幼儿园是为少数人办的还是为多数人办的?二十世纪中期英国的童年、教育和国家。

IF 0.3 4区 教育学 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Amy Palmer
{"title":"幼儿园是为少数人办的还是为多数人办的?二十世纪中期英国的童年、教育和国家。","authors":"Amy Palmer","doi":"10.1080/00309230.2010.530277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, successive presidents and officials at the Board of Education made it clear that they believed there were three types of children in Britain - those who needed nursery schools to rescue them from degradation, those for whom a less expensive nursery class would do the job adequately and those who would be better off staying home with mother. However, by the time the 1944 Education Act was framed, national policy towards pre-school provision had undergone a major transformation: nursery schools could provide the best start in life for everyone, should be available for every child from three to five and, crucially, should be the only form of childcare provision available. This change of direction was initiated by the government's inspectorate, and heavily promoted by members of the civil service. Professional bodies, such as the Nursery School Association and teaching unions, had very little influence over the decision-making process. The needs of working mothers, who were likely to be adversely affected by the closure of wartime childcare facilities, were inadequately considered. Local Education Authorities, who generally favoured nursery classes, were, however, able to wring a last-minute compromise from central government so that classes could be provided where schools were “inexpedient”. The fact that the new policy had been written in such isolation, without consideration for potential users, and had been messily hamstrung at the last moment meant that it was never implemented and must ultimately be considered a failure.</p>","PeriodicalId":46283,"journal":{"name":"PAEDAGOGICA HISTORICA","volume":"47 1-2","pages":"139-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00309230.2010.530277","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nursery schools for the few or the many? Childhood, education and the state in mid-twentieth-century England.\",\"authors\":\"Amy Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00309230.2010.530277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, successive presidents and officials at the Board of Education made it clear that they believed there were three types of children in Britain - those who needed nursery schools to rescue them from degradation, those for whom a less expensive nursery class would do the job adequately and those who would be better off staying home with mother. However, by the time the 1944 Education Act was framed, national policy towards pre-school provision had undergone a major transformation: nursery schools could provide the best start in life for everyone, should be available for every child from three to five and, crucially, should be the only form of childcare provision available. This change of direction was initiated by the government's inspectorate, and heavily promoted by members of the civil service. Professional bodies, such as the Nursery School Association and teaching unions, had very little influence over the decision-making process. The needs of working mothers, who were likely to be adversely affected by the closure of wartime childcare facilities, were inadequately considered. Local Education Authorities, who generally favoured nursery classes, were, however, able to wring a last-minute compromise from central government so that classes could be provided where schools were “inexpedient”. The fact that the new policy had been written in such isolation, without consideration for potential users, and had been messily hamstrung at the last moment meant that it was never implemented and must ultimately be considered a failure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PAEDAGOGICA HISTORICA\",\"volume\":\"47 1-2\",\"pages\":\"139-54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00309230.2010.530277\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PAEDAGOGICA HISTORICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2010.530277\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAEDAGOGICA HISTORICA","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2010.530277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

在第二次世界大战爆发之前,历任英国总统和教育委员会的官员都明确表示,他们认为英国有三种儿童:一种需要幼儿园来拯救他们,使其免于堕落;一种需要较便宜的幼儿园就能充分发挥作用;另一种则最好待在家里和母亲在一起。然而,到1944年《教育法》制定时,学前教育的国家政策已经发生了重大转变:托儿所可以为每个人提供最好的人生起点,应该为每个3到5岁的孩子提供服务,而且至关重要的是,托儿所应该是提供儿童保育的唯一形式。这一方向的改变是由政府监察局发起的,并得到了公务员的大力推动。诸如幼儿园协会和教师工会等专业机构对决策过程的影响很小。工作母亲的需要没有得到充分考虑,她们很可能受到战时托儿设施关闭的不利影响。然而,通常支持托儿所的地方教育当局在最后一刻与中央政府达成妥协,以便在学校“不合适”的地方提供托儿所。新政策是在如此孤立的情况下制定的,没有考虑到潜在用户,并且在最后一刻被混乱地破坏,这意味着它从未得到实施,最终必须被视为失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nursery schools for the few or the many? Childhood, education and the state in mid-twentieth-century England.

Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, successive presidents and officials at the Board of Education made it clear that they believed there were three types of children in Britain - those who needed nursery schools to rescue them from degradation, those for whom a less expensive nursery class would do the job adequately and those who would be better off staying home with mother. However, by the time the 1944 Education Act was framed, national policy towards pre-school provision had undergone a major transformation: nursery schools could provide the best start in life for everyone, should be available for every child from three to five and, crucially, should be the only form of childcare provision available. This change of direction was initiated by the government's inspectorate, and heavily promoted by members of the civil service. Professional bodies, such as the Nursery School Association and teaching unions, had very little influence over the decision-making process. The needs of working mothers, who were likely to be adversely affected by the closure of wartime childcare facilities, were inadequately considered. Local Education Authorities, who generally favoured nursery classes, were, however, able to wring a last-minute compromise from central government so that classes could be provided where schools were “inexpedient”. The fact that the new policy had been written in such isolation, without consideration for potential users, and had been messily hamstrung at the last moment meant that it was never implemented and must ultimately be considered a failure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
40.00%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: "Paedagogica Historica is undoubtedly the leading journal in the field. In contrast to a series of national journals for the history of education, Paedagogica Historica is the most international one." A trilingual journal with European roots, Paedagogica Historica discusses global education issues from an historical perspective. Topics include: •Childhood and Youth •Comparative and International Education •Cultural and social policy •Curriculum •Education reform •Historiography •Schooling •Teachers •Textbooks •Theory and Methodology •The urban and rural school environment •Women and gender issues in Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信