Early Literacy in Contested Spaces

Abstract

Ryan & Graue’s (2009) Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood special edition, Examining a Lifeworld: early childhood policy in practice, provides convincing evidence that early childhood is very much on the ‘policy radar.’ Indeed, one of the curricular domains where this trend has proven to be most accurate is with regard to early literacy teaching and learning. Over the years at international conferences, reading the latest research, and in discussions with colleagues, we have found ourselves chronicling the increased demands literacy policies place upon both children and professionals within early childhood settings. All too often, the locus of these reforms has been academic (e.g., prescribed language and literacy curricula), generating what Ryan & Graue would argue is policy’s way of creating a singular narrative from a particular point of view. Towards this end, through initiatives across the globe, curricular policies have emerged that predicate certain perspectives on literacy and the ways in which educators respond to children in these learning environments. The danger – as the novelist Chimamanda Adichie (2009) cautions – is creating a single story, in this case, of literacy learning. In this special issue, we ask: Who are most influenced by these policies? What pedagogical practices and beliefs existed previously, co-exist, or emerge as alternatives to dominant policy narratives? Are there other stories to be told? This special issue emphasizes today’s early childhood literacy context as a contested space with multiple voices and perspectives that should be part of the conversation. Despite policies that position literacy reform in predefined terms, we look to individuals to understand how they grapple with, embrace, and question literacy teaching and learning on a day-to-day basis. In this issue, we hear stories from classrooms in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States that shed light on how educators and children negotiate contested literacy spaces. Each of the six manuscripts is followed by a response, written by early literacy colleagues from different geographical areas (Akin; Campano & Low; Comber; Duckles & Larson; Simon; Soto & De Moed) that provide additional lenses to consider the data presented by the contributing authors. In the spirit of international dialogue, the respondents add to the traditional journal structure, beginning a conversation that will hopefully move beyond the pages of this volume and into classrooms, schools, and research institutions.