Vanhempien ja päiväkodin työntekijöiden rakentamat merkitykset varhaiskasvatuksen vuorohoidolle

Abstract

This study examined interview talk on flexibly scheduled early childhood education and care (ECEC) by parents (n = 18) and early childhood educators (n = 31). Theoretically, this research draws on socioconstructionism and discursive psychology. The analysis focused on the variety of meanings and ideals constructed for flexibly scheduled ECEC and the positions constructed for children and educators. The results show that three types of meanings were attached to flexibly scheduled ECEC in the interviewees’ talk. First, flexibly scheduled ECEC responds to the needs of the 24/7 society and non-standard working life; second, it supports children’s well-being; and third, it provides children with an equal possibility for learning. The ideals underlying in these meaning-makings were the accessibility and flexibility of ECEC services, a home-like atmosphere, and equality between children in their possibilities for pedagogical activities. Five positions were constructed for children using flexibly scheduled ECEC: privileged, victim of the 24/7 society, in need of care, active learner, and like any other child. These positions differed from each other according to whether the influence of the 24/7 society on children’s well-being was considered weak or strong. These different positionings of the child also impacted the positions educators constructed for themselves, which were either weak or strong in rela-tion to children’s well-being and learning. These findings lead to the conclusion that flexibly scheduled ECEC is a contradictory yet valid link in the chain of childcare. At its best, flexibly scheduled ECEC meets the needs of parents working nonstandard hours and supports children’s well-being and learning. However, the concept of pedagogy was informed by tensions and remained unclear in the data. Pedagogy was described as a teacher’s duty, implemented on weekdays and mornings, and as primarily suited to older children, whereas younger children were positioned as in need of care rather than as active learners. This narrow categorisation of pedagogy does not allow care and education to merge, as they do in the wider definition of pedagogy, which sees children not only as in need of care but also as active learners. To develop flexibly scheduled ECEC, it is important to consider children’s right to be involved in pedagogically meaningful activities irrespective of their age and the timing of care.