Homelessness in Early Childhood Education & Care Pedagogy: Insights of ECEC Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bioecological systems approach is associated with Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) pedagogies as when children engage with the world their emerging identities, understandings of inequity, and potential to action their political voice can be realized—which is influenced by the professionals who care for them. This applies to participation in the local communities of ECEC organizations where homelessness exists. Specific to Ontario, Canada, this is vaguely contemplated in ECEC practice, which is a dilemma given that homelessness is on the upsurge for a host of reasons including neoliberalism and the COVID-19 pandemic. This is also troubling as ECEC-based homelessness research in other countries suggests that professionals often employ a deficit lens reinforcing stereotypical, marginalizing, and othering discourse. A qualitative Instrumental Case Study (ICS), drawing on a Social Constructivist philosophical paradigm, was designed to confront these gaps and uncover how ECEC professionals respond to homelessness when they, alongside the children in their care, interact with their local ECEC communities. Focus groups, demographic questionnaires, and researcher journals revealed that encounters are predominantly indirect. Moreover, when encounters transpire they are bracketed by feelings and responses of ECEC professionals that are informed by their own biases, a lack of training to manoeuvre this complex topic, and fear of repercussions from parents should their child(ren) come in contact with people unhoused while in care. The findings additionally exposed that ECEC professionals are resolute to maintaining child safety in homelessness encounters, while simultaneously modelling compassion. Essential to strengthening this facet of practice in the early years field, according to participants of this ICS, is pre- and in-service learning, and curriculum and policy that intersect homelessness with humane citizenship principles. This qualitative study hopes to engage early years communities to appraise how homelessness pertains to ECEC pedagogy, curriculum reform, and policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".