Editorial

Learning, remembering, talking, imagining: all of them are made possible by participating in a culture (Bruner 1996).

As an American and a non-academic, I am privileged to be invited to contribute an editorial to this volume of EECERJ. I have long admired the work of EECERA – particularly the way the organisation gives voice to diverse perspectives and challenges the ‘conventional' thinking in the field through its conferences and journal. Because my tenure as Director of Professional Development at the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) involved authoring position statements on developmentally appropriate practice and standards for programme quality, my work has at times been the target of such critique and justifiably so. It is through thoughtful debate and critical examination – often shaped by our European colleagues – that NAEYC's positions on developmentally appropriate practice evolved from the naive statement of 1987 to the subsequently more nuanced and culturally responsive documents of 1997 and 2007.

The articles in this issue made me contemplate both the differences and similarities in the perspectives of these two organisations. First, some brief comments on the differences. Most obviously, EECERJ contributors never fail to situate their work in socio-cultural, historical context – a practice that American educators can learn from and emulate. Additionally, many of these studies include or call for the perspectives of children, notably Palaiologou's study of digital technology use among children under five.

Another obvious difference is that unlike most American journals that have become wedded to ‘rigorous' quantitative methodologies that not only narrow publication opportunities but also discourage generative research, EECERJ affords both space and respect for qualitative, ethnographic studies. For example, this issue includes longitudinal case studies of attachment in three parent–child dyads (Margenat, Dalmau, Vendrell, and Ibarz), observations over two years of 11 immigrant parents and their children during art-making experiences characterised as ‘interactional dance duets' (Massing, Pente, and Kirova), and an in-depth ethnography of children's cultural understandings of mathematics as evidenced in their spontaneous play (Worthington and van Oers).

Not surprisingly, I am also struck by similarities I observed while reading these articles. In the spirit of provocation that EECERA welcomes, I propose that despite our differences, European and American early childhood professionals (and many other early educators around the globe) share a Culture of Early Childhood Education to some extent (Bredekamp 2014). I'm using a broad definition of culture – the expectations for behaviour of group members and the meanings attached to experiences that are passed on from one generation to the next. Jerome Bruner's quote above encapsulates my view of how the early childhood culture connects its members from diverse communities throughout the world. We learn based on a similar foundation of prior knowledge; we use a generative grammar that enables us to at least begin conversations about our agreements and disagreements (e.g. developmentally appropriate; play; individualisation; relationships; observation; quality); and we imagine that our work will result in a better world for children or we would not continue the struggle.

Both EECERA and NAEYC build on generations of European early childhood thought – the legacy of Pestalozzi, Froebel, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Malaguzzi, among others. To a large extent, these cultural roots affect what we as early childhood educators regard as important and what values shape our actions and judgments. In my experience, the early childhood profession is committed to a core set of values that is deeply rooted in this history. Political and economic forces threaten these values at times, but they nevertheless endure.

The NAEYC (2011) Code of Ethical Conduct articulates these core values as a commitment to:

• Appreciate childhood as a unique and valuable stage of the human life cycle;

• Base our work on knowledge of how children develop and learn (which requires almost constant study given the expanding knowledge base);

• Appreciate and support the bond between the child and family;

• Recognise that children are best understood and supported in the context of family, culture, community, and society;

• Respect the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member, and colleague);

• Respect diversity of children, families, and colleagues;

• Recognise that children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust and respect.

I often take informal polls of teachers at education conferences asking: ‘What are your values as an early childhood educator?' Most of these core values are mentioned. Another one is usually stated emphatically – ‘Play!' Early childhood professionals strongly value play as essential for development and learning. But in my experience, they tend to have pre-conceived notions of what constitutes its most valuable form – i.e., child-chosen, child-initiated free play, a preference that is confirmed by some of the articles in this volume.

Three studies – all of which are based on children's play – inform the current debates about Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teaching and learning in preschool. The Worthington and van Oers article is of great interest to me due to my participation on the National Research Council's Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics (2009). We know that children ‘play' their culture, but little attention has been paid to the implicit mathematics in their play, particularly the mark-making. In this study, four-year-old Isaac's cultural experience working with his father was rich in spontaneous mathematics. Subsequently he scaffolded maths play for his classmates. Ginsburg (2006) observed preschoolers’ play and also found it to be rich in ‘everyday', spontaneous mathematics. However, he identified significant SES differences in the amount of mathematical language adults attach to the experiences, which is considered essential for spontaneous knowledge to transition into scientific understanding later. Given the apparent value of Isaac's experiences and the wide disparity in math play among his peers, it seems that teachers need to expose all the children to such mathematically-rich, meaningful experiences to play out at school.

Similarly, block play is a historically valued practice in preschools. However, Bagiati and Evangelou's observation of high-level engineering thinking during children's block-building breaks new ground. These authors, as well as Worthington and van Oers, identify the children's behaviours as ‘innate'. But given my propensity to detect implications for teaching, I am intrigued by Bagiati and Evangelou's plan to use children's innate competence to create a ‘long-term design-based developmentally appropriate early engineering curriculum based on the “buildings” concept'.

Because early educators continue to engage in heated debates about the appropriateness of technology for young children, I think the Palaiologou study is particularly important. If we adhere to our core belief that learning and development are contextually situated, we can no longer argue the question of whether children should use digital devices. The reality is that very young children in the four countries surveyed – England, Luxemburg, Greece and Malta, as well as the US, are heavy users of technology. If we value listening to parents and respecting children as we say we do, we too must value children's digital literacy. Parents don't want to be told that children shouldn't use technology or that play is more important; they want advice about the quality of digital technologies, something that many teachers are not prepared or disposed to offer. The researchers propose a valid challenge – the need to re-conceptualise learning and pedagogy in the current technological context. Frankly, I value the children's perspective; they see mobile digital devices as among their favourite toys, so our definition of play must expand as well.

Shared values and meanings – and their resulting challenges – are apparent throughout these articles. For example, early childhood professionals agree that observation is a key tool. Although the Observation Project (Molina, Marotta, and Bulgarelli) resulted in classroom improvements, teachers found the process to be time-consuming and difficult – a frequent barrier that the intervention did not overcome.

Similarly, Batistič Zorec and Jug Došler's observation of daily routines in Slovene centres addresses little-studied aspects of group care. Despite large-scale changes resulting from democratising the programmes and education in the Reggio Emilia approach, rigidity and lack of individualisation in eating and sleeping routines persisted. Democratisation might be characterised as instilling the culture of early childhood education – a key component of which is individualisation.

The Moser and Reikerås study, comparing the motor skills development of toddlers in Norway and Britain, demonstrates three interrelated tenets of child development – predictable age-related change, a wide range of individual variation including gender differences, and the effects of culturally-determined early experiences. For example, the study revealed that general classroom and recreational skills of younger Norwegian children were more advanced than those of older British children. The researchers attribute this finding to cultural differences and specific educational practices such as more time spent outdoors and more self-help activity in Norwegian childcare centres as compared to greater emphasis on desk skills in the UK.

The strongest evidence for my hypothesis of a shared culture is in the article, ‘Professionalism of Preschool Teachers in Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Hungary' (Peterson et al.). Professionalism is defined as: interaction, family involvement, planning of education and evaluation of children's development, using teaching strategies, professional development, creating growth environment, and development of values. The categories, based on ISSA (2010) guidelines, are very similar to American standards. For example, ISSA guidelines promote socio-constructivist principles, developmentally appropriate practices, an individualised approach, the idea that learning occurs in respectful interactions among adults and children; and view children as competent and full citizens although they need support from adults. Compare these words to the NAEYC values listed above: ‘working from an ethical base of respect for children, children's development and learning, democratic values, interacting and communicating actively with children, colleagues and parents.'

These articles also lead me to reflect on a fundamental question confronting the profession and one that led to defining developmentally appropriate in the first place – What does ‘teaching' mean in early childhood settings? Shouldn't teachers take a more proactive, verbal role in scaffolding children's learning during play? Don't the non-verbal but instructional ‘dances' of interaction between parents and their children reveal culturally-congruent, potentially effective teaching strategies for immigrant children? In fact, the large-scale study (Løvgren) of emotional exhaustion in Norwegian childcare teachers begs the question. Even in Norway where working conditions are among the best in the world, early educators are highly stressed. Most significantly, the two primary sources of emotional exhaustion are interacting with families and teaching (not including care-oriented tasks or playing with children). The latter may result from lack of clarity or conflicting values about what it actually means to teach young children, including increased academic expectations.

Despite what some may consider my promotion of the ‘dominant discourse' in the field, in no way am I implying that early childhood educators are all the same; differences within cultural groups are often as great, or greater, than differences between cultural groups. Cultures are dynamic; they change over time as groups interact with one another. Most recently, the almost global influence of the Reggio Emilia approach has had an enormous impact on the cultural values and behaviour of early educators. Similarly, the diversity of topics in this issue reflects the rapidly expanding knowledge base and increasing complexity of the teacher's role in both Europe and the United States (IOM & NRC 2015). Learning from other countries is a good way to continue our conversations about our shared and diverse perspectives, and to start imagining how early childhood education can instantiate its values in its practices with children and families.