‘Innovating’ to promote equity and inclusion in early childhood education: a framework for documenting localised pedagogical approaches

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding ‘innovation’ in early childhood education as a process for addressing issues around social justice and inclusion. The framework is used to analyse innovative aspects of two unique, localised early childhood programmes implemented to support ethnic minority children in Northern Thailand and children of migrant labourers in urban India. Drawing on contemporary critiques that point to the global predominance of universalised models of teaching and learning, the paper highlights these contextually-responsive programmes as crucial in demonstrating the importance of ‘emergent’ pedagogical approaches for achieving equity and inclusion. To promote greater acknowledgement of programmes such as these, the paper presents a case for shifting the current focus on ‘innovation’ in education away from an emphasis on effectiveness for supporting greater efficiency of standardised, pre-determined learning outcomes, to encompass small-scale, localised approaches that support children from marginalised backgrounds.

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood
• equity
• inclusion
• pedagogy
• innovation
• marginalised communities
• mother-tongue based learning
• migrant workers

Introduction

Despite widespread, global promotion of early childhood education as a potential ‘equaliser’ in supporting equitable access to formal learning (Irwin, Siddiqi, and Hertzman 2007; Yang, Rao, and Pearson 2024), recent reports indicate that 33 million children worldwide do not have access to early childhood education. The majority of these children are from low- and middle-income countries and communities at risk of marginalisation (UNESCO 2022). Barriers to access are not restricted, to the ‘Global South’. Concerns around equitable access to appropriate early childhood education that meets the needs of children from a wide range of communities have also been articulated in high- and upper-middle income countries including Australia (Beatson et al. 2022), the United Kingdom (Simpson et al. 2017) and China (Hu et al. 2016). Barriers across diverse contexts are complex and multi-faceted, spanning multifarious geographical, socio-cultural and linguistic factors (Pearson 2015) that are seldom addressed in mainstream education policy and practice, or even within ‘international’ early childhood studies. This has resulted in perpetual inequalities for children living at the margins of society.

There are, however, examples of creative and inspiring programmes implemented by local organisations that work on the ground to enhance equity, by identifying and addressing critical barriers to access. Many of these programmes are not widely documented. As a UNESCO report authored by Chartier and Geneix (2006) highlighted almost 20 years ago, the informal nature of early childhood education across many ‘Majority World’ contexts means that there is little in the way of official reporting. This on-going lack of visibility results in the dominance of models for teaching and learning that are more widely documented and discussed. Indeed, for many years, universalised concepts of ‘best practice’ reflecting Western ideals have shaped international agendas for early learning and development (Xu et al. 2023), likely a result of the global educational emphasis on ‘evidence-based practice’ (Biesta 2010). To illustrate, a meta-analysis of 338 published peer-reviewed journal articles on internationally-accepted notions of ‘quality’ in early childhood education found that the vast majority of research informing the field was conducted in the USA (70%), followed by Europe (12%), the Asia-Pacific region (8%) and the remaining 10% spread across other countries (Fenech 2011).

The continued observance of dominant approaches raises significant challenges for those charged with ensuring that early childhood education is accessible and relevant to children living in communities that are unique and/or isolated on socio-cultural, economic or geographical grounds, and under-represented in the international evidence-base on early childhood education (Gupta 2022; Pearson 2015). In the context of these challenges, the authors were commissioned in 2015 by UNESCO, with support from the Asia-Pacific Regional Network for Early Childhood, to conduct a study of ‘innovative pedagogical approaches’ across the Asia-Pacific region (Pearson and Degotardi 2016). The study’s purpose was to (i) draw attention to the rich diversity of early childhood pedagogies that exists across the Asia-Pacific region and (ii) highlight the role of pedagogical approaches in responding to critical localised issues related to enhancing equity and sustainability. Drawing on two programmes documented as part of the study, this paper presents a framework for ‘innovation’ in early childhood education that promotes a focus on early childhood programmes oriented towards addressing unmet needs of children from underserved communities. The following sections present an argument and a framework for re-conceptualising ‘innovation’ in education, drawing on three unique approaches to understanding innovation. The framework is then applied in illustrating how the two selected programmes (one from northern Thailand and one from southern India) are ‘innovative’ in their response to issues around educational marginalisation of young children from minority backgrounds.

These two programmes provide an important reminder, in the current context of alignment of educational aspirations to global economic agendas (Rizvi, Lingard, and Rinne 2022), of the importance of pedagogical approaches that extend beyond the attainment of pre-determined outcomes, and account also for educational and care issues that address ethical concerns associated with equity and inclusion. We draw on these two examples to highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘innovation’ as a means for positive social change and empowerment in under-represented communities (Christensen et al. 2006; Huaman 2015), in early childhood settings across both the ‘Global South’ and the ‘Global North’.

Problematising dominant conceptualisations of ‘innovation’ in education and early childhood education

The concept of ‘innovation’ in education is predominantly associated with widescale implementation of teaching and learning approaches that strengthen implementation of policy or broad educational agendas. For example, at global level, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has published widely on strategies for innovation in the context of demands for efficient implementation of educational policy, to ‘maximise the value of public investment’ (20) and ‘enhance productivity’ (21) (OECD 2014). Within the field of early childhood education, the OECD’s focus on strengthening systems through efficiency is reflected in international comparisons of performance on universalised assessments, which have attracted some concern (Xu et al. 2023).

While the goals of efficiency and productivity are not in themselves problematic, they have tended to perpetuate the concept of strengthening progress towards student achievement in standardised learning assessments as constituting ‘innovation’. As Smith and Smith (2020) point out, high stakes teaching and accountability pressures associated with neo-liberal policies driving competition and choice in the United States have resulted in ‘innovation’ in education being associated with initiatives such as charter schools and vouchers, which ‘support market mechanisms and challenge the public school’s monopoly’ (168). ‘Datafication’ of children in early childhood education settings, associated with accountability reforms implemented in the United Kingdom, have been found to shift focus among educators away from ‘appropriate learning needs’ towards performativity (Roberts-Holmes and Alison Bradbury 2016). A preoccupation with ‘innovation’ that results in measurable outcomes, efficiency and ‘scaling up’ is also highlighted by Serdyukov (2017), as are assumptions around natural links between digital technologies for learning and ‘innovative pedagogies’.

‘Innovation’ in education is rarely associated with small-scale, unique educational interventions that are designed to address localised education issues. Yet there is increasing evidence of the need for a stronger focus on such examples. Danaher (2023), for example, has argued that addressing the educational needs of children from mobile and nomadic families at risk of marginalisation requires ‘innovations’ that respond not to broader policies, but to the unique histories of these communities, grounded in an appreciation of the ways in which mobile lives and livelihoods are organised. In a critique of dominant approaches to entrepreneurship education, Lund (2017) highlights the growing uniformity in global education systems that silences diverse pedagogical traditions and local practices. Part of her response focuses on the need to incorporate ethical aspects of innovation into curricula, with overt focus on ‘sharing and caring’, to address important issues including climate change and conflict.

These calls point to the importance of a critical approach to dominant marketisation- and standardisation- oriented approaches to ‘innovation’ in education through (i) promotion of alternative understandings of ‘innovation’ and (ii) examples of unique pedagogical approaches that reflect such understandings.

Alternative understandings of ‘innovation’

The following three conceptualisations of innovation present opportunities for supporting the argument that small-scale pedagogical initiatives focused on addressing localised educational issues may be equally important for enhancing educational experiences for children as large-scale approaches oriented towards learning efficiency and outcomes. The first, Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) incorporates leanings towards social justice and empowerment. TSI’s primary goal is to empower people, by challenging or altering existing social relations, and supporting new ways of ‘doing, organising, framing and knowing’. An important characteristic of TSI is that innovations are not imposed, but co-produced, with active inputs from those whom an ‘innovation’ is designed to empower (Avelino et al. 2019, 198)

The second approach to innovation that lends itself to consideration of issues around equity in education, is Indigenous Innovation. Unlike more dominant forms of innovation, Indigenous Innovation is not so much concerned with change and novelty, as with the preservation and revitalisation of indigenous knowledge systems. Like TSI, Indigenous Innovations are designed to support self-determination, focused primarily on the importance of cultural maintenance and autonomy (Huaman 2015).

A third approach, informed by the concept of ‘disruptive innovation’ (Christensen et al. 2006), highlights parallels between our assertions about the importance of small-scale, targeted educational innovations for enhancing access to under-served populations, and similar arguments proposed in corporate contexts. Developed in the context of business, a disruptive innovation is novel in that it expands access to goods or services for under-represented communities, creating social change through ‘disruption’ of dominant models. The underpinning concept of a ‘disruptive innovation’ is useful for drawing attention to the importance of innovations that target ‘underserved’ populations (Christensen et al. 2006). Applied in educational contexts, a ‘disruptive’ innovation might achieve success in reaching learners who are not served by mainstream, formalised institutions (Al-Imarah and Shields 2019). The relevance of this concept in education, therefore, is that it specifically highlights the potential of localised pedagogical innovations for achieving significant impact in addressing the limitations of dominant models or approaches.

‘Pedagogical innovation’ for equity

Understandings of pedagogy in early childhood have, like understandings of quality as highlighted earlier, tended to be dominated by Western European ways of thinking, even in contexts where alternative concepts already exist. The vast majority of trained early childhood teachers globally are familiar with the constructivist theories of Vygotsky and Piaget, and the pedagogical philosophy of historical leaders in the field such as Montessori. However, there is widespread critique of the extent to which pedagogical approaches associated with these philosophies can and should be applied across diverse cultural contexts. Learning that promotes linkages between unique local knowledges, customs and curriculum content has been shown to enhance teaching and learning (Pearson, Rawdin, and Ahuja 2023). For example, Subramanian (2012) has highlighted connections between the cultural importance of ‘learning through listening’ and a tendency among teachers in many Indian classrooms to shape classroom interactions using rote learning and teacher-directed questioning. In a similar vein, Gupta (2020) has recently argued that teacher education needs to incorporate notions of ‘pedagogical hybridity’, which provide space for the development of contextualised teaching and learning that draws on a range of approaches.

During recent decades, discussions around pedagogy have critiqued the global preoccupation with pedagogical approaches that promote efficiency in meeting curriculum goals and learning targets, which has limited space for engagement with ideals or philosophies about the purpose of education (for example, Alexander 2005; Biesta 2016). Biesta has argued consistently that a focus on ‘evidence-based practice’ has reduced teaching and learning to largely technical processes of achieving standardised, pre-determined outputs in ‘closed systems’ that offer little in the way of engagement with the complexity of children’s lives, or indeed productive relationships (Biesta 2009). As an alternative, Osberg and Biesta (2021) have argued that education systems should embrace epistemologies of ‘emergence’, which move discussions about curriculum and learning away from a focus on pre-determined, assumed realities, towards questions about engagement and response. While these discussions tend to be situated within philosophical reflections on the broad current status of education and pedagogy, they have considerable application in contexts that form the focus of this paper; contexts where children’s lived realities do not reflect assumed ‘norms’ (access to education and educational resources; familiarity with medium of instruction; experience of and familiarity with educational structures). As Alexander (2005, 2) has argued, based on his rigorous studies of pedagogy across cultures,

Pedagogy is not a mere matter of teaching technique. It is a purposive cultural intervention in individual human development which is deeply saturated with the values and history of the society and community in which it is located. Pedagogy is best defined, then, as the act of teaching together with the ideas, values and collective histories which inform, shape and explain that act.

Writing more specifically about the role of education in enhancing equity, Grossberg (2014, 16) argues for the importance of ‘affective’ pedagogy. An affective pedagogy ‘aims to empower its students to begin to reconstruct their word in new ways, and to rearticulate their future in unimagined and perhaps even unimaginable ways’. Grossberg advocates approaches to learning that empower learners through engagement in ‘real life’ issues that impact on students’ lived realities.

Innovation in pedagogy, in these terms, becomes grounded not in the adaptation of models or techniques to enhance efficiency, but in the ‘praxis’ and ethics of providing learners with experiences that empower, equip and support within a particular set of everyday lived experiences. The framework presented below, supported through a rigorous process of development and analysis of two pedagogical approaches designed to enhance equity in access to education, is designed to support work that promotes ‘innovation’ as a process of responding to unique educational needs and barriers.

Methods

Documentation of the ‘pedagogical approaches’

As outlined earlier, the two programmes presented in this paper formed part of a larger project commissioned by UNESCO and the Asia-Pacific Regional Network for Early Childhood. All protocols for documentation and materials generated from the project are available via open access at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246050 and at https://www.earlychildhoodworkforce.org/node/1295 (earlychildhoodworkforce.org).

The documentation process began with the establishment of a regional expert group, comprising early childhood practitioners and academics representing countries from across the region. An initial conceptual framework to guide documentation of examples of ‘innovative pedagogical approaches’ was developed, drawing on ecocultural theory (Weisner 2002), (see Figure 1). Ecocultural theory situates children’s development and learning in their community locales. Through an ecocultural lens, pedagogy is viewed as being located within the nexus of structural, social and cultural factors that shape children’s lived realities. Community and cultural practices, values and beliefs are placed at the heart of understanding how children experience learning, including marginalisation or exclusion.

Figure 1. Framework for documentation of innovative pedagogical approaches.

‘Innovative pedagogy’ refers to approaches that are oriented towards addressing localised barriers in access to early childhood education. These approaches are contributing to changes in attitudes, systems and/or structures.

Information collected from each programme incorporated:

Macro (policy) level

Programme documents/reports; reviews of policy priorities for the programme and/or national context; reviews of context-specific goals, values and purposes.

‘Meso’ (immediate environment) level

Audio/photograph/video footage of the innovation; programme documents/reports; artefacts (children’s work; plans and outlines; other artefacts according to the ‘innovation’ being documented); interviews with key programme staff, to gather information on processes, drivers and supportive factors in implementation.

‘Micro’ (personal) level

Self-reports gathered from key staff via Skype meetings: as above, key members of staff from each case were interviewed as part of the documentation process in order to gather data on processes, drivers and supportive factors in implementation.

Following discussion, revision and approval of the initial framework from the regional expert group, a call for expressions of interest from early childhood organisations operating across the Asia-Pacific was disseminated by the Asia-Pacific Regional Network for Early Childhood. The call invited applications from organisations implementing ‘innovative pedagogical approaches’ for young children that included one or more of the following as a key feature/principle: (i) child-centeredness; (ii) holistic development; (iii) equity; (iv) inclusiveness; (v) sustainability; (vi) cultural relevance. Nine ‘cases’ meeting these criteria, from eight countries, were invited to participate in the documentation process.

Documentation of the nine approaches involved collection of information about (i) key objectives and achievements, as perceived by programme staff, and (ii) micro-, meso- and macro-level influences that could be identified as shaping the pedagogical approach (see Figure 1). Information was collected through a series of online meetings with programme staff, including programme managers responsible for designing the approach and programme assistants responsible for implementation. Staff also provided the documentation team with programme materials, including background information about rationale, contexts and processes of developing each approach. Information provided by members of programme teams was supplemented by further research to highlight unique aspects of the socio-cultural context and circumstances of each approach. This included reference to academic journal articles and archival materials, as presented in the Findings section below.

Nine narrative reports were produced by the authors of this paper. These reports can be accessed at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246050, where further detail on the context of each setting and the documentation process can be found. The narrative reports were shared with programme staff for feedback on accurate representation of each programme, and with the regional expert team for feedback on clarity. Guided by the narrative reports, and in close consultation with programme staff, a team of expert videographers visited each site to produce video documentation of each approach. Video documentation was included in the documentation process in order to, first, bring each approach ‘to life’ and, second, to provide opportunities for children, programme staff, parents and community members to be represented in the documentation process.

All steps and procedures followed in the process of narrative and video documentation were approved by the expert group, in line with protocols for ethical conduct of research and documentation published by the key funding organisation (UNESCO 2019). Close collaboration with programme partners, who had years of experience working with and advocating for children in the communities where documentation took place, supported respectful and sensitive approaches. Written consent procedures were considered inappropriate and potentially offensive as many of the adult community members, were not literate (UNESCO 2007). In order to ensure informed consent among children, parents and members of the community taking part in the video documentation, programme staff first held consultation meetings with key members of each community, to explain the purpose and intention behind video documentation. Children, parents, teachers and community members (including, for example, a local pastor in the case of Thailand) were invited to attend recording sessions and, in the case of older children in the case of India, to share their views on the respective programmes. The videography team involved experienced videographers familiar with each context, supervised by a film maker with expertise in working with fragile communities. Edited videos were shared with programme staff, to ensure accurate and sensitive depiction of each programme and community.

Analysis: building a case for pedagogical approaches that are ‘innovative’ based on supporting greater equity

While the documentation process captured the rich diversity of early childhood programmes that exists across different contexts, it also provided important insights into the value of responsive, localised approaches to tacking pressing issues around exclusion and marginalisation. To illustrate this, the framework (see Figure 2) used for documentation was revised and refined to facilitate analysis of the extent to which two of the documented programmes could be viewed as ‘innovative’ on the basis of their strategies for supporting equity and inclusion. The analytical framework combines elements of Transformative Social Innovation (TSI), Indigenous Innovation and Disruptive innovation, as presented in the Introduction. The framework depicts the pedagogical innovation at the centre, with a set of questions designed to guide identification of aspects of each innovation that are oriented towards equity and social justice, presented in the surrounding bubbles. These provide a basis for shifting the focus on innovation towards approaches that are primarily concerned with equity and inclusion, as illustrated in the Findings section.

Figure 2. Framework for analysis of innovative pedagogical approaches that support equity and inclusion.

The questions posed by the framework are designed to guide analysis and should not be adopted to evaluate or assess. Different approaches/programmes are likely to incorporate different combinations of the six components, to varying degrees.

Reflecting components 1 and 2 of the framework, the two pedagogical approaches both respond directly to issues around equity for children whose needs were not being served by mainstream education settings, resulting in marginalisation. In addition, they are both uniquely grounded in and connected to various aspects of life in their respective communities. They are also, as highlighted through the following analyses, underpinned by concerns around preservation of identity and culture. The Findings section below presents an analysis of how each pedagogical approach incorporates components three to six of the framework, to illustrate how each approach can be seen as ‘innovative’ in supporting equity and inclusion.

Findings: ‘Innovative pedagogical approaches’ that support equity and inclusion: Mother-Tongue-Based Early Childhood Care and Education (Thailand) and Education for Children of Migrant Labour (India)

Our language and way of life/mother-tongue-based early childhood care and education (MTB-ECCE) (Thailand) (https://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/document-3862)

Components 1 and 2: Context of pedagogical approach

The first pedagogical approach supported mother-tongue-based early learning for children from minority Pwo Karen ethnic backgrounds in Northern Thailand. As a result of advocacy around the importance of the early years, Thailand has seen considerable progress in the expansion of supply and demand for early childhood education in recent years. However, like other countries, Thailand has struggled with challenges around equitable access, particularly for children from remote and vulnerable communities (Shaeffer and Tanaporn 2022) such as those involved in this programme. Limited opportunities to attend early childhood education can pose challenges for children transitioning into primary school, particularly for children from minority ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. Government schools in Thailand use the mainstream language of Thai as a medium of instruction which poses challenges in transition to school for these children as they have no support in developing basic literacy skills before entering primary school.

In the case documented here, children from Pwo Karen communities were struggling with the transition to primary school and dropping out of school due to limited exposure to Thai. These barriers were further exacerbated as the children were not supported in developing reading and writing skills in their own mother tongue. Language barriers were compounded for children by the unfamiliar context of formal schooling, including relationships with teachers who did not speak their mother tongue and structured learning environments. Pwo Karen communities remain relatively insulated, despite widespread modernisation across Northern Thailand. In the village that provided the site for this documentation project, there was no electricity due to the remote location, and most community members spoke only Pwo Karen. Further information on the context for this programme can be found at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246050.

While language vitality among Pwo Karen communities is strong, linguistic studies have highlighted that access to written forms of mother tongue languages is limited in these communities (Dawkins and Phillips 2009). For young children, this restricts opportunities for developing key emergent literacy skills. The importance for children of opportunities to develop literacy in their mother tongue is well-known (Sun 2019). Children who are given opportunities to obtain early literacy skills in their own home language have been found to be better adjusted when they start primary school and are more able to transition smoothly to learning in a second language. Children from minority groups in particular, are likely to benefit from early mother-tongue-based (MTB) learning (Hovens 2002), as learning in the same language as they speak at home with parents and families promotes a positive sense of identity and more straightforward mastery of early literacy skills. Within this context, a local non-government organisation (NGO) specialised in supporting diverse languages approached selected Pwo Karen communities to work with them in developing and implementing early childhood centres that would adopt a pedagogical approach focused on facilitating mother-tongue literacy. The approach became known as Mother-Tongue-Based Early Childhood Care and Education (MTB-ECCE).

Component 3: Co-production

The MTB-ECCE approach is underpinned by a concern with empowering community members as well as young children, by working together to promote local language, cultural values and customs as a core component of children’s learning. To address the limited access to mother-tongue-language materials for young children caused by the lack of a written form of their dialect, the NGO employed linguistic experts to co-produce written forms of the local dialect with community members. Books were produced written in the newly developed written form of children’s mother tongue and based on information about folk tales and community customs collected from community members.

Pwo Karen communities have rich cultural histories established through a long history of settlement across Northern Thailand and Myanmar (Chutataweesawas, Tanchareon, and Dawala Wilang 2018; Dawkins and Phillips 2009). Traditional ways of life are preserved across most communities. For example, families continue to live in traditional houses that are built of wood or bamboo, and rest on stilts about 4–5 feet off the ground. Weaving skills are passed from Karen mothers to their daughters, and many community members wear traditional, hand-woven clothes. These cultural customs were threaded through the curriculum and learning materials developed as part of the MTB-ECCE approach, through close collaboration between the NGO team and community members. As explained by the Director of the organisation in the video documentation (https://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/document-3862)

Karen people have folk tales, herbal recipes, many different things. But they haven’t been written down. Their way of life is told from one generation to another. It hasn’t been recorded here. So we have taken these different stories that belong to the Karen, our stories about their way of life or the history of the community, we’ve taken these and made books. So the children can read them. It’s part of conserving them in record. To pass them along. So the next generation will know themselves, their community, their way of life and culture.

The collaborative approach to implementing MTB-ECCE and establishing the early childhood centre is reflected in the following quote from one of the mothers invited to share their reflections on the centre:

We built the ECCE centre together in the beginning, when it was getting old we also renovated together. We took part in teaching material development and production. For example, we wrote songs for children, developed Big Books, Small Books, a Big Cultural Scene picture, Picture books and toys for our children.

Shared development of these materials resulted in learning experiences that were strongly grounded in and connected children with community values, customs and daily practices. As teachers explained to the documentation team, learning included educational walks around the community for children to observe and learn about important local customs (for example, agricultural practices and weaving), as well as involvement of older members in teaching, to promote inter-generational learning. Through on-going shared development of the curriculum and materials, NGO staff and community members have developed a pedagogical approach that is both productive and empowering.

Component 4: Support for self-determination

Huaman (2015) defines self-determination, particularly with regard to minority ethnic groups, in terms of innovations that support efforts to ‘rebuild’ communities and identities. While there was evidence of existing practice and appreciation of cultural customs and practices in the village where this MTB-ECCE centre was located, there was also some indication of concerns about risks of cultural loss. A village pastor interviewed for the video documentation referred to the important role that this intensely contextualised pedagogical approach has played in drawing attention, across the whole community, to strategies for maintaining cultural customs in the face of increasing modernisation. As one parent explained:

I used to study to read and write Thai with a Thai teacher. I remembered that I did not understand and I had no confidence. Consequently, I did not even finish grade 6. Now, students in my village, at least they can read and write Pwo Karen. (MTB) ECCE also helps us to maintain and vitalize our language and culture.

In order to facilitate children’s learning in their mother-tongue, community members referred to as Teaching Assistants/Carers (TA) were trained to deliver the MTB-ECCE curriculum. A programme of pre-service and in-service training workshops was implemented to prepare and provide on-going support for the TAs. Continued mentorship and support were provided by the NGO administering the centre. TAs were also trained and involved in the development and production of teaching materials, toys and games. The process and impact of becoming an educator was shared by this teacher/TA:

At the beginning I thought that I could not do it or I could not be a good teacher because I had never studied to be a teacher. I did not have teaching experience because I was not a teacher. In fact, I am a farmer. The first time I attended (a) teacher- training workshop, I was nervous because it was so hard for me to follow the lesson plans even though it was going step by step. When I first taught at the village, many parents doubted whether I could teach their children. I myself wondered whether mother- tongue (learning) could really help their children have (a) better future or learn Thai better. As time passed by, I realised that I could do better. To be with children helped me understand them better, be patient with them and love them. At the first year we attended teacher training four times and these helped me understand better and become more confident in teaching. After I teach better and manage classroom well, we only have teacher training twice a year. I also apply the way I teach children to teach adults and now some of them can read and write.

As they began to notice the development of mother-tongue literacy skills in their children, adult members of the community also became motivated to learn to read and write in their own language and to attend local adult literacy classes. Reflections shared by key members of the NGO supporting the MTB-ECCE centres highlighted the transformative impact of these centres on the broader community:

What we did changes the worldview of the community members. They know now that they can have both their mother tongue and Thai. At first, they thought that they did not need their mother tongue. Many of them now want to be literate in their mother tongue because they want to be able to read and write like their children. They also know that it will help them learn Thai faster and better.

This was also reflected in community members’ accounts shared with the research team:

What we have learned is what we have misunderstood about learning Thai. In the past, we used to think that the earlier children learn Thai the better they can speak, read and write Thai. We know that this is not true. We have not known that until we implemented MTB-ECCE. We found out our children who have a chance to study first in their mother tongue can speak, read and write Thai better than those who have never had.

Components 5 & 6: Support for positive identity

In line with component five, the MTB-ECCE approach is underpinned by a concern to support a sense of positive identity among children by highlighting the value of local customs and practices through the curriculum and learning materials. This is reflected, for example, in the ‘Big Cultural Scene’ picture mentioned earlier in a quote from a parent. These learning resources consist of large canvases with scenes depicting local customs and practices. Figure 3, below, presents a section of one of these canvases with the children’s teacher pointing to a woven bag, unique to this community and widely used in agricultural work carried out by women. These canvases were on display in the children’s centre and regularly discussed as part of their learning.

Figure 3. Cultural customs and practices represented in learning materials.

Source: ARNEC / UNESCO (2016). Our language and way of life: how young children learn at the Mae Tien ECD centre. https://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/document-3862.

Children interviewed as part of the documentation described the use of these resources:

We sing a song about going to the field, finding things in the forest, catching fish and crabs at the river. It was very fun. We have a village picture and we talk about it. I like it because it is a beautiful drawing picture. I can answer when my teacher asks questions about the picture.

A sense of pride and ownership resulting from the process of creating the written language required for development of the MTB-ECCE approach was also depicted in community members’ reflections:

I have never thought that my language can be written, I thought it was only for speaking. When our language is in the written form and people can read and write, I think that our language is very important to our younger generation because when we read in our language it is fun, easier and we are proud of it. To learn our language first and then learn Thai later is easier because students learn from what they already know and we also use the same script as Thai.

Component 6: New ways of ‘doing, organising, framing’

The sixth component highlights social impacts associated with innovation. Avelino et al. (2019) view ‘transformative social innovations’ in terms of their capacity to challenge, alter or replace aspects of dominant institutions that might disadvantage some populations. Threaded through accounts of the impact of the MTB-ECCE approach presented here were indications of a positive shift in outlook on the importance of preserving culture and language as well as on the capacity of children from Pwo Karen communities to participate in mainstream education. A community member involved in supporting the MTB-ECCE approach explained to the research team the impact that they had seen across communities where MTB-ECCE centres had been implemented. This was contrasted with children’s experiences in Community Learning Centres, where children were learning in Thai language:

I was told from the people in the older generation whose children had experience of being students at the Community Learning Center (CLC) … … that their children were afraid to pursue their study to grade 1 in the formal school located in the nearby village. Having negative experience at the village CLC for the preschool level made these children stop thinking of going to the school for the higher level. They found learning very difficult and they were afraid of the Thai teachers because they did not understand what the teachers said. The Thai teacher became a stranger for them. However, now when the children have opportunity to use their language in studying, they have the active learning and participate well in class. They are confident to express themselves and share their thoughts and feeling freely in their mother tongue. They do not have the language barrier like the older generation used to have. So with these experience, they are now inspired to study in the higher level. Nowadays every student in my village goes to study grade 1 at the nearby village school, which also has implemented Mother tongue based Multi-Lingual Education. (MLE)

In terms of acting as a social catalyst, aspects of this approach have been taken up by local governments, with two of the MTB-ECCE early childhood centres having been transferred to local government administration. An NGO staff member explained their approach and rationale for these connections:

We learned that to make it sustainable we have to communicate frequently enough and link closely with the local government officers. We also learned that community participation, capacity building, and empowering the members are also key factors for success. It may take longer time to build confidence in those villagers to do and see something different, such as to teach and take care of the children or to develop and produce materials or books in their language for their own children … … .The Thai government never did this before in the country, but we believe that this approach will help students to learn better.

These quotes demonstrate the transformative power of pedagogy in promoting equitable success to learning not only for young children but for the broader community as well. The outcomes presented here also support the view of pedagogy, outlined in the introductory sections above, as referring to more than simply the ‘act’ of teaching, or of ensuring that children are achieving pre-determined, standardised outcomes. Pedagogy, as Alexander (2005) argues is not simply an ‘act of teaching’ but a response to ideas, values and beliefs. ‘Innovative pedagogy’ that responds to critical learning needs is also praxical – in that it aims to produce skills, knowledge structures or ways of thinking which will enable people to participate in, and transform their current and future lives.

It is important to note that challenges have been faced by the NGO implementing this approach. For example, while this community where the MTB-ECCE programme was documented was very receptive to the intervention, other communities have been less eager to engage and more work needs to be done to ensure that the programme is ‘scaled-up’ to reach all children from minority ethic backgrounds from the region who face difficulties in transitioning to primary schools where the medium of instruction is Thai. However, as the positive experiences of this community are widely shared, others may become more open to the programme.

Opportunity and freedom to learn/education for children of migrant labour (ECML) India, (https://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/document-1224)

Components 1 and 2: Context of pedagogical approach

The second pedagogical approach was initiated in response to concerns about vulnerabilities of children whose families migrate from their villages to urban areas of India to seek work. Issues around the impact of rural-urban migration on children and, more specifically, children’s education, have recently attracted increased attention (Coffey 2013). Due to various structural barriers, families who migrate from villages to large urban areas to seek seasonal employment are among the most vulnerable populations in India (Majumder and Mukherjee 2011). Seasonal, or ‘long term circular’ migrants are heavily dependent on agency-based construction work or similar types of employment at the lower end of the labour market. Many of these migrant populations lack sufficient identity documentation for access to social supports; they endure harsh working and living conditions and are at risk of exploitation, and they tend to have limited social networks for support (Srivastava 2020).

Children of migrant families face multiple educational challenges. Since they lack formal identification, access to schooling when they move to urban areas is very limited. A study of children aged 0–13 years living away from their villages found that 67% of children reported spending their days doing ‘nothing’, with only 20% reporting ‘going to school’ as their main activity (Coffey 2013). This poses significant difficulties for children in transitioning back to school when their families return to their home villages.

In response, a number of local non-government organisations have established schools on sites where migrant workers and their children are living. The school documented here, catering for children aged from 6 months to 13 years, was located on a construction site in Karnataka, India, supported by a well-known, national philanthropic Foundation. Following advocacy work by the Foundation, the school also received key supports from the construction company that employed migrant families whose children attended the centre.

Three key concerns reflecting the unique needs and circumstances of children in these communities underpinned development of the ECML (Education for Children of Migrant Labour) approach. First, the programme and teaching teams were concerned that the school should operate in close collaboration with families to ensure relevance of curricula and learning materials. A second concern underpinning the programme’s approach was that the learning environment should account for barriers to education, including lost learning due to limited access to schooling and a possible sense of marginalisation among children from low-caste, minority backgrounds. Third, the schools should take action in building bridges between families and their employers, as well as raising awareness in the construction industry about the needs of this unique community. As part of the process of establishing the school, the Foundation developed a tailor-made curriculum, titled ECML.

Component 3: Co-production

Reflecting component three of the analytical framework, co-production and collaboration between a range of key stakeholders formed a key focus of the ECML approach. Strong partnerships in operating the school were established by the Foundation with two construction businesses and the State Department of Education, with financial responsibility shared between the Foundation and the construction companies. Basic infrastructure costs and facilities, including buildings, toilets, electricity and access to water, were supported by the construction companies. The Foundation committed to funding the day-to-day expenses of the centre, including teachers’ salaries and learning resources. Some construction staff also volunteered at the centre, supporting learning activities. This created a shared sense of responsibility for and commitment towards the school.

In developing the ECML approach, consultation with families and the community was considered key to success, to establish a strong sense of trust. As explained by staff from the Foundation:

… initially the team teachers visited the camp and talked to parents to come to a greater understanding of the children’s cultural and social differences, and to gain rapport with the families. As the relationships and trust developed, parents were convinced to bring their children to the centre. With this experience, the parents within the community also promoted involvement in the centre with new arrivals. They had positive experiences with the centre so were able to persuade new arrivals (to the community) of the benefit of bringing their children to the centre also.

Community members were strongly encouraged to become actively involved in a variety of activities at the school, ranging from helping with meals to sharing stories and songs with children. As explained to us by members of the teaching team, community members helped to establish a school garden to provide food for the children and to teach them how to grow vegetables. Children were also introduced to basic construction skills by staff from the construction company.

In order to formalise school-community collaboration, the school established a committee including parents, representatives from the construction companies and students who had graduated from the school and gone into local mainstream schools. The purpose of the committee was to build connections between the school/teaching team and the community, and to ensure continuity for children progressing from the school into more formal, mainstream settings.

Teachers working in the school were also connected to teachers in mainstream schools, to support on-going review and revision of the curriculum in response to feedback on children’s success and challenges once they had transitioned to mainstream schooling. These professional insights and connections, according to the programme team, resulted in a strong sense of ownership and confidence in the programme.

Component 4: Support for self-determination

Erwin and Brown (2003) highlight features of early childhood environments that support self-determination. These include understanding individual children’s responses to the learning context/environment and responding to these in a manner that provides varied opportunities for engagement. For example, environments that promote self-determination are flexible, provide opportunities for children to learn at their own pace and give access to a wide array of resources and spaces for learning, so that all children can feel comfortable and included (Erwin and Brown 2003). Each of these elements was reflected in documentation of the unique pedagogical approach adopted in this school. The approach was custom designed by a team of teachers and curriculum experts, to provide opportunities for children who might have missed out on developing formal learning skills required for them to join their age group in mainstream schools.

Recognising that children’s learning levels might not correspond with their age group, classes were organised around three age groupings: first, 0–3 years, focusing primarily on health screening, illness prevention, hygiene and nutrition, and early stimulation through opportunities for learning through play. The curriculum for children aged 4–6 years focused on developing positive healthy habits, a positive self-concept, emotional maturity and independence. A third, larger grouping for 6–13 year olds adopted a modular approach focusing on language and mathematics while supporting broader learning incorporating emotional and social development. This approach was facilitated through multilingual and multi-level teaching and learning processes/resources. Within the older age group, smaller learning groups were formed according to each child’s current educational level, with a focus on supporting students’ transition to mainstream schooling. Supporting this transition was a key priority for the ECML school. As staff explained to the research team, a focus on transition skills and experiences to ensure that children were comfortable with returning to a mainstream learning setting was threaded through the curriculum. As highlighted earlier, teachers in the centre actively connected with colleagues teaching in mainstream contexts to connect children’s learning with mainstream curricula and to identify pressing gaps in learning.

In line with broader concerns around children’s well-being, teaching and learning approaches and content were oriented towards supporting all-round learning and development, via a combination of educational, health and social needs of children and their communities. For example, the programme for very young children emphasised healthy nutrition and provided space for mothers to breastfeed their babies. Children attending the school were provided with healthy meals every day. The responsive, holistic approach to learning appeared to have resulted in children developing a strong sense of belonging and attachment to the school and to their own learning. This provided children with a strong foundation from which to transition to formal schooling. Many children who had transitioned to mainstream schools returned to the community school regularly, as one of their teachers explained:

For children who have been mainstreamed, it is like a second home. Every day they visit the Centre before going to school and come back in the evening to share how the day went. They also have the evening snack and complete their homework here before going home.

In one ‘case’/story shared with the research team, teachers provided an account of a young girl who had successfully transitioned to a mainstream school but then began to struggle. Teachers in the ECML school provided additional support for her by organising one-to-one classes for her in the evenings. Further support was provided when her parents were keen to remove her from mainstream schooling once she had reached a certain age. Teachers from the ECML school worked with the parents to reassure them that their daughter would be safe at the school and that she would benefit from completing her studies. According to her teachers, this young girl reported that she had plans to pursue medical studies, supported by her parents.

Component 5: Support for positive identity

Because of the unique community and backgrounds of its students, the ECML approach was strongly grounded in an approach to teaching and learning that focused on supporting children’s confidence, identity and engagement in learning. This was highlighted in the case of the young girl being fully supported by ECML in her transition to mainstream schooling.

As part of this approach the school adopted a range of inclusion policies to address potential risks of marginalising groups of parents and children. These policies were designed in response to the diversity of ethnic groups comprising the community of migrant workers whose children attended the centre. For example, risks of discrimination on the basis of caste were addressed in the school by a policy of not collecting this information about children as part of the enrolment process. The school adopted a conscious approach to ensuring a gender balance among teaching staff in order to model gender equity. Teachers were encouraged to build trusting relationships with parents and community members in order to understand the range of social, religious and ethnic backgrounds of children and respond sensitively to issues such as potential prejudice and concerns among parents about girls’ education.

Like the MTB-ECCE approach in Thailand, the ECML approach adopted multilingual teaching. The curriculum was delivered in three languages to provide opportunities for children to learn in their home language. Children were also introduced to the mainstream language of the State in which the school was located as this was the language of instruction in mainstream schools. English and Hindi were also incorporated into the curriculum to familiarise children with both languages as they are widely used across India.

As well as being strongly oriented towards inclusion through policies of anti-discrimination and multilingual teaching, the ECML approach to teaching and learning was intentional in its commitment to building a sense of belonging and confidence among children. A flexible, open approach was adopted and designed to ensure that children enjoyed learning so that, in the words of one staff member, learning was not ‘forced’ on the children. Teachers were focused on establishing an atmosphere of caring and respect, through co-learning and experiential approaches. As depicted in Figure 4, below, learning was supported through hands-on activities, accompanied by open dialogue between teachers and students.

Figure 4. Multi-age, hands-on learning as part of the ECML approach.

Source: ARNEC / UNESCO (2016). Opportunity and freedom to learn. https://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/document-1224.

Children were encouraged to take on roles and responsibilities in the school, to strengthen a sense of belonging. For example, older children were involved in monitoring the nutrition and development of younger children. This approach of seeing the school as a core part of the community resulted in a strong sense of agency among children who attend the school. As one teacher explained:

The sense of ownership is very strong among these children. They take care of younger children, serve food and take part in the cleaning process when they are at the Centre. During vacation, these children help teachers in classrooms.

Component 6: New ways of ‘doing, organizing, framing’

In terms of creating social change, our documentation of the programme suggests that the ECML approach has had a positive impact, not only on children and families, but also on the construction companies and local government partners. As Foundation staff explained:

The builders’ involvement helps them to understand what is happening at the centre and how children and families are benefiting. The builders’ presence also makes a lot of difference to the families. It made parents appreciate the builders' involvement.

Through their support for and involvement in the ECML school, construction companies’ awareness of issues around equity, challenges faced by migrant workers, their hopes for their children, and the importance of family supports for labourers was raised. As the team explained to us, the construction companies did more than contribute financially. Volunteers from the builders’ team taught music and art and craft and helped with teaching English. This had the effect of building mutual trust and reducing staff turnover on the construction sites, thus benefitting children’s well-being and learning and contributing to a more stable workforce. At the time of documentation, ECML staff were also in the process of supporting the State government to develop broader policies for providing accessible educational opportunities for children of migrant workers, to ensure continuity in their learning.

A central aspect of the ECML curriculum is that its development was grounded in students’ needs rather than by a pre-conceived model/philosophy of learning or pre-determined learning outcomes. For teachers, this experience resulted in a strong culture of critical reflection, on-going review and revision of curriculum content, and intensive professional development. Teachers had to adjust to an approach that involved not only planning for teaching and learning, but also supporting children’s nutrition, health and community engagement strategies. Involvement in the process of developing the ECML approach therefore had an important impact on members of both the teaching and Foundation organisation team. As the Foundation coordinator explained to us:

For us at the ECML centres, every day brings a new learning about working with children and parents of the migrant community at large. We continue to learn through this experience.

One lesson shared by staff at the centre related to the transient nature of the families. This created challenges for tracking children’s learning because children and families came and went, and it was sometimes difficult to integrate children into suitable learning groups. Such challenges were compounded by the inflexibility of formal educational settings which see children admitted to grades according to age, rather than school completion levels. In response, the Foundation worked with the State Department of Education to strengthen coordination of data and collaboratively support these children’s transition to mainstream school, to support on-going educational success.

Conclusions: What can be learned from these ‘innovative pedagogical approaches’?

Broadening knowledge on contemporary early childhood pedagogy

Neo-liberal interest in accountability associated with outcomes and universalised, measurable, academic achievement has dominated the development of global education policy and curricula during recent decades. Within the field of early childhood education, there is widespread concern that policy making has become ‘scientized’, with knowledge based on statistical data privileged above other sources in determining ‘best practice’ (Millei and Gallagher 2017). There is also increasing concern that early childhood education carries the risk of perpetuating inequality, as mainstream models of provision fail to meet the learning and development needs of young children from diverse, marginalised communities. In response, the framework and analyses presented in this paper are designed to highlight the importance of promoting approaches that privilege local knowledge and contexts, particularly for addressing barriers to early childhood education. Our intention has been to challenge assumptions around the ‘strength’ of large-scale, normative approaches and the ‘weakness’ of small-scale, contextually-responsive approaches (Biesta 2009), by offering a framework for innovation that highlights the value of contextualised approaches in achieving equity and inclusion.

In Northern Thailand, the Mother-Tongue-Based Early Childhood Care and Education (MTB-ECCE) programme has not only supported the development of culturally-responsive learning materials to support children’s early literacy. It has also empowered whole communities in seeing the value of their own minority language and culture. The programme has impacted policy and practice, with two of the early childhood centres being transferred to local government administration following local government recognition and support.

In Karnataka, the Education for Children of Migrant Labourers (ECML) has similarly empowered children from communities that traditionally operate on the margins of society to see education not as a mechanism for exclusion and discomfort, but as an important source of community support and possibilities for the future. As a result of the collaborative, consultative approach taken in developing the ECML programme, construction companies who employ migrant labourers have recognised the importance of children’s continued education and are contributing to enhancing well-being in migrant labourer communities.

These two programmes reflect countless examples of small-scale, responsive pedagogical approaches that are being implemented across diverse contexts by local organisations and community groups, to counter marginalisation and exclusion. Such innovative approaches are transforming communities and children’s lives, resulting in powerful changes in both perceptions and practices. While some may view these as one-off programmes lacking a ‘strong evidence-base’, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of their documentation and visibility. As highlighted in the Introduction, many programmes such as these remain undocumented, in part due to the dominant global focus on measurable learning outcomes that ‘silences’ small-scale, bespoke approaches. However, without broader recognition of these programmes and the crucial purposes that they serve, approaches and models that are more widely disseminated will continue to dominate, at the expense of children who are at risk of marginalisation from mainstream approaches.

There are limitations to the documentation process underpinning the findings presented in this paper that should be acknowledged. Future studies could build on this one by gathering more detailed information about curricula, programme policies and longer term impacts for children, families and communities. In this case, we were largely dependent on insights and materials shared by programme staff. A more objective, analytical approach would facilitate in-depth understandings of programme development and implementation, to inform other programmes implemented in similar circumstances. However, for the purposes of this paper, sufficient information was gathered to support our goal of applying the Framework to illustrate ‘innovation’ in supporting equity and inclusion.

Early childhood education is widely cited as a key mobilising factor for people and communities regularly referred to as ‘left behind’ or ‘marginalised’ and is commonly viewed as forming a vital component of humanitarian development approaches. Yet, as highlighted at the beginning of this paper, many have argued that the broad potential of education is compromised by dominant, exclusionary and non-reflexive systems and policies (Dyer 2018; Dyer and Echessa 2019; Marfo 2015; Sriprakash et al. 2020). Drawing greater attention to small-scale, localised programmes and pedagogical approaches as ‘innovative’ through conceptual frameworks such as the one presented in this paper, could support greater acceptance of their critical importance in supporting equity and inclusion in early childhood education.

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the children, families and community members who contributed to this project. We would also like to thank the programme staff who generously gave their time to support the documentation process, the videographers and the ARNEC / UNESCO expert team for their valuable insights and support. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful, constructive feedback and to the Editor who handled this article, for her quick turn around and responsiveness.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work reported here was supported by a grant from UNESCO Asia Pacific Regional Office and the Asia Pacific Regional Network for Early Childhood (ARNEC).