The English Early Childhood and Education (ECEC) landscape and underpinning discourses underwent a number of significant transformations and the field of ECEC enjoys increasing national and international attention. In my paper I demonstrate the insights that can be gained by applying the cross-national analytical framework for ECEC systems I have developed (author, 2018), to capture how the task of raising children to become adult members of society is shared. Studies by supra-national organisation of ECEC tend to promote the acquisition of human capital and increasing economic performance at individual and national level as an answer to uncertainty and risk. Despite attempts to develop common understandings of early learning and development (OECD, 2015), existing comparative studies of ECEC systems continue to show a wide variety of services at nation state and local level, and that there is not a single policy lever that can predict good outcomes for children (van Belle, 2016). A deeper understanding of particular forms of ECEC systems and their trajectories requires an analytical framework able to handle multiple aims, diverse stakeholders and service developments that are embedded in their historical roots (Cohen & Korintus, 2016). This framework has to include the chronological development in order to pinpoint the path-dependency of services (Scheiwe & Willekens, 2009) as they emerge in specific political, social and cultural contexts.

My analytical framework presents an alternative to the new International Early Learning and Wellbeing Study (IELS) by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2018). The IELS applies measures on four learning domains (early literacy and numeracy skills, self-regulation and social and emotional skills) of five-year-old children. The first wave of data collection took place in 2018. Critics have dubbed IELS the ‘Baby PISA’ (Goddard, 2017) and raise concern about its superficiality and pointlessness, and caution against the disregard of the wider social, political and pedagogical context and the resulting decontextualized quantification, reducing ECEC and this cross-national study to a technical practice (Moss & Urban, 2017; Moss & Urban, 2018). Moss et al. (2016) observe that the IELS adds another element to the PISA global web, producing global outcome measures by applying a common set of indicators and linking various ranking tables to each other.

Comparative work is riddled with difficulties on how to translate terms, concepts and dominant discourses (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2015). However, every time a term becomes difficult to translate there is a chance to deconstruct these regimes of truth, by explaining and comparing meanings and silences inherent in each of the discourses. The German discourse on childhood and private and public responsibilities for their upbringing is such an opportunity.

I will use three interrelated concepts setting out the task and responsibilities of adults towards children, as established in German legislation (§ 22 (3) SGB VIII), Erziehung [upbringing or raising], Bildung [education] and Betreuung [care] to explore the English ECEC system. National and local ECEC systems are the outcome of how children, parents, adults, the state and institutions relate to each other, which rights and duties have been established and the representation of discourses of childhood, family life and social policy and the role of the private market in this sector. What constitutes good upbringing, care and education evolves over time in relation to social, cultural and political changes, new knowledge and personal experiences. The triad of concepts affords a more nuanced analysis of the figuration of interdependent individuals and the struggles of groups within a society (Elias, 1978).

The methodological approach is qualitative content analysis with its advantages of transparency and longitudinal analysis (Bryman, 2016). The data are English legislation, statutory and non-statutory guidance and explanatory documents published by government departments, like the current Department for Education. These documents form the framework for the development, organisation and regulation of ECEC services. Legislation setting out parental responsibilities for young children will be included, too. These official documents reflect and affect the discourse of ECEC, express policy intention, establish policy text (Ball & Bowe, 1992) and are important elements to trace the path-dependency of the phenomena in question. The timeframe applied ranges from 1933 to the present day. The coding frame captures the characteristics of the triad of Erziehung [upbringing or raising], Bildung [education] and Betreuung [care] and contains indicators including information about, for example, access, regulation, organisation that highlight which of the three concepts is addressed and prioritised. Initially these documents are coded and analysed revealing underlying themes related to the triad using the NVivo, a software programme to investigate qualitative and mixed methods data,. The second level of analysis places these findings into the recent developments of the contemporary English ECEC landscape.

The results of this research are two-fold. Firstly, it aims to provide a detailed analysis of the English ECEC landscape related to the task every society and community faces, how to raise young children. I will show how policies reflect changes of discourse of child- and parenthood, early education, responsibilities for care and so on. The analysis reveals the underlying figurations that result in the particular characteristics of ECEC in England, with affordances for parents, children and staff in settings. Secondly, the research employs a comparative analytical framework for ECEC services and policies. Here I will demonstrate how the framework contributes to gaining richer knowledge of ECEC landscapes in another country than that of the origin of the triad of concepts. With its sensibility to the historical, political and social context, it offers a contribution to international, comparative research that decontextualized, quantitative outcome measures, presented in ranking tables, are not able to provide.

Ball, S. J. & Bowe, R. (1992) 'Subject departments and the 'implementation' of National Curriculum policy: an overview of the issue'. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24 (2), pp. 97-115. Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edn. Oxford: Open University Press. Cohen, B. J. & Korintus, M. (2016) 'Making connections: reflections on over three decades of EU initiatives in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)'. Early Years, pp. 235-249. Elias, N. (1978) What is Sociology. Translated by Mennell, S. and Morrissey, G., Columbia: Columbia University Press. Goddard, C. (2017) 'Analysis: What is 'baby PISA'?'. Nursery World, [Online]. Available at: https://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1161171/analysis-what-is-baby-pisa (Accessed: 27.1.2019). Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., Grieshaber, S., Mantovani, S., May, H., Pence, A., Rayna, S., Swadener, B. B. & Vandenbroeck, M. (2016) 'The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: Opening for debate and contestation'. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17 (3), pp. 343-351. Moss, P. & Urban, M. (2017) 'The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: What happened next'. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18 (2), pp. 250-258. Moss, P. & Urban, M. (2018) 'The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: What’s going on'. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, [online] (0), pp. 1-6. OECD (2015) 'Early Learning and Development: Common Understandings'. [Online]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/ECEC-Network-Common-Understandings-on-Early-Learning-and-Development.pdf (Accessed: 27.1.2019). OECD (2018) Early Learning Matters: Brochure. OECD. [Online]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/Early-Learning-Matters-Project-Brochure.pdf (Accessed: 27.1.2019). Phillips, D. & Schweisfurth, M. (2015) Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method, and Practice. 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury. Scheiwe, K. & Willekens, H. (2009) 'Introduction: Path-dependencies and change in child-care and preschool institutions in Europe - historical and institutional perspectives', in Scheiwe, K. and Willekens, H. (eds.) Child Care and Preschool Development in Europe: Institutional Perspectives. Basingstoke: palgrave macmillan, pp. 1-22. van Belle, J. (2016) Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and its long-term effects on educational and labour market outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1667.html.