articulated in the name of social justice) over the imposition of tight timescales. January 2016 ushered in the announcement of further reforms to adoption law to achieve an increase in numbers. The inference being that we most definitely need more. The action plan for the implementation of the family justice reforms was the establishment of a ‘knowledge hub’, and the production of a set of knowledge reviews to guide judicial decision making. Decision-making within a child’s timeframe: an overview of current research evidence for family justice professionals concerning child development and the impact of maltreatment (hereafter abbreviated to “A Child’s Timeframe”) by Rebecca Brown and Harriet Ward (Brown and Ward, 2013) of the University of Loughborough, was one such review and made extensive use of neuroscientific claims. The report was commissioned by the Department for Education and the Family Justice Council. It explicitly stated its purpose as ensuring ‘consistent training... for family justice professionals’. It contains a number of strands, and neuroscience figures strongly in its core argument: namely that ‘time frames for intervening... are out of kilter with those of the child’ (p8). As family lawyer, Eddie Lloyd Jones (2013) noted in the journal “Family Law”, shortly after the publication of ‘A Child’s Timeframe’: An email circulated by a designated family judge…. left no one in any doubt as to the status of this document. All needed to be familiar with its contents upon which courts were likely to place ‘considerable reliance’. The report … is used in judicial training and one participant has already observed that it is treated as ‘completely authoritative’ (Jones, p1053) At this point, we review events which took place at the time, as we were involved in a debate with the report’s authors shortly after its publication. The controversy that followed are worthy of examination in its own right, attesting to the fact that debates about parenting, childhood vulnerability and state arouse the passions. Here we focus on the argumentation within the review, on our counter argument, and the case mobilised in the response from the report’s authors that followed. Our summary of the debate provides evidence of the difficulties besetting the search for solid ground on which to base complex professional judgements about children deemed to be at risk, and illustrates the effects of the neurobiological way of thinking. Contending the Core Story
Woodhead, M. and Streuli, N (2013) Early Education for All: Is There a Role for the Private Sector? In eds P. Rebello Britto, P. Engle and C. Super (2013) Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy Oxford. Oxford University Press. Young Lives. (DfID) Young, M.E and Mustard, F. (2008) Brain development and ECD: A Case for Investment. In eds M.Garcia, A. Pence, A. and J.Evans (2008) Africa’s Future, Africa’s Challenge. Washington: The World Bank pp 71-92
attention to all the counter-effectuations that the one’s concerned - real children, teachers, families - readily and continuously perform in early childhood education and care. Upcoming books in the series will, for instance, bring forward notions of the public early childhood teacher, of the aesthetic dimension of education, of space and place - including material/immaterial tools such as new technologies –all essential issues for early childhood practices. We will (re)turn to and (re)invent central historical pedagogical figures and we will not only continue contesting but also continue to present alternatives to the current abstract formalism in early childhood education and care. So, “stay tuned” … there is more to come… References Allen, G. (2011). Early intervention: Smart investment, massive savings. The second independent report to Her Majesty's Government. London: HM Government. Biesta, G. (2007). Why “What Works” won’t work: evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory,, 57(1), 1-22. Boyle, C. (2016). Key discourses in early childhood intervention: A case study of an early intervention city. Unpublished PhD thesis. Belfast: Queen's University. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cagliari, P.; Castagnetti, M. Giudici, C.; Rinaldi, C.; Vecchi, V. & Moss, P. (2016). Loris Malaguzzi and the schools of Reggio Emilia. London: Routledge Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An intorduction tot he philosophy of education.New York: Macmillan Eurochild. (2015). A child-centred investment strategy. Why the investment plan for Europe needs to prioritise children. Brussels: Eurochild AISBL. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults. The report of the independent review on poverty and life chances. London: HM Government. Finnegan, J., & Lawton, K. (2016). Lighting up young brains. How parents, carers and nurseries support children's brain development in the first five years. Retrieved from Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. PARIS: Gallimard.