Árið 2006 gaf dr. Jón Torfi Jónasson, prófessor út bókina Frá gæslu til skóla: Um þróun leikskóla á Íslandi. Þar greindi hann þróun leikskólastigsins frá mörgum ólíkum sjónarhornum, fjallaði m.a. um stöðugleika orðræðunnar um leikskóla og um hvað umræður og deilur um leikskólastarf snerust. Í ritinu er farið yfir sögu leikskólans á Íslandi, formleg umgjörð hans og starfshættir skoðuð sem og menntun leikskólakennara. Þá fjallaði höfundur sérstaklega um bæði bóknámsrek og kerfisrek í skólakerfinu. Í þessari grein verður litið til baka og nokkur þeirra álitaefna sem Jón Torfi veltir upp skoðuð nú 16 árum síðar. Spurt er: Hvað hefur gerst í málefnum leikskólans á hálfum öðrum áratug? Á hvaða vegferð er íslenski leikskólinn? Sjónum er annars vegar beint að ytri áhrifaþáttum, svo sem samfélagsbreytingum liðinna ára, breytingum á leikskólakennaramenntuninni og opinberri stefnumótun í málefnum leikskólans. Hins vegar er litið til innra starfs leikskólans og leitast við að greina þau áhrif sem stefnumótunin hefur haft eða ekki haft á starfshætti leikskólans. Fjallað er um leikskólann sem gæslu eða skóla og færð rök fyrir að í leikskólum fari fram hvort tveggja; nám og umönnun. Bóknámsrek í leikskólum landsins er til umfjöllunar og velt vöngum yfir ástæðum þess að samfellt nám barna hefur ekki orðið að veruleika. Loks eru þær breytingar sem orðið hafa á viðhorfum til barna í kjölfar Sáttmála Sameinuðu þjóðanna um réttindi barnsins reifaðar. Notuð var skjalagreining og farið yfir opinber gögn um leikskólann á liðnum 16 árum. Meginniðurstaða greinarinnar er að sú þróun sem orðið hefur varðandi ytri umgjörð og innra starf íslenska leikskólans sé um margt til fyrirmyndar. Hins vegar virðast vera teikn á lofti um ósamræmi milli opinberrar stefnu og starfshátta sem benda til þess að huga þurfi betur að innleiðingu og eftirfylgni stefnumótunar.
In 2006, Dr Jón Torfi Jónasson published Frá gæslu til skóla: Um þróun leikskóla á Íslandi [From Caregiving to School: On the Development of Preschools in Iceland], a book that analyses the development of Iceland’s preschool system from various perspectives and discusses both the stability of the discourse about preschool and conflicting views on preschools. Addressing the concept of so-called “schoolification” in relation to the history of preschool education in Iceland, the book also examines the formal framework and practices of preschools in the country as well as preschool teacher education. In the 16 years since the book’s publication, the population of children in Iceland’s preschools has become increasingly diverse. In response, policymakers, administrative leaders, principals, and preschool teachers have increasingly had to adjust policy and preschool practices for diverse groups of children. In parallel, preschool teacher education has evolved significantly in the country, and working as a preschool teacher now requires a master’s degree. This article reflects on some of the trends that Jónasson observed 16 years ago, guided by the questions of what has happened in preschools in Iceland during that period and in what direction the preschools are headed. On the one hand, the article examines external factors, including recent social changes in Iceland, developments in the country’s preschool teacher education and public policy regarding preschool education. To that end, public policy documents from the last 16 years are analysed to identify changes as well as consistency in such trends in preschools. On the other hand, it also focuses on internal factors by analysing how public policy has or has not influenced preschool practice. For that purpose, research conducted in preschools in Iceland in recent decades is examined. In keeping with Jónasson’s book, the article elaborates on preschools as places for education and caregiving (gæsla) and argues that they have to be both. With reference to the concept of schoolification in Icelandic preschools, the article also investigates why continuity in children’s education has not become a reality. Furthermore, the changes the Convention on the Rights of the Child has caused in how children are viewed are discussed as well. Above all, the article concludes that the development of the framework and policy of preschools in Iceland has been exemplary in several ways. However, indications of inconsistencies between policy and practice can be identified; these are, for instance, highlighted in the discrepancy between the national curriculum guidelines’ emphasis on play as children’s primary mode of learning and, conversely, on documentation as the primary way of evaluating children’s learning in preschool. In reality, the emphasis on standardised tests for limited skills used to assess preschool children’s learning and development has increased. Discontinuity is another source of inconsistency. For instance, Iceland’s education policy stresses continuity in children’s learning in terms of six pillars—literacy, sustainability, health and well-being, democracy and human rights, equality and creativity—from preschool to secondary school. In reality, preschools are, however, largely considered to be a preparatory step towards attending primary school instead of considering what children have already learned in preschool by the time they enroll in primary school. Although the enactment of the Convention on the Rights of the Child was a milestone in assuring children’s rights in Iceland, it remains unclear how the views presented in the Convention have been manifested in preschool practices, despite clear indications that preschools are taking the Convention seriously. Inconsistency between Icelandic preschool policy and practice warrants attention and reflection, especially to ensure follow-up on policy. It is also worrying that preschool teachers are in the minority in preschools and that their professional views are not always in the foreground.
