Young children’s early experiences and interactions have a substantial influence on their learning and development during the early years and into adulthood (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 2015; Shonkoff and Phillips 2000). In New Zealand, increasing numbers of children are participating in early childhood education (ECE) programmes before the age of five, following government initiatives to promote participation (May 2014). The strong focus on participation has undermined efforts to promote high-quality ECE services. Initiatives that target participation without concurrently targeting quality can put young children at risk and create inequities that have lasting impacts. A robust body of research has highlighted the role of teacher–child relationships or teacher–child interactions as a fundamental driver in the quality of young children’s experiences in ECE. In New Zealand, positive teacher–child relationships are often characterised by caring and respectful relationships in which a teacher has a deep knowledge about the child.

In this paper, we argue that conceptual and practical notions of positive teacher–child relationships would be enhanced by understanding of and supports for intentional teaching. Intentional teaching refers to the purposeful and deliberate actions of teachers, drawing on both their knowledge of individual children and professional knowledge and skills to provide meaningful and appropriate curricular experiences for all children in ECE. To set the context for intentional teaching, we examine the positioning of teaching in ECE in New Zealand and in the United States (US) and Australia: two countries with an increasing focus on intentional teaching in recent years. Across all three countries, the balance between teaching and learning in ECE has historically favoured learning and silenced teaching. The emergence of intentional teaching in recent years highlights the important role of teaching to support children’s learning through high-quality teacher–child relationships. To achieve equity in ECE, we must move beyond either/or approaches and thinking—we must embrace participation and quality, as well as, teaching and learning.

Increasing Participation at What Cost

The first 5 years of life are a time of critical and rapid brain development (Center on the Developing Child 2010; Shonkoff and Phillips 2000). The early experiences of young children have a lasting impact and differences in experiences can lead to differential outcomes for childhood and later-in-life (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2010). When children have negative experiences and experience high-levels of persistent or intense stress, learning and development can be impaired (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2012). Research has noted that cumulative effects of adversity and stress across environments put children at the highest risk of experiencing poor outcomes (Evans et al. 2013). In contrast, early learning that occurs with the context of a supportive, stable, and responsive relationship between an infant or child and a caring adult promotes child development and yields favourable outcomes in both the short- and long-term (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2015). These relationships encompass those within the home, extended family, and community; but also those within the early childhood care and education setting (Ministry of Education 1996a).

As an active remedy to combating the effects of risk factors for vulnerable children, primarily those deemed to be priority learners, the Ministry of Education (MoE) launched several ECE initiatives beginning in 2002 to increase the number of children participating in quality ECE (May 2014; Ministry of Education 2002; Mitchell et al. 2013). Following the implementation of these initiatives, the MoE reported that 96 % of children in New Zealand attended some form of early childhood service prior to school entry in 2015, compared to 90 % in 2000 (Education Counts 2016). Government initiatives have targeted local areas and communities where participation has been historically low—specifically children from Māori, Pasifika, and low-income families (Mitchell et al. 2013, 2016). These initiatives have been effective; the MoE reported that 91 % of the increase in participation has come from targeted groups (Education Counts 2016). Other noteworthy trends include higher increases in enrolment rates for children under the age of three and increases to the total number of hours children attend ECE. The mean weekly enrolment hours increased from 13.5 in 2000 to 20.7 in 2014 (Education Counts 2016). Thus, ECE programmes have become a primary ecology in which young children learn and develop in New Zealand and are intended to play an important role in mitigating later educational inequities for priority learners.

The focus on participation in ECE is premised on the idea that participation yields benefits for children’s learning and development during the early years and for later social and economic advancement (Ministry of Education 2012). We contend this benefit premise is often interpreted simplistically without regard for the complex interrelationships among children’s backgrounds, their participation in ECE, the quality of their experiences in ECE settings, and the need for a multi-faceted system of supports that address the complexity of individual circumstances. Related to participation and quality, research has shown that participation in high-quality early learning environments benefits children’s learning, success in school and well-being later in life (Mitchell et al. 2008). In contrast, participation in low-quality environments undermines children’s learning and social-emotional competence and potentially causes harm (Carroll-Lind and Angus 2011). Differences in quality affect children’s opportunities and experiences in ECE settings as well as outcomes achieved for them and for their families (Mitchell et al. 2008). Policy initiatives to support participation have coincided with changes to education funding and other policy changes that have resulted in lower requirements for the proportion of qualified teachers in ECE and a reduction in professional learning funding, which together have served to compromise quality provision across services (May 2014; McLachlan 2011).

Recent national evaluation reports from the Education Review Office (ERO) have continually shown high variability in key aspects of quality across ECE services. Table 1 outlines key findings from these ERO reports. Notably, the ratings of quality show a significant number of services are identified as using practices that are of poor quality or concerning quality with the largest numbers related to responsiveness or partnership with parents and whānau of Māori children (59 % in 2010 and 46 % in 2012) and responsiveness to infants and toddlers (44 % in 2015). The MoE has identified Māori and Pasifika learners, those from low socio-economic backgrounds, and children with special education needs as priority learners because these groups have historically experienced low success rates in education and might need additional support within education settings in order to achieve success. Widening the scope further, ERO (2013a) also includes infants and toddlers as priority learners, due to the significance of the sensitive periods of brain development within the first 3 years of life and the increased vulnerability of this age group. As early educators, we must confront the reality that there are groups of learners who are currently not well served by our early education systems and the impacts of these inequities can be long-lasting.

Table 1 Summary of findings for education review office reports for ECE (2007–2015)
Full size table

Also notable in Table 1 is the concern for teachers’ effective use and implementation of the curriculum that was highlighted in the 2013 reports. ERO (2013b) noted that “Te Whāriki … does not provide the sector with clear standards of practice for high quality curriculum implementation” (p. 4). Taken together, these reports clearly illustrate a pressing need to improve quality teaching practices in ECE. Research suggests that the quality, or lack of quality, of ECE can have the biggest impact, for better or worse, on children who already experience some form of adversity (Gambaro et al. 2014). Yet, children from vulnerable backgrounds are often more likely to experience lower quality ECE compared to their peers without such vulnerabilities (Smith et al. 2000); and thus, are less likely to receive the expected benefits. Given the current state of policy and practice in ECE, achieving equity in ECE must be balanced on two equally important rights: (1) access and opportunity for participation in ECE and; (2) access to and participation in high-quality ECE (cf. Thomas, nd).

The Pathway to Quality

The pathway to quality in ECE is multi-faceted and complex. Dalli et al. (2011) remind us that definitions of quality are contestable and subject to much debate; highlighting the tension between a focus on measurable indicators and the need for locally constructed, multi-perspectival, non-prescriptive interpretations that reject universal definitions.

Given the diverse discourses on quality, we believe that Woodhead’s (1998) recommendation to view quality as “relative but not arbitrary” (p. 141) is a useful one. It is possible to identify features of children’s experiences and interactions that appear to matter without offering a one-size fits all solution. Along these lines, Dalli et al. noted that there is “overwhelming consensus across research that the role of the teacher is of primary significance” (2011, p. 3) in ensuring quality ECE. Specifically, teacher–child relationships or teacher–child interactions have been identified as a critical component of quality in ECE (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000). This component refers to the actions of teachers that are likely to form safe, trusting and stimulating relationships with children; including showing a positive attitude, providing physical comfort and affection, responding to child initiations, asking questions, listening to and engaging with children in play or routines, having sustained interactions, supporting shared thinking, encouraging exploration and safe risk taking, and affirming children’s culture, language and identity (Mitchell et al. 2008; NICHD 2006; Sylva et al. 2004; Yoshikawa et al. 2013). Positive teacher–child relationships support children’s positive sense of self, active participation in the learning environment, and enthusiasm for learning (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2004); are associated with positive cognitive and social-emotional outcomes (NICHD 2006; Sylva et al. 2004; Wylie and Thompson 2003) and can serve a protective function to support children who face adversity to overcome these challenges and build resiliency (Center on the Developing Child 2015). Given the importance of these relationships, we explore what guides and supports teachers to ensure that positive teacher–child relationships occur.

Curriculum as a Driver in ECE

Teachers in New Zealand ECE settings are guided by the early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education 1996a) which serves as the foundation for purpose and practice in all services. Te Whāriki has been highly regarded within the early childhood sector for over 20 years (Moss 2007; Smith 2015; Te One 2003). Some have argued it has stood the test of time and remains a current and applicable document (Smith 2013); while others have critiqued its shortcomings and called for an update (Blaiklock 2013). A continuing critique of Te Whāriki, and the ECE sector, is the overemphasis on learning and an underemphasis on teaching and guidance for teaching (cf. Alverstad et al. 2009; Cherrington 2011; Cullen 1996, 1999; McLaughlin et al. 2015; Meade 2002). Meade (2002) identified three potential reasons for the teaching–learning imbalance in ECE: (1) scarcity of pedagogical guidance for practice, (2) limited resources to inform teaching approaches, and (3) an emphasis on child-led learning. In the following sections, we describe each possible explanation and provide context for the implications.

First, Meade noted the scarcity of information on pedagogical practice within Te Whāriki, highlighting the fact that while the adult role is acknowledged, there is no specific mention of teaching. Our own review of the document reveals the word teaching appears only once, on page 93 in reference to the school-age curriculum. We acknowledge that the word adult was intentionally chosen over teacher to be inclusive to range of providers in the context of ECE settings (e.g., whānau, parents, teachers, kaiako, specialists, support workers), nonetheless, it is not clear why the concept of teaching or a focus on teaching is limited (e.g., scaffolding is only used twice in the document). It is also unclear whether the absence of teaching is reflective of, or influential in, tensions between the nature of teaching and child-led learning in the ECE and compulsory school sectors, with the term teaching eliciting images of formalised instruction rather than teaching within the context of play- or routine-based activities in natural environments for young children (Alverstad et al. 2009).

Second, Meade noted there is a lack of resources to support teacher’s understanding of EC pedagogy, arguing that Kei Tua o te Pae; Assessment for Learning: Early Childhood Exemplars and related resources (cf. Carr 2001) have continued to emphasise child-led learning over teaching through the focus on assessment for learning and learning stories. It is important to note that some guidance for teaching practice was available to teachers in previous Ministry documents such as the Statement of Desirable Objectives and Practices (1990), updated in 1996 to the Revised Statement of Desirable Objectives and Practices (DOPs; Ministry of Education 1996b), with the associated support documents Quality in Action (Ministry of Education 1998) and The Quality Journey (Ministry of Education 1999). These Ministry initiatives were intended to establish national criteria for the provision of quality ECE (McLachlan 2011) and to support teacher self-review and reflection on practice (Ministry of Education 2006). The phasing out of the DOPs from 2008 onwards as part of a new national licensing and regulatory system left the sector in limbo, with little new specific direction for teachers. A new possible source of guidance for teachers is the Incredible Years Teacher (IYT) program which was adopted by the MoE in 2009 as part of initiatives in the compulsory school age sector to support a school-wide model, Positive Behaviour 4 Learning. IYT was developed in the US to support early childhood and early years teachers to promote young children’s social, emotional, and academic competence and prevent and address children’s problem behaviour (Webster-Stratton 2012). Evaluation research in New Zealand shows the programme is generally well received and shows promise for supporting positive outcomes, but challenges with uptake and implementation remain (Wylie and Felgate 2016).

Third, Meade noted teachers’ tendency to stand-back and let children lead their own learning through self-directed play which she referred to as “a hangover from the days when developmental theory dominated” (2002, p. 16). Play and play-based learning is a dominant and important feature of early childhood pedagogy in New Zealand (White et al. 2008). Although minimally indicated in the curriculum document (Alcock 2013), play and routine-based child-led learning forms the majority of programme time in early childhood settings in New Zealand (White et al. 2008). Yet, without the pedagogical guidance to support children’s learning through play or teaching in the context of child-directed play, it is not surprising teachers might believe they should stand back and let the children play with limited teacher involvement.

In New Zealand, early childhood curriculum is defined as “the sum total of the experiences, activities, and events, whether direct or indirect, which occur within an environment designed to foster children’s learning and development” (Ministry of Education 1996a, p. 10). The aspirational nature of Te Whāriki focuses on desired experiences and outcomes for children with limited guidance on how teachers might effectively interpret and apply the principles, strands, and goals in appropriate ways for each child, family, and setting (Keesing-Styles 2002). While extensive professional development was made available to support teachers’ use of Te Whāriki in the early days of implementation (1996–2000), current government policy has significantly reduced or removed funding for access to professional development and resource development, creating a vacuum for sources of support and guidance to teachers (May 2014).

Given the increasing concern about the quality of ECE highlighted in the ERO national evaluation report, the MoE convened an Advisory Group on Early Learning in 2015. In their final report, the group called for strong reengagement with Te Whāriki and made several recommendations to improve implementation of the curriculum, including an update of Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education 2015). Recent movement in response to the advisory panel recommendations has seen the appointment of a working group of writers to update sections of the document and to review existing learning outcomes, as well as to advise on supporting resources that might be developed in future. Given the parameters for the review, it is unclear whether revisions will address the concerns related to the teaching–learning balance in the curriculum document. Nonetheless, revisions may only be as useful as far as they are accompanied by other supports for teachers and for quality practice in ECE. Smith (2015) argued that

The biggest problem with Te Whāriki today is that support and resources for its full implementation have been weakened… it is important that continuing critical reflection on Te Whāriki takes place, and if necessary revisions made, but this is a total waste of time if there are not supports for [other] elements of early childhood quality. (p. 19)

Consequently, we return our attention to teacher–child relationships and teacher–child-interactions as important drivers of quality ECE.

Teacher–Child Relationships/Interactions and Intentional Teaching

The important role of teachers and the actions they take in the context of their relationships and interactions with children is uncontested as a key aspect of quality ECE in national (Dalli et al. 2011; Mitchell et al. 2008) and international research (NICHD 2006; Sylva et al. 2004; Yoshikawa et al. 2013). The terms ‘teacher–child relationships’ and ‘teacher–child interactions’ are often used interchangeably, characterising both the nature of the connection (e.g., safe, secure, caring, closeness, trust) and the actions that bring about the connection (e.g., showing an interest in the child, giving encouragement and support). Without question, ECE in New Zealand is relationships-based and embraces a relational pedagogy (Peters 2009). Our own anecdotal experiences in the sector suggest that teachers prioritise and emphasise the importance of strong relationships with children as the core of their practice. It does not necessarily follow, however, that a focus on strong relationships translates into the actions that have been identified as key to positive teacher–child relationships associated with quality ECE. For example, Meade et al. (2012) identified relatively low rates of sustained shared thinking in their observations of teacher–child interactions across 10 ECE centres, despite each centre having an explicit focus on respectful relationships in their philosophy. Moreover, the ERO (2015) national evaluation report on provision for infants and toddlers noted teachers prioritised “establishing warm and nurturing relationships …and had less emphasis on communication and exploration” (p. 1). Thus, it is possible to be relationships-focused, but not engage in critical aspects of teacher–child relationships/interactions identified as key for quality ECE, such as asking questions, commenting positively, having sustained interactions, supporting shared thinking, and encouraging exploration and safe risk taking (Dalli et al. 2011; Mitchell et al. 2008; Sylva et al. 2004; Yoshikawa et al. 2013).

We contend that conceptual and practical notions of positive teacher–child relationships in the context of ECE in New Zealand would be enhanced by understanding and support for intentional teaching. Intentional teaching has been defined as teachers’ use of planned and purposeful actions to organise learning experiences for young children (Epstein 2014; Grieshaber 2010). Research has identified specific and observable actions that teachers can use to create engaging and stimulating environments and activities, as well as supportive and responsive interactions with children (NICHD 2006; Diamond et al. 2013). Intentional teaching requires making professional judgements that draw on a range of knowledge about individual children, child development and curriculum, contextual influences, appropriate teaching practices, and family and cultural preferences to inform a teacher’s actions (Epstein 2007). Teachers need a repertoire of teaching strategies and need to know when and how to use them in planned and unplanned situations (Epstein 2007).

As previously discussed, guidance for teaching (including intentional teaching) in New Zealand is currently limited, and further restrained by reductions in funding for professional development. Subsequently, we turn to guidance about ECE teaching available in the US and Australia because both nations have made concerted efforts to emphasise intentional teaching in ECE in recent years. In the sections that follow, we compare guidance available in US and Australia to Te Whāriki to highlight similarities and the potential for incorporating a focus on intentional teaching in the future. We then explore promising intentional teaching research in New Zealand and make recommendations for the ECE sector to embrace intentional teaching to help promote quality and equity in ECE.

Intentional Teaching in the United States

Within the US there are a range of curricular documents, organisational position statements, and multi-component research-based frameworks that provide information to guide early childhood teachers’ actions or use of intentional teaching practices. First, curricular documents or packages often provide specific activities, materials, instructional sequences, or guidance on teaching practices to support children’s learning (e.g., Creative Curriculum®, High Scope®).

Second, national organisations focused on the teaching and learning of young children release position statements or guidance on key aspects of teaching, learning, planning, and assessment to support teacher actions. For example, the National Association of Education for Young Children (NAEYC) has provided a position statement on developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) since 1986. The first release of DAP focused on a child-directed approach that encouraged the use of stimulating environments and supportive experiences that enabled children to construct their own knowledge as they interacted with people and materials in their environment. Successive versions of DAP were released in 1996 and 2009 (Bredekamp and Copple 1997; Copple and Bredekamp 2009; NAEYC 1996, 2009). A key distinction between versions is the inclusion of intentional teaching in the 2009 DAP statement to complement the benefits of high-quality play. Table 2 outlines key changes in the focus and guidance over the successive versions and offers a comparison to key aspects present in Te Whāriki.

Table 2 Key trends in developmentally appropriate practice position statements and Te Whāriki
Full size table

New Zealand educators were critical of the early versions of DAP, indicating that the emphasis on developmental milestones and age appropriate learning neglected important social and cultural variations (see Aldwinckle 2001, for discussion). Successive versions have increased an emphasis on the role of culture in teaching and learning, but not nearly as strongly as the emphasis in Te Whāriki. There are, however, several key areas of alignment between beliefs articulated across the successive versions of DAP and Te Whāriki (see Table 2).

In similar fashion to NAEYC, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) has released successive versions of Recommended Practices in Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education (DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices 1993; Division for Early Childhood 2014; Sandall et al. 2000, 2005) to give specific guidance about practices appropriate for children with or at risk for disabilities. These recommendations are designed to complement DAP and help teachers support all learners in early childhood settings.

A final source of guidance for teaching practices comes from multi-component or tiered frameworks, many of which were developed and disseminated through research studies funded by the Institute of Education Sciences in the US Department of Education. Frameworks such as the response to intervention (RTI), positive behavioural intervention supports (PBIS), emergent literacy models, and other specific interventions (see Diamond et al. 2013 for a review) provide early childhood teachers with key information for informing intentional teaching practices when targeting specific areas of learning (Snyder et al. 2011). The Incredible Years program, recently adopted in New Zealand, is just one example of the many evidence-based programs with explicit teaching practices that are available for early childhood teachers in the US.

Intentional Teaching in Australia

Similar to New Zealand, ECE in Australia has experienced theoretical and policy tensions related to the positioning of teaching, which historically resulted in an inadvertent silencing of teaching across a patchwork system of state-supported curricula (Grieshaber 2008; Thomas et al. 2011). In 2009, however, Australia introduced the first national curriculum and framework for early years learning, Belonging, Being, and Becoming (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2009). Grieshaber (2010) details that this framework offers a new shared focus on learning and intentional teaching, drawing from Epstein’s work in the US (Leggett and Ford 2013), to emphasise a skilful combination of intentional teaching and high-quality play in order to support children’s learning. This introduction of intentional teaching marks a significant shift in traditional guidance and discourse in Australian ECE (Grieshaber 2010; Leggett and Ford 2013).

Table 3 presents a comparison between key features of the New Zealand and Australian ECE curricula. Given the Australian curriculum drew from features of Te Whāriki and New Zealand researchers were advisors during development, it is not surprising there are many shared features, however, there are some significant points of difference. The emphasis or lack of emphasis on teaching is seen starkly in the definition of pedagogy between the two documents (i.e., Te Whāriki does not provide a definition). The most notable distinction from Belonging, Being, and Becoming is the focus on teaching practice as an equally important element to the framework along with principles and learning outcomes. In contrast, many of the same features of teaching practice are identified in Te Whāriki, but not as clearly and explicitly stated as in the Australian framework.

Table 3 Comparison between Te Whāriki and belonging, being, and becoming
Full size table

Thomas et al. (2011) noted that although intentional teaching has been introduced, the focus on play continues to dominate. Our own analysis of the Australian framework revealed that the word teaching was used 23 times (7 of which are used in the context of teaching and learning); while the word play is used 72 times. Finding the balance between play-based learning and intentional teaching is likely to be on-going process (Thomas et al. 2011). Nevertheless, it is clear the Australian government has both introduced intentional teaching as an important element in ECE and firmly articulated play as a primary context for children’s learning.

Intentional Teaching in New Zealand

It is important to note that within the US, Australia, and around the world, the notion of teachers being planful and purposeful with their actions and deliberate with their use of teaching practices in the context of play is not new; yet, the increasing prominence of phrases like the intentional teacher and intentional teaching in ECE are a reflection of an increased focus on making ECE teacher’s work explicit in this context. Recent research within New Zealand has begun to highlight the need to make the nature of teaching in ECE more visible, and to articulate the importance of intentionality and professional decision-making to support positive and equitable learning experiences for children (Batchelar 2016; Cherrington 2016; McLaughlin et al. 2015). Having New Zealand based research related to intentional teaching is particularly important, because local research addresses and accounts for New Zealand’s unique cultural context; the unique organisational structure of ECE settings; and the everyday experiences of teachers, children, and families. There is much to be learned from research and programmes overseas, but we must simultaneously develop our own knowledge and practice base.

For example, Duncan and Dalli (2006) worked with kindergarten teachers who supported children under-3-years of age in their settings (kindergartens have historically supported children ages 3 through 5 years). By challenging teachers “to see and understand the experiences of children in their programme from both familiar and new perspectives” (Duncan and Dalli 2006, p. 71), the researchers helped teachers foster a new dimension in their teaching practices to address the specific characteristics of toddlers. Being able to adapt teaching techniques and pedagogical decision making to individual learners requires a comprehensive and complex knowledge and skill base. Related to this work, Dalli’s case study of an experienced kindergarten teacher illustrated her high degree of intentionality in supporting children’s learning. Dalli noted the teacher’s highly integrated professional decision-making brought together “multiple layers of thinking, understandings, and knowledge from diverse sources” (2011, p. 237).

Emanating from her doctoral research, Cherrington (2011) used video stimulated recall interviews with early childhood teaching teams to explore teachers’ thinking about their teaching practice in order to explore their intentionality in teaching. Her work highlighted the challenges that early childhood teachers face in articulating their thinking or making their teaching practice visible (Cherrington 2013). Recommendations from her work identify the need for tools to support teachers to be more intentional in their teaching and she has recently developed a framework to guide intentional teaching practice in ECE in New Zealand (Cherrington 2016).

In 2014, McLaughlin, Aspden and McLachlan partnered with teachers from a kindergarten association to explore teaching practices used by teachers to promote children’s learning and social-emotional competence. The research design included in-depth interviews and observations with teachers to identify practices, document analysis, stakeholder review, and validation of practices by 119 kindergarten teachers in a national survey (McLaughlin et al. 2015). The emerging practices were organised within a framework of 26 key areas of teaching, with 235 specific teaching practices identified and validated across successive phases of their study. Their research was “designed to reflect practices that are contextually, pedagogically, and culturally valued and salient” (McLaughlin et al. 2015, p. 36). An extension of the Teaching Practices study is the Infant-Toddler Teaching Practices study lead by Aspden and colleagues (2016). This extension work used the same processes to identify practices appropriate for infants and toddlers, given the unique characteristics of and the need for specialist teaching practices to ensure quality practices for this age group. The practice lists developed in these projects are intended to be practical tools for teachers professional learning and development, and to provide guidance to support and strengthen intentional teaching.

In response to the increasing trend towards intentional teaching, internationally and within New Zealand, Batchelar (2016) explored ECE teachers understanding of this concept and how they saw it reflected in their practice for her doctoral research. Working with 13 teachers from three ECE settings, she constructed a theory of intentional teaching within the New Zealand context. Her work described the intersection of teacher’s aspirations, curriculum decision making, and intentional practice, planned and spontaneous, to support child learning.

Recommendations for Intentional Teaching and Equity

Influences from within New Zealand and abroad have brought the intentional teacher and intentional teaching in ECE into focus. This focus should be seen as a necessary and important aspect of supporting children’s learning and development and ensuring equitable and quality learning experiences for all children in early childhood services. Intentional teaching provides a way to conceptualise teacher–child interactions that moves New Zealand teachers beyond broad descriptions of responsive and respectful relationships, to make more visible the specific knowledge, actions and decision-making processes that are central to professional teaching practice in ECE.

“High quality ECE can make a lasting difference for children and act as a protective factor for vulnerable children” (ERO 2013a, p. 8). As part of supporting high-quality ECE, it is imperative that we take action to meet the needs of all children, ensuring that teaching practices are tailored to each child’s specific circumstances. The frame of intentional teaching helps teachers become more purposeful, deliberate and reflective in their practice. This requires planned and spontaneous judgements that draw on multiple sources of professional knowledge and knowledge of children, families, and communities, including child and family cultural and personal values and preferences. Intentional teaching is not a panacea, but it can provide a useful pathway to equity in ECE through the promotion of participation in quality ECE, with teaching practices that are adaptive and responsive to the individual child.

Within New Zealand, we believe the limited guidance on teaching practices in early childhood presents an important opportunity. As noted by Collins et al. (2015) we need to identify and support teaching practices that are enacted in meaningful learning contexts for young children and aligned with our priorities for their learning. Thus, effective and appropriate guidance will avoid practices that result in the ‘schoolification’ of ECE and promote practices that are intentional and meaningful in the context of play- and routine-based learning within stimulating environments, building from a foundation of nurturing relationships. To this end, continued research and focus on intentional teaching is imperative.

Conclusions

Research has highlighted the critical period of the early years as the foundation for all future learning (Carroll-Lind and Angus 2011). As ever-growing numbers of young children are spending increasing hours in centre-based ECE settings, we have an obligation to ensure these settings are of a high-quality, promote positive outcomes for children and families, and ensure each child receives an equitable experience to support optimal learning (Mitchell et al. 2008). In this paper, we have identified intentional teaching as a useful construct to help articulate the actions of teachers to support the positive teacher–child relationships and interactions that are central to quality ECE. Policy and practice must support both participation and quality as well as teaching and learning in ECE, in order to achieve equity. These issues are of vital importance in promoting positive life-trajectories for all children.