 1991, while 11 centresparticipated in2011.The totalnumberof focusgroups increased from39discussionsduringthefirstphaseto43inthesecondphase.IntheUSAtheamountoffocusgroupsdiscussions decreased from 14 (1991) to 8 (2011) due to difficulties in recruitingparticipatingcentresduringthesecondphase.InRussia,weorganised11(1991)and14(2011)discussions. InFinland, researchactivity increased from14(1991)discussionsto21(2011).Inordertobevalidatedandpermittedtoconductinternationalresearch,the ethics of the study were assessed and officially approved by the University ofTampereandTampereAreaEthicalReviewBoard.Theinformantswereassuredoftheiranonymityandthevoluntarynatureoftheirparticipation.

Conducting international research is amethodological challenge for researchers, whoneed tobeawareof theethicalproblems inherent in cross-cultural research.Triandis(1994) argues that in order to reduce ethnocentrism, it is important to analyse eachculture in its own terms. In this paper, the theoretical underpinnings derive from theemic-eticapproach(Pike1967;Harris1976;Berry1989).Emics, i.e. the insiderviewson thestudiedphenomenon, represent the ideas,behaviours, items,andconcepts thatare culturally specific. Etics, or the perspectives of the outsiders, on the other hand,discuss the same components on a universal level (i.e. considering generalizations ineach culture). In this study, the interpretation of the preliminary results is done incooperationwithnativeresearchersinordertoovercomeculturalbarriersandenhancetheemic-understandingoftheresults.

The epistemological orientation of the data analysis was inductive, and followed theobjective hermeneutical method adjusted for educational research by Siljander and


207

Karjalainen(1991).Themethodofobjectivehermeneuticsguidedtheanalysisprocessin order to allow a deep interpretation of the data. The analysis process started by aholisticinterpretationofthetranscriptions,wheretheaimwastodetectthemesrelatedto the research questions. The first phase of the analysiswas carried out country bycountry, and by separately analysing the data from the two time cohorts. During thesecondphaseoftheanalysis,thechangesinthethemesbetweenthetimecohortswereexplored,andpreliminaryresultswereconstructed. In the thirdphaseof theanalysis,native researchers were engaged in the process as experts of the ECE culture andresearchintheirsociety.Thepurposewastovalidatethefindingsbyrevealingthelatentmeaningsandsocialconstructionsthroughaninterpretationandculturalmeta-analysisoftheresults(Siljander&Karjalainen,1991).Theresultsshouldbeviewedasadialogueof the etic (i.e. focus group data) and the local emic (i.e. interpretations of the nativeresearchers)(see,e.g.Pike,1967).

Results

Changesinteachers’viewsontheneedsofchildrenintheUSA,Russia,andFinland

Inthefocusgroupdiscussions,theteacherswereaskedtodescribechildren’sneeds,andthe things they would change in their society to meet these needs, i.e. in order topromotethechildren'sgeneralwell-beingandqualityoflife.Thereportingoftheresultsisdonecountrybycountry.Findingsareprovidedinadescriptivemannertomakethecontextualchangeswithinthestudiedsocietiesvisible.

Consistentemphasisontheemotionalwell-beingofchildrenintheUSA

For two decades, according to the American teachers, the most important need ofchildren was considered to be emotional well-being. In 1991, teachers requestedimprovements inchildren'seducationandcarebothonthemicroandmacro level.Onthe macro level, they wanted a broader emotional change in the social prestige ofchildhood, and called for more time, love, and care for children, instead of materialwealth.Teacherssuggestedthatchildrenneedacceptanceandasenseofself-worth.Inconsiderationofeachchild'sown familybeingat thecoreof fulfilling theseemotionalneeds,commentsweremadeemphasisingthis,suchas“loveandaffectionfromparentsorguardians.Astrongrelationshipwithfamilymembers.Tobeabletounderstandandtocare.”(Americanteachers,1991)


208

On themacro level, teachers expressed a need for investment in the early educationsystem in order to ensure quality education programmes for children. Society must“value education more, so that more federal money is put towards quality day care.”(American teachers, 1991) In addition to formal ECE services, teachers requestedsupport for parenthood. Teachers defined the children’s fundamental need as that of“beinglovedandfeelingthattheyareimportantasindividuals.Theyneedtofeelsafeandsecure.” (American teachers, 1991). The teachers suggested that in a loving and safeatmosphere,guidedbyadultswhoareattentive,childrenhadanopportunitytogrowupwell-balancedwithstrongself-esteem.Socialrelationsingeneralaswellasabalancedgrowthenvironmentandlearningatmospherewereconsideredimportantinpromotingthedevelopmentofchildren.

Twentyyears later, theviewsof theAmerican teachersconsidering thebasicneedsofchildrenhaveexpandedfromafocuspredominatelyonfamilytoafocusonprofessionalchildcareaswell.Whiletwodecadesearlier,parentswereconsideredtohavethemainresponsibility for thechild’semotionalwell-being, in2011the influenceonthechild'swell-beingwasperceivedtobeequallysharedbythehomeandchildcare.Adultactivitywasconsideredtohaveagreatimpactonthechild’spsychologicaldevelopment,whichcanbestimulatedbysecureboundariesandconsistentchild-rearing:“Childrenaremostinfluencedby thepeople that teachand raise them–parentsand teachers. Parentsandteachersspendthemostamountoftimewiththechild.Ourbeliefsandopinionseasilyruboffandinfluencechildren.”(Americanteachers,2011).

Along with the emotional and psychological needs, teachers in 2011 emphasized theimportance of meeting children’s physical needs, such as proper nutrition, adequatehousing, and appropriate health care. In addition, the child’s right to a quality earlyeducationwasemphasized.Teachersproposedthatwhenthebasicneedsandthebasiccare of the child were fulfilled at home, the child care setting could provideopportunities for the child’s comprehensive growth anddevelopment in a stimulatinglearningenvironment.“Whileatschool”,theteachersclarified“weprovidechildrenwithnutritiousandhealthyfood,awarmsafeenvironment,andqualityeducation”(Americanteachers,2011).

Societalchangetowardsfamily-centerednessinRussia

For the last two decades in the focus group discussions, Russian teachers agreedunanimously that emotional needs are children’s most salient basic needs. In thediscussionsin1991,theteachersraisedchildren’sneedforloving,caring,andindividualattentionfromtheadultsaroundthemasakeyissue.Theteachersstatedthat“childrenlack care and love. Parents should spend time with their kids as much as possible.”


209

(Russian teachers, 1991). The teachers emphasized the significance of the homeatmosphere, parents setting an example to their children, and the importance ofauthoritative behaviour towards children. The teachers also expressed a concern thatparentsdidnot spendenough timewith their children, and theywereconcerned thatchildren’s emotional needs, as well as warm interaction with their parents, wereneglected.

Inthediscussions,Russianteachersagreedthataftertheeconomicandpoliticalreformsin 1991, general societal change was needed in order to improve the well-being ofcitizens. A strong belief in the state’s role in ensuring thewell-being of childrenwasclearly seen in the teachers’ responses. According to the teachers, a substantialrestructuringofadministrationwasneeded,anddemandsforallocatingresourcesandsupporttothefamiliesandtheECEsystemwereemphasized.Thesechangeswereseenasessentialwhentrying to improveearlychildhoodeducation,as “thestructureof thewhole society must be changed in such a way that there would be better materialwell-being for people and good conditions for family life. In time, people's attitudestowardseachotherwillchange.”(Russianteachers,1991).

IntheformerSovietUnion,familiesweresubordinatetothestateandofficialchildcare,buttodaythesituationappearstobethereverse.State-centerednessdiminishedintheearly1990s,andthefocusofpolicydiscussionwasgraduallytransferredtothefamily.Anew law stipulated that parents were the primary care-givers (Federal Law OnEducation,2012).Consistentwiththisshiftinthestate’sfocus,teachersemphasizedthemother’sroleastheprimarycare-giverinensuringtheupbringingandwell-beingofthechild. Teachers were unanimous that the main thing children needed was “attention,affection, and care from theparents” (Russian teachers,2011).As in1991, teachers in2011were still concernedabout theparents’ lackof timeandattention towards theirchildren,sincemanyofthechildrenspentlonghoursinchildcare.Teacherssuggestedthat “in order to fulfil children’s needs to be loved by their parents, it is necessary toshorten mothers’ working hours and increase the leisure time of parents” (Russianteachers,2011).Theteachers’concernwasunderstandableinthelightofthestudybyAlieva, Stasjuk, Fadeeva, Aslanova, and Uvarova (2011), which documents that bothparentshadlongworkinghoursuntillateintheevening.Theysuggestedtheneedforanewkindof labour forcepolicy so that parents of young children couldwork shorterhours, and focus more on family life. The political and societal shift has made itnecessarytoreconsidertheresponsibilitiesofthestateandtheindividual.

In2011,teachersalsodemandedmoresocietalprestigeforworkinECE.Theyaskedformorefinancialresourcesfromthestateinordertostrengthenthematerialbasisofthechild care centres and to enable the creation of a versatile learning environment for


210

children. In addition, the participants postulated that the deteriorated status of ECEshould be restored to its prior level. Thiswas in linewith theOECDpolicy reviewofRussia,which confirms that the status of ECEhaddecreased (OECD, 1998, 55–57). In2011, teachers felt that elevating the status of ECE professionals was crucial. In theformerSovietUnion,salarydifferencesbetweenprofessionswereinsignificant;raisingthe salaries of the child care staff was seen by the participants as modern, concreteevidenceoftheappreciationofeducationalwork.

Fromcareroutinestoemphasizingchildren’semotionalwell-beinginFinland

In themajority of the discussions in 1991, Finnish teachers listed physical needs andbasiccareasthemajorneedsofchildren.Teachers listed“food,rest,physicalactivities,outdoorplay,andsafety”aschildren’smostcrucialneedsinsupportoftheirwell-being,andassessedthat“thesecanbemetrelativelywellinchildcare”(Finnishteachers,1991).Children’s physical needs were seen as the basis for their balanced and holisticdevelopment.Twentyyearson,educationalaspectsarenowmoreemphasizedinchildcare, but the traditional daily schedule of the child care centres remains constructedaccordingtobasiccaresituations(e.g.allowingenoughtime forrestandprovidinganadequatelunch).Basiccarethatfocusesonchildren’sphysicalneedshasbeenperceivedto be fundamental in Finnish early education (Niikko, 2008) and therefore thepredictabledailyscheduleandadult-orienteddidacticswereconsideredaskeyelementsinprofessionalisminthelatterpartofthelastcentury(Huttunen,1989).

Thesecondmostemphasizedelementdiscussedbytheteachersin1991wasconnectedtothechildren’ssenseofpsychologicalsecurity,whichwasseentobedependonhavingconsistent relationships and an encouraging and accepting atmosphere, both at homeandinchildcare.Thebasicneedsofchildren,accordingtoteachers,wereconnectedtothechildren’s“senseofsecurity,warmrelationships,adultresponsibility for thechildrenand justified tasks, proper basic andhealth care, a stable emotional life, andwarmandgenuine human relationships” (Finnish teachers, 1991). It was considered an adultresponsibilitytomakeanefforttoformatender,psychologicallysecure,andnurturingenvironment for children. The psychological sense of security in Finnish child care isperceivedtoberealizedinbasiccaresituations,sinceapositiveandattentiveapproachduring these situations enhances the children’s sense of security (Niikko, 2008;Tiusanen,2008).

InFinnishdiscussions, teachers’ expectationsof support fromsocietyweredivided in1991. On the other hand, the teachers suggested that parents should be offered theopportunitytochoosethechildcareservicethatsuitedthembest.Thegovernmentwasseen as responsible for supporting families both financially and on the labour


211

force-policy level to ensure that parentswould have the chance to take care of theirchildren at home if they so wished. Teachers argued that “families should have theopportunitytochoosethechildcaresolutionthatbestservestheirneeds:home,childcareprogramme,orsomethingelse”(Finnishteachers,1991).Inturn,everychild’ssubjectiverighttoformalECEwasproposedandthegovernmentwasrequiredtoofferprogrammeaccess to every child. In addition, teachers called for the societal appreciation of ECE.Investinginchildrenwastobeseenasaninvestmentforthefuture.

Twentyyears later, in2011,theviewsoftheFinnishteachershadchanged:basiccarewas no longer listed as the most significant developmental need. Instead, children’semotional needs, such as their need to feel accepted and loved, were stronglyemphasized.Theroleofthesafehomeenvironmentwasnowseentobemostcrucialforthe well-being of children, and the teachers’ role was “to support parents in theirparenting,and tooffereachchilddevelopmentallyappropriateearlyeducation” inchildcare (Finnish teachers, 2011). On the other hand, teachers expressed a view thatfinancialtroublesormentalhealthproblemsintheparents’relationshipscouldincreasetheriskofchildrenbeinginanunsafeatmosphereduringupbringing.

In thediscussions in2011, teachershoped for changes ingeneral societal attitudes inthedirectionofnon-materialisticvalues.Societywasseentoemphasizetheimportanceofpaidworkandteachersthereforeproposedflexibleworkinghoursforparents,morefamilytime,and“lessstressandextra-activities.Bettereconomicalchoicesforparentstotake care of their child at home. A need to shorten children’s days at child care,” and“enoughstaff”inchildcare(Finnishteachers,2011).

While twenty years ago, the subjective right to ECE was called for, in 2011 Finnishrespondentsexpressedadesiretorestrictit.EventhoughtheActonChildren’sDayCare(1973)definesitotherwise,theconstanttensioninpublicdiscussionsremainsbetweencareandeducation.ThemainemphasisofthisdiscussionregardswhetherthechildcaresysteminFinlandshouldbeseenasachild’srighttoearlyeducationorasalabourforcepolicy solution for parents (Repo&Kröger, 2009). There seems to be an increasinglyprevalentconceptionthatachildshouldnotbetakentochildcareifoneoftheparentsstaysathome(Kinos&Palonen,2012).Thismayreflectthecriticaldiscussionthatchildcareisnotconsideredanoptimalenvironmentforachildtoberaisedininthelightofattachment theory, because it might endanger the secure mother-child relationship(Rusanen,2011). Inaddition,thequalityofchildcarehasbeencriticizedfornotbeingsatisfactoryfromtheyoungestchildren’spointofview,sincetheactivitiesaretypicallyadult-centred instead of child-centred (Kalliala, 2012). Broadly considered, though,FinnishECEismainlyofhighquality(Hujala,Fonsén&Elo,2012;Roos,2015;Heikka,Fonsén,Elo&Leinonen,2014).


212

Changesintheteachers’professionalwork

With the second research question, we investigated teachers’ perceptions ofprofessionalwork insupportingchildren’swell-being. Inaddition,we focusedonhowthese perceptions have changed. The topic of the group discussions followed thesequestions:Whatwouldyouseeasanidealupbringingandhowcouldyouexecuteitinpractice? What things do you feel are important in the caregiver’s work that wouldsatisfytheneedsofthechildren?

FromemotionalsupporttoprofessionalECEintheUSA

Whenaskingaboutteachers'conceptionsofanidealearlychildhoodeducationin1991,American teachers highlighted the importance of emotional education. A loving andrespectfulrelationshipwiththechild,aswellastheteacher’semotionalcommitmenttochildren,was seen tobemeaningfulandsignificant.Attention to individualneedsandthe teacher’s sensitivity in defining the developmental stages of children rose to theheartof thedebate.ThefocusofprofessionalECEwasontheaspectsofcare inwhichtheteacher’sownsensitivepersonalitywasemphasized.Accordingtotherespondents,children should “be providedwith a safe, secure, loving environment inwhich they cangrowandlearnattheirownpace”(Americanteachers,1991).

Inthediscussionsin2011,althoughemotionalcarewasstillaconcern,thespotlighthadshifted.Theprofessionalemphasiswasnowmorefocusedoneducationalaspectsratherthancare.Theteachers’opinionsseemedtoreflectthediscussiontargetedoncurricularprofessionalism (Wortham, 2002). In this general discussion,which began in the firstdecade of the twenty-first century, the choice was between a developmental,constructivistapproachtocurriculumdevelopmentandanemphasisonlearningmathand literacy content-area knowledge that would lead to success on standardizedachievement tests in elementary school. In 2011, teachers also called for professionalsupportandstrongleadership.TeachersintheUS-discussionsstillstressedtheirbeliefin child-centred pedagogy and the individual needs of children as they did in 1991.However, in 2011, they were more aware of their professional teachership indemanding “proper training and enough staff to be able to meet children’s needsefficiently” (American teachers, 2011). In addition, the respondents focused on theirneedsoutsideof teachinghours,e.g. in-servicetrainingandmoretimeforpedagogicalplanning.Otherstudiessuggest that thedevelopmentofchildcareprogrammesaddedthe need for quality evaluation in early childhood education, leadership, and stafftraining, and thus for teacher education in general (Barnett, 2011; Pianta, Barnett,Burchinal&Thornburg,2009).


213

Fromteacher-centerednesstoparent-teacherpartnershipsinRussia

IntheRussiandiscussionsin1991,theimportanceoftakingchildren’sindividualityintoaccountincareandeducationwasseenasamajorfocalpointofteachers’professionalwork, aswas the teachers’ competence in observing child’s developmental needs andresponding to them. Teachers emphasized early education that promotes thedevelopmentofthechild’sabilitiesinadiverseway:“harmoniouslytakingchild’sneedsintoaccount.Bringingupa childby takinghis/her individuality intoaccount.” (Russianteachers,1991).Thecornerstonesofprofessionalworkwereseenastheteachers’warmattitudetowardschildren,theirfairandcaringrole,andtheirabilitytolistentochildren.

ThefindingssuggestthatRussianteachers’professionalopinionshaveremainedratherstableover the last twodecades.Asdiscussed in2011, early educationwas seenas aprocessbasedonthechild’sneeds.Thissituatedtheteachers’roleasthatofanenablerwho may enhance the individual development of a child. Teachers were expected to“takeeachchild’smentalabilitiesandindividualismintoaccountandguidethechildintheright direction while acknowledging his/her interests and abilities.” (Russian teachers,2011).Changesintheteachers’thinkinginthisstudycanbeunderstoodinlightofIspa’s(2002) investigation, which examines the changes in the goals of Russian earlychildhood education from the perestroika era to the beginning of the 2000s. RussiaopeneduptotheWestduringperestroika,andWesterneducationandcarehadastronginfluence on Russian education; a consciousness of child-centred pedagogy andindividualityreachedtheteachers.Theindependentindividualismofthechildwasnowapprovedofandencouraged,contrarytoSoviet-eraideas,wherecollectivistvalueswerestressed.However,thedailypracticesinchildcarecentrescouldnotchangeasquicklyasthenewphilosophicalidealswereadopted.Zagvozdkin(2013)hasshownthatalmosthalf of the centres still use only slightly updated programmes that were originallydeveloped inSoviet times.Suchprogrammesprovidevery littleroomfor independentindividualism.

In the discussions in 2011, the focus of Russian ECE had broadened to the parent–teacher partnership. Previously, the parents’ involvement in ECE had been slight.Nowadays, parent-teacherpartnerships are stressed and encouragedby teachers, and“comprehensiveupbringingofindividualsandindividualupbringingjointlywithparents”(Russian teachers, 2011) is called for. Russian parents were seen to be moreself-confident today than they were during the Soviet era. They want to be activepartners in their child’s child care and are not afraid to ask and question childcarepractices.Nonetheless,Elo(2012)foundthatalthoughparent-teacherpartnershipsarenowthefocusinRussianearlychildhoodeducation,parentsstillgenerallybelievetheirpotentialtoaffectthechildcarepracticesislimited.


214

Itcanbeseenthatasignificantchangeinperceptionsofchildcareandupbringingtookplace during perestroika. In the Soviet Union, there was a rhetoric of children beinghighly valued as future citizens (Graves & Gargiulo, 1994). In practice, however,children’s voiceswere rarelyheardbecause adults knewwhatwasbest for themandactivitieswereplannedandcarriedoutbyadults (Gradskova,2010).According to theteachers in 2011, itwas now important to “see the individual in the child and to takechild’sopinions,needs,andabilitiesintoaccount”(Russianteachers,2011).

Emphasisingchild-centredprofessionalisminFinland

In the discussions in 1991, Finnish teachers’ emphasized child-centeredness andchildren’sindividualismasanidealupbringing.Teachersstressedthat“practiceshouldbebasedoninteractionbetweenchildrenandadults. Itshouldalsobeenablingandtakethe child’s ideas, wishes, and individualism into account.” (Finnish teachers, 1991) Inaddition to these ideals, safe and open communication and interaction between theteacherandchildrenwasamajorfocus.Trainedteachersandadequateresourceswereseenasprerequisitesforhigh-qualitychildcarepractices.

Finnishteachers’viewsonprofessionalECEhaveremainedrathersimilaroverthepasttwo decades. In 2011, teachers still emphasized that each child’s individualism andactiveagencyshouldbetakenintoaccountineducationandcare.Teachersstressedtheneedtoofferchildrenchoiceandacreativelearningatmosphereinchildcare.Educationandcaretookplaceininteraction.Inaddition,structuralfeatures,suchasadequatestaffand material resources, smaller group sizes, and appropriate facilities were stronglyregardedasaprerequisiteforhigh-qualityeducation.TeacherssuggestthatECEshouldbe“child-centredandgoal-oriented,basedonindividualneeds.Whenworkinginagroup,children learn to listen to each other and respect others. Children should be offeredpossibilitiestoworkinsmallgroups,allowingthechildthepossibilitiestodothingshe/shewantswithoutdisturbance.”(Finnishteachers,2011)

Discussion

Thisstudyaimedtoinvestigatechangesinteachers’viewsconsideringchildren’sneedsandteachers’professionalworkinECEintheUSA,Russia,andFinlandduringthepasttwo decades. Theoretical underpinnings of the study derived from the contextualparadigm (Hujala 1996) with an aim to understand the studied phenomena in theinterconnected environments and in interaction with the surrounding socio-culturalcontext.


215

Inanalysingteachers’pedagogicalthinkinginthisstudy,theindividualneedsofchildrenwere strongly emphasized. Children’s individual encounters were idealized in eachsociety,buttherespectiveeconomydefinedtheresourcesavailabletoimplementthem.The investment of societies in early childhood education and care seem to beminorcomparedto thegoalsdemandedofECEbysociety,whichsuggestsa lowvaluationofthefield(Strategy2020;2013;Abankina,2011).Teacherswishedtoworkaccordingtotheir educational ideologies, however, results suggest that inadequate resourcesprevented them fromachieving theirmostdesiredgoals.According to the teachers inFinland,thebasicphysicalneedsofthemajorityofchildrencouldbemetinchildcare.However,thelackofresourcestomeetindividualneedswasseenasproblematic.Itwassuggested thata reductionofgroupsizeswasneeded inorder toputmoreeffort intoemotional education and individuality. On the contrary, the current government hasmade decisions to increase the adult-child ratios, which will inevitably lead toenlargementofthegroupsizes.

In each studied societal context, teachers expressed a need for more governmentsupporttodeveloptheECEsystemandguaranteequalitychildcare.Americanteachers’demandsforthedevelopmentofchildcareprogrammesare,inpart, duetotherealitythat federal government-supportedpreschool education (e.g.Head Start), for childrenfrom low-income families, has been developed more efficiently than other typicalalternative private all-day programmes. Also, half-day programmes have traditionallybeendevelopedtoofferactivitiesforchildrencaredforbytheirstay-at-homemothers.Now, as women enter the work forcemore than ever, there is a need to develop anefficient, universal, early childhood education system. In addition, the increase in thenumberofsinglemothershasaddedpressuretotheneedforall-daycare,becausemostsingle parents work full-time (Halfon et al., 2009; Kamerman & Gatenio-Gabel, 2007;Scarr,1998).AccordingtoKamermanandGatenio-Gabel(2007),thereareevenstrongsocio-cultural “myths” to motherhood: poor single mothers are expected to workoutsidethehomeevenwhentheyhaveinfants.Ontheotherhand,middle-classmothersshouldremainathome.

AccordingtoKatz(2010,p.52),“WelfareisthemostdespisedinstitutioninAmericaandpubliceducationisthemosticonic.”ThereappearstobeadichotomyinECEintheUSA(Morrissey&Warner,2007).Educationisperceivedtobethecornerstoneofdemocracy,andthereforecitizensareentitledtopubliceducationfromtheagesoffiveorsixuntilhigh school graduation, while care for very young children has been considered theresponsibility of individual families. The funding of governmental ECEprogrammes isnotconsideredapriorityonthegovernmentlevel.Indeed,thefundingisoftendeficientandmarginal,and it isoperated throughthe local, state,andnational fundingstreams(Halfon et al., 2009). Kamerman and Gatenio-Gabel (2007) argue that government


216

involvementintheupbringingofyoungchildrenisstillviewedbysomeastrespassingintotheprivatelivesoffamilies.

When investigating the changes in Russian teachers’ responses, it is apparent that asignificantchangeinSovietthinkinghadalreadytakenplaceinthelate1980sduringtheperestroika era, when “Soviet pedagogy” ended. The Russian teachers’ opinions from1991suggestthattheRussiangovernmentdefinedthegoalsofECEandtheguidelinesofthe implementation of child care. This may have contributed to the definition of theparents’ subordinate role. In 2011, however, the focus in the responses shifted fromseeing the state as superior to the family, but the parents’ subordinate role hasnonethelessremained.DuringtheSovietera,earlychildhoodeducationwasseenaspartof the governmental apparatus; ECE was pursued to raise proper Soviet citizens(Gradskova,2010;Taratukhinaetal.,2006).Moreover,duringperestroika,thechangesin the societal position of parents and the economic circumstances of the familiesevokedconcernsforthewell-beingofchildren.

EventhoughtheroleofthemotherwastraditionallystrongintheSovietUnionandshehasbeenseenas theprimarycare-giver in the family (Gradskova,2010),motherhoodwasnotemphasized in theSovietUnion.Theaimsof societywerecollective:mothershadaresponsibility toworkoutside thehome,andchildrenwere tobebroughtup inpublic preschools. The state had a strong role as the primary practitioner in theupbringingofchildren.Preschoolsandnurseries,whichweremeantforthechildrenofworkingmothers’andforpoorfamilies,wereconsideredwelfareinstitutions,andoneoftheirmissionswastoeducateparentsinchild-rearing(Gradskova,2010;Taratukhina,etal.,2006).

InFinland,ECEhasdevelopedextensivelyover thepast twentyyears.Everychildhasbeengranted the statutory right to child careprogrammes. In addition,national goalshaveemphasizedthatthequalityofchildcareshouldnotbecompromised.Forexample,thechild-adultratio,whichisonethelowestintheworld,hadnotbeenquestionedbypolicy-makersuntilrecently.Onthecontrary,therespondentsraisedcritiquestowardsthe universal right of children to ECE, as they were concerned about the parents’positionintheirchildren’slives.ThedeclineintheFinnisheconomyhasnowledtothegovernmentdecisiontolimitthesubjectiverighttoECE.

Sincethe1990s,thevolumeofECEservicesinFinlandhasgrownremarkably(Strandell,2011).In1990,theroleofchildcarewasperceivedtosupportparentsintheirtaskofbringing up the child. Twenty years later, however, the Finnish ECE paradigm hasshifted from day care to early education to meet the developmental and educationalneedsofchildren(Kangas,2016;Roos,2015;Hujala,Valpas,Roos&Elo,2016).In2000,


217

the quality of ECE became an integral part of public discourse (Alila, 2013), andenhancingqualitypracticesandemphasizingtheimportanceofECEpedagogywereseenasfundamentalleadershiptasksinthedevelopmentofearlychildhoodeducation.Thesethemes have since become the foci of recent research (Hujala, 2013; Fonsén, 2014;Heikka,2014).

Inconclusion,ourfindingssuggestthatinallofthesocietalcontextsinthisstudyframe,the professional work of teachers and the manner in which teachers view children'sneeds have changed greatly. The status of ECE professional work has remained lowcompared to the expressed value of children in the three societies. In addition,participantsthroughouttheinvestigationsuggestedthattheprofessionalstatus,suchasthe level of the salaries, is still low in ECE. When childhood development is notunderstoodand/orappreciatedon themacro levelof society, investments inECEwillstruggletomeettherequiredlevelstofulfilthegoalssetforECEbyprofessionals.

Conducting cross-cultural research with an international authorship presented manychallenging,yetfruitfuloutcomes. Complicationsoccurbecausethereareavarietyofdifferent research cultures between us co-authors. For example, choosing clearconceptionspuzzledusfromtimetotime,buttheprocessexposedustotheemic-realityofourinformants–insteadoffindingonetruth,wefoundmany. Moreover,thisarticleaimedtobringoutthemultilayeredvoiceoftheinformants,previousinvestigations,andtheinterpretationsofusresearchers.Intoday’sworld,internationalresearchmayhelpusovercomecross-culturalbarriersandenhanceourunderstandingofdifferent levelsofsocietyaswellasacademia.

References

Abankina, I. (2011). Абанкина И.В. «Я – за умное, грамотное софинансирование системыобразования»;ЖСовременноедошкольноеобразование№32011[Insupportofthewellthoughtthroughandknowledge-basedco-financingofeducation.Modernpreschooleducation№32011]

Act on Early Childhood Education and Care 36/1973. (In 2015 revised Act on Children’s DayCare36/1973).Varhaiskasvatuslaki.MinistryofJustice.Finland.

Alieva, T., Stasjuk, A., Fadeeva, E., Aslanova, J. & Uvarova, G. (2011). Детский сад и семья:возможности социального партнерства [Child care and family: The possibilities ofsocialpartnership].Дошкольноевоспитание12[EarlyChildhoodEducation],38–41.

Alila, K. (2013). Varhaiskasvatuksen laadun ohjaus ja ohjauksen laatu. Laatupuhevarhaiskasvatuksen valtionhallinnon ohjausasiakirjoissa 1972–2012. [The steering of


218

quality and quality of steering in early childhood education. Quality discourse in thesteering documents of the Central Government Administration in 1972–2012]. ActaUniversitatis Tamperensis 1824. Tampere: Tampere University Press.http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/68120/978-951-44-9115-3.pdf?sequence=1.Retrieved15.9.2015.

Barnett,W. S. (2011).EffectivenessofEarlyEducational Intervention.Science,333(975),975–978.

Barnett,W.S.(2010).UniversalandTargetedApproachestoPreschoolEducationintheUnitedStates.InternationalJournalofChildCareandEducationPolicy,4(1),1–12.

Bennett, J. (2011). Early childhood education and care systems: Issue of tradition andgovernance. InR.E.Tremblay,M.Boivin,R.D.e.V.Peters (Eds.).EncyclopediaonEarlyChildhood Development, pp. 44–47. Montreal: Quebec. Centre of Excellence for EarlyChildhoodDevelopment andStrategicKnowledgeCluster onEarlyChildDevelopment;2011: i–iv. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pages/PDF/child_care.pdf. Retrieved15.4.2013.

Berry, J.W. (1989). Imposed etics, emics and derived etics: The operationalization of acompellingidea.InternationalJournalofPsychology,24(1),721–735.

Bronfenbrenner,U.(1979).TheEcologyofHumanDevelopment.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological Systems Theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.) Six theories of childdevelopment,(pp.187–250).Philadelphia:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Burger,K.(2010).Howdoesearlychildhoodcareandeducationaffectcognitivedevelopment?An international reviewof theeffectsofearly interventions forchildren fromdifferentsocialbackgrounds.EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly,25,140–165.

Elo, J. (2012). Varhaiskasvatuksen laatu vanhempien arvioimana Suomessa, Yhdysvalloissa jaVenäjällä.[TheQualityofEarlyChildhoodEducationassessedbyparentsinFinland,theU.S.A.,andRussia.]UnpublishedMaster’sThesis.UniversityofTampere.

Federal Law on Education in Russian Federation (2012). N 273-ФЗ Об образовании вРоссийской Федерации (с изменениями и дополнениями). 29 декабря 2012. [№273-Federal Law On Education in Russian Federation (with changes and additions)December29,2012].

Fonsén, E. (2014). Pedagoginen johtajuus varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Pedagogical Leadership inEarly Childhood Education and Care] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1914. Tampere:TampereUniversityPress.https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/95050/978-951-44-9397-3.pdf?sequence=1Retrieved15.9.2015.

Gradskova,Y.(2010).Educatingparents:PublicpreschoolsandparentinginSovietpedagogicalpublications,1945–1989.JournalofFamilyHistory,35,271–285.


219

Graves, S.B. & Gargiulo, R. M. (1994). Early Childhood Education in Three Eastern EuropeCountries.ChildhoodEducation,70(4),205–209.

Halfon, N., Russ, S., Oberklaid, F., Bertrand, J. & Eisenstadt, N. (2009). An internationalcomparison of early childhood initiatives: from services to systems. Reports:CommonwealthFund.http://www.healthychild.ucla.edu/PUBLICATIONS/Halfon_intl_comparison_early_child_init_svcs_to_sys_FINAL.pdf.Retrieved15.6.2011.

Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review ofAnthropology,5,329–50.

Heikka, J. (2014). Distributed Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education. ActaUniversitatis Tamperensis 1908. Tampere: Tampere University Press.http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/95016/978-951-44-9381-2.pdf?sequence=1.Retrieved15.9.2015

Heikka, J., Fonsén, E., Elo, J. & Leinonen, J. (Eds.) (2014). Osallisuuden pedagogiikkaavarhaiskasvatuksessa. [ParticipatoryPedagogy inEarlyChildhoodEducation]Tampere:SuomenVarhaiskasvatusry.

Hujala,E. (1996).Varhaiskasvatuksen teoreettisenkehyksen rakentuminen. [TheConstructionoftheTheoreticalFrameworkforEarlyChildhood]Kasvatus,27(5),489–500.

Hujala,E.(2013).ContextuallyDefinedLeadership.InE.Hujala,M.Waniganayake,J.Rodd(Eds.)Researching Leadership in Early Childhood Education, (pp. 47–60). Tampere: TampereUniversityPress.

Hujala,E.,Fonsén,E.&Elo, J. (2012).EvaluatingtheQualityof theChildCare inFinland.EarlyChildDevelopmentandCare,182(3-4),299–314.

Hujala, E., Valpas., A., Roos, P. & Elo, J. (2016). The Success Story of Finnish Early ChildhoodEducation,Nokia:VertikalOy.

Huttunen, E. (1989). Päivähoidon toimiva arki: varhaiskasvatuksen käytäntöjen kehittäminen.[Well-Functioning everyday life in the Day Care: the Development of Early ChildhoodPractices.]Helsinki:Suomenkaupunkiliitto.

Huttunen,E.(1992).EducationinaChangingSociety.ResearchProjectinFinland,intheUnitedStatesandinRussia.Report47.UniversityofJoensuu.DepartmentofEducation.

Ispa,J.M.(2002).Russianchildcaregoalsandvalues:fromPerestroikato2001.EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly,17,392–413.

Kagan,S.,&Rivers,A.M.(1991).Collaborationinearlycareandeducation:Whatcanandshouldweexpect?YoungChildren,52,54–62.

Kalliala, M. (2012). Lapsuus hoidossa? Aikuisten päätökset ja lasten kokemukset päivähoidossa.[TakingCareofChildhood?DecisionsofAdults andExperiencesofChildren.]Helsinki:Gaudeamus.


220

Kamerman, S.B.&Gatenio-Gabel, S. (2007).Early childhoodeducationand care in theUnitedStates:Anoverviewofthecurrentpolicypicture.InternationalJournalofChildCareandEducationPolicy,1(1),23–34.

Kangas, J. (2016).Enhancing children’sparticipation inearly childhoodeducation through theparticipatorypedagogy.DepartmentofTeacherEducation.FacultyofBehavioralScience.UniversityofHelsinki.https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/159547/enhancin.pdf?sequence=1.Retrieved3.3.2016.

Katz,M.B.(2010).Publiceducationaswelfare.Dissent,57(3),52–56.

Kinos, J. & Palonen, T. (2012). Varhaiskasvatuksen lähihistoria. [The recent history of earlychildhood education] In P. Kettunen & H. Simola (Eds.) Tiedon ja osaamisen Suomi.KasvatusjakoulutusSuomessa1960-luvulta2000-luvulle. [TheknowledgeandexpertiseinFinland.UpbringingandeducationinFinlandfrom1960sto21stcentury](pp.229–248).Helsinki:SuomalaisenKirjallisuudenSeura.

Mahon,R.(2010).AfterNeo-Liberalism?TheOECD,theWorldBankandtheChild.GlobalSocialPolicy,10(2),172–192.

Morrissey, T. & Warner, M. E. (2007). Why Early Care and Education Deserves as MuchAttention, orMore, than Prekindergarten Alone.Applied Developmental Science,11(2),57–70.

Niikko,A.(2008).Perustoimintojenpedagogiikka. [PedagogyofBasicCare]InA.Helenius&R.Korhonen (Eds.) Pedagogiikan palikat – Johdatus varhaiskasvatukseen ja -kehitykseen.[Thebasicsofpedagogy–Introductiontoearlychildhoodeducationand-development],(pp.69–78).Helsinki:WSOYOppimateriaalit.

OECD(1998).ReviewsofNationalPoliciesforEducation:RussianFederation1998.Paris:OECDPublishing.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264162860-en

Pike,K.L.(1967).Languageinrelationtoaunifiedtheoryofthestructureofhumanbehavior.TheHague:Mouton.

Peterson,T.,Veisson,M.,Hujala,E.,Sandberg,A.&Johansson,I.(2014).TheInfluenceofLeadershipontheProfessionalismofPreschoolTeachersinEstonia,SwedenandFinland.InA.Liimets&M.Veisson(Eds.)TeachersandYouthinEducationalReality.(pp.119–141).FrankfurtamMain,Germany:PeterLang.

Pianta,R.C.,Barnett,W.S.,Burchinal,M.,&Thornburg,K.R.(2009).Theeffectsofpreschool

education:Whatweknow,howpublicpolicyisorisnotalignedwiththeevidencebase,andwhatweneedtoknow.PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,10,49–88.

Repo,K.&Kröger,T. (2009).Lastenpäivähoito–oikeushoivaan javarhaiskasvatukseen. InA.Anttonen,H. Valokivi&M. Zechner (Eds.):Hoiva– Tutkimus, politiikka ja arki. [Care–Research,politicsandeverydaylife],(pp.200–218).Tampere:Vastapaino.


221

Rosenthal, M. K. (2003). Quality in early childhood education and care: A cultural context.EuropeanEarlyChildhoodEducationResearchJournal,11(2),101–116.

Rubtsov, V.V. & Yudina E. G. (2010). Current problems of preschool education. PsychologicalScienceandEducation,3,5–15.

Rury,J.L.(2016).EducationandSocialChange:ContoursintheHistoryofAmericanSchooling.5thedition.NewYork:Routledge.

Rusanen,E.(2011).Hoiva,kiintymysjalapsenkehitys.[Care,attachmentandthedevelopmentofachild]Helsinki:FinnLectura.

Roos,P.(2015).Lastenkerrontaapäiväkotiarjesta.[Children’snarrativesabouteverydaylifeinchild care] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2015. Tampere: Tampere University Press.https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/96477/978-951-44-9691-2.pdf?sequence=1.Retrieved15.9.2015.

Ryzhova, N. (2012). Training of Pedagogues in Russia: A Retrospective Analysis. Journal ofTeacherEducationandEducators,1(1),59–80.

Scarr,S.(1998).Americanchildcaretoday.AmericanPsychologist,53,95–108.

Siljander,P.&Karjalainen,A.(1991).Merkityksenkäsitekasvatustieteessä. [Theconceptionofmeaninginthescienceofeducation].Kasvatus,22(5–6),377–386.

Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Applied SocialResearchMethodsSeries,20.NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.

Strandell, H. (2011). Policies of Early Childhood Education and Care – Partnership andIndividualisation. In: A. T. Kjørholt and J. Qvortrup (Eds.) The Modern Child and theFlexible LabourMarket: Child CarePolitics at a Crossroad? (pp. 222–240).Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Strategy 2020, (2013). Стратегия-2020. (2013). Новая модель роста— новая социальнаяполитика. Итоговый доклад о результатах экспертной работы по актуальнымпроблемамсоциально-экономическойстратегииРоссиинапериоддо2020года/Науч.ред.:В.А.Мау,Я.И.Кузьминов.Кн.1.М.:Дело,2013.Гл.11.С.300–358.[Thenewmodel of growth and the new social policy. The final report on the outcomes ofexpertworkon actual problemsof socio-economic strategyofRussia until 2020. InV.Mau&Y.Kuzminov.Book1,(pp.300–358).Moscow:Delopublishers.

Taratukhina,M.S.,Polyakova,M.N.,Berezina,T.A.,Notkina,N.A.,Sheraizina,R.M.&Borovkov,M.I.(2006).EarlychildhoodcareandeducationintheRussianFederation.BackgroundpaperfortheEducationforallglobalmonitoringreport2007:strongfoundations:earlychildhoodcareandeducation.2007/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/29.UNESCO.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001491/149142e.pdfRetrieved15.6.2011.

Tiusanen,E.(2008).Päivittäisettoiminnotpäivähoidossa.[Everydayactivitiesinchildcare]InA.Helenius&R. Korhonen (Eds.)Pedagogiikan palikat – Johdatus varhaiskasvatukseen ja


222

-kehitykseen. [The basics of pedagogy – Introduction to early childhood education and-development],(pp.79–98).Helsinki:WSOYOppimateriaalit.

Triandis,H.C.(1994).CultureandSocialBehavior.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Tudge, J. R. H. (2008).The everyday lives of young children: culture, class, and child rearing indiversesocieties.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

UNESCO (2010). Status and Development of the Preschool Education System in the RussianFederation.EarlyChildhoodCareandEducationCountryReport.MinistryofEducationandScienceoftheRussianFederation2010.Countryreport.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001893/189374e.pdf.Retrieved15.6.2011.

Wortham,S. (2002).Childhood. 2ndEdition.Association forChildhoodEducation International.Olney,MD.

Wortham, S. C. (2006). Early Childhood Curriculum: Developmental Bases for Learning andTeaching.NewJersey:Pearson.

Zagvozdkin, V. (2013). Владимир Загвоздкин о реформе дошкольного образования ивыборе школы. Интервью. [Vladimir Zagvozdkin on reform of kindergartens andschoolchoice.Interview.]http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/city-news/141453-chto_novogo_education_interview.Retrieved20.9.2015.

longitudinal study of changes in teachers’ views of early

Documents