This statement from Hurst and Joseph reflects the tangled discursive mass of ideas through which the importance of play in early childhood education is now defended. For example, there is a clear and explicit theoretical link to all aspects of developmentalism and a deferral to natural and intrinsic discourses of childhood. It also reflects Pellegrini and Boyd's (1993: 105) claim that, 'play is an almost hallowed concept for teachers of young children'. Play in early childhood education forms a significant nodal point through which understandings and discourses of childhood, motherhood, education, family, psychology and citizenship are funnelled. Its valorised, slogan-like status in early childhood education creates a powerful critique-resistant screen, potentially protecting play from investigation and analysis.

I approach my discussion of play in this paper from the perspective provided through Foucault's (2000/1978) notion of governmentality. Such a perspective begins from an understanding of 'the non-necessity of what passes for necessity in our present' (Burchell, 1993: 279). Viewing current understandings of play as non-necessary enables questions to be asked about how play came to be such a dominant pedagogical force in early childhood education; and further, how dominant discourses of play produce and manage children and adults in early childhood settings.

To begin this paper I consider some of the current discourses of play in early childhood education. These discourses of play are then critiqued and the paper closes with a discussion of play as pedagogy, where play is considered as a significant discursive and pedagogical tool for managing and governing preschool childhood.

There is little in the way of a clear consensus among early childhood educators regarding what constitutes play in early childhood settings. This may seem odd considering its professed position of profound importance, but not so odd given the messiness of its foundations. There are, however, at least three dominant discourses of play discussed in the early childhood literature: 1) a romantic/nostalgic discourse, 2) a play characteristics discourse and 3) a developmental discourse. I also note a fourth and less common discourse of play, one that is based upon play contexts and relations. This less common discourse of play tends to be the space in which more critical considerations are found. All of these discourses exist along side and in competition with each other and many of the infinite definitions of play to be found are various combinations of these ideas. I would also like to point out here that these discourses of play are all adult definitions, and the variations between children's and adult's discourses of play are briefly taken up in the section critiquing play.

In the early childhood literature many discussions of play resonate with commonsense and rather nostalgic regimes of truth about childhood. Sutton-Smith (1995), a significant scholar of play, refers to this as the 'play as progress' rhetoric. In this rhetoric play is assumed to be always positive, the negative aspects conveniently being ignored. It is also linked into notions of nature, where childhood is a time of innocence and purity. Such idealistic discourses of play may be traced back to those writing and working within the context of the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, especially Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel. This idealism was also reflected in the nursery school movement in America, particularly early in the 20^th century amongst those who followed Dewey (Bloch, 1987). Currently, a romantic/nostalgic discourse of play is discernable in the lamentations of those who consider childhood to be lost or in crisis (e.g. Postman, 1994). This discourse of play is woven into the early childhood literature; often constituting a thread that links various definitions of play.

Romantic/nostalgic discourses of play regularly take the form of an anecdote or story, for example, Wardle (2001: 1) writing about play as curriculum states that,

Such a heavily gendered, classed and raced vision of childhood play almost renders tangible a vision in soft focus with expensive OshKosh clothing and smiling faces. It is reflective, however, of the dominant western view that children need play; and of the emotional, commonsense appeals used to ensure they get it (e.g. Caplan & Caplan, 1974; Moyles, 1989, 1994). Many children do not have access to the play described above by Wardle now, and did not have access to such play in the past. Certainly, this play is largely unavailable in early childhood educational settings. Regardless of this, the nostalgic sense of bucolic naturalness in such a view of play is regularly transposed to early childhood education discourses.

Once transposed to early childhood educational pedagogy, play is broken down, divided up and constantly observed. After the emotional appeal above, Wardle (2001) goes on to divide play into motor/physical play, social play, constructive play, fantasy play and games with rules, describing each in developmental terms. This division of play into types reflects the dominance of developmental psychology (physical, intellectual, emotional and social development) and tends to be based upon the developmental theories of Piaget and/or Vygotsky.

Perry (1998: 9 original emphasis) while reiterating these characteristics adds a few more,

These lists of play characteristics are a conglomerate of various constructions of childhood and the place of play in the lives of young children. Important sources for these characteristics are the romantic/nostalgic understandings of play as natural, intrinsic and free, and progressivism's version of 'free-play'. The 'freedom' and 'intrinsic motivation' that are mentioned in both these lists are a reflection of this. The 'non-serious' or 'nonliteral' characteristics of play are also important as they contribute to the reinforcement of the separation of play and childhood from adulthood and rational maturity. The play characteristics above are also unproblematically context free, and the childhood in which they exist tends to be cut off from social and contextual factors.

It seems fairly obvious that many of these play characteristics are not readily available in early childhood settings. On the simplest level, for example, most early childhood settings are regulated via a timetable that often includes inside and outside time where the play children are enabled or constrained to engage with during these times is necessarily regulated. Inside time, for example, is usually divided up into block area, home corner, wet area, puzzle table, collage table and book corner.

The most dominant influence on the many current discourses of play in early childhood education stem from a recipe made up of the developmental theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, with significant reference also to Erikson and Kohlberg. This is produced, in part, through the influential Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) text (Bredekamp, 1987). Play is defined in the DAP text as,

Immediately clear in this quote is the use of the discourses of developmental psychology. Also evident are references to Piaget's stages of cognitive development: sensorimotor, preoperational and concrete operational. While the focus seems to be upon the cognitive in DAP, there are also references to the benefits of play for social, emotional and physical development. The reference to 'teacher-supported' play links into the Vygotskian notion of zone of proximal development. This is commonly discussed within early childhood educational circles as co-construction, that is, within a discourse of teacher and child constructing knowledge together.

These developmental discourses of play are understandably dominant, given the broader influence and significance of psychology in making sense of oneself, particularly throughout the 20^th century (Rose, 1999). The developmental discourses of play evident in the DAP text, however, also suffer from the silences, exclusions and critiques of DAP and developmental psychology; that is, despite an attempt to 'add on' social and cultural aspects of life, the play at issue here usually occurs in a social and contextual vacuum. Within this vacuum, the rational (white, western, male) child individually unfolds on the developmental journey to a finite adulthood.

Far less common in early childhood discourses of play is recognition of the ways in which contexts and relations impact upon play activities. Perhaps this is due to the sociological turn such an understanding would require on the part of an early childhood field dominated by psychology. Significant amongst the earlier sociological understandings of play is work by Nancy King. Her early Marxist analyses considered young children's understandings of play (1979), play as resistance (1982) and play in the workplace (1983). As Marxist analyses these papers dealt with issues of power, work and schooling with a top-down sense of power and a significant appeal to resistance from below.

King's (1992) chapter in a foundational reconceptualising early childhood curriculum text discusses classroom contexts, historical contexts and societal contexts. In this later chapter she also begins to note the implications of gender in play. King (1992: 57) concludes this chapter by pointing out that 'one reason...adults provide play settings for children is that it brings the adults themselves satisfaction and joy to do so'. This certainly resonates with the romantic/nostalgic discourses of play, where the adult's satisfaction and joy in observing children's play is wrapped up in fond memories and idyllic moments. Such a view could also contribute to reasons for the valorisation of the positive aspects of play in early childhood settings to the exclusion of the potentially negative, boring and hurtful aspects of play. Although King's contextual and relational understanding of play recognises that no play takes place in a vacuum, and that teachers and researchers need to acknowledge this, it remains limited by a top-down, repressive view of power.

Play in preschools and other early childhood settings is always already regulated by the physical space in which it occurs, the resources available and the presence of adults. Along with the institutional space of school settings come relations of power between teachers and children, and between children and other children. Considering contexts and relationships, particularly relationships of power, enables a consideration of the regulatory aspects of play. That is, it enables a consideration of the governing of childhood both by adults and by other children in terms of gender, sexuality, race, class, school readiness, social competence and morals.

Anning (1991) and Bennett, Wood and Rogers (1997) assert that little empirical evidence has been found for the pedagogical value placed on play in early childhood education. Anning (1991: 30) points out that play is one 'of those words that tends to be used at a slogan-like level by teachers of young children'. It seems that while there is a small voice of dissent regarding the pedagogical value of play, this is a marginal position and the importance of play remains as a powerful regime of truth in early childhood education.

In their study of teachers' theories of play, Bennett et al. (1997: 1) critique the 'long-established tradition which emphasizes the central role of play in early learning and development'. Their point is that the rhetoric surrounding the position of play in the curriculum is rarely born out in practice. In many cases the educative potential of play was not realised and they point to studies where play activities in early childhood settings have been found to be repetitive, often isolating, and recreational rather than educational. The teacher in such contexts was regularly reduced to a role of monitoring and cleaning.

There are also critiques beginning to emerge in Australia (e.g. Fleer, 1998; Danby, 1998). These studies maintain the position of play as central but are questioning its valorisation, particularly in terms of its ethnocentrist and often masculinist underpinnings. Interestingly, Fleer's (1998) chapter critiquing the dominance of western understandings of play is preceded by a one-page justification from the book's editor defending its inclusion in a text considering play in early childhood.

Here I discuss in a little more detail three critiques of play. First, I question the discourse of pleasure surrounding play in early childhood education. Second, I consider the use of play as a separating device, producing childhood and adulthood as separate and oppositional spheres. Third, and flowing from the second point, is a consideration of the separation of play from work. This critique aims to render play in early childhood education less stable as a regime of truth, practice and thought.

Throughout the early childhood education play literature there is an almost constant reference to the pleasure and fun of play while the potential for pain and distress is marginalised (e.g. Hughes, 1897; Monighan-Nourot et al., 1987; Moyles, 1994; Perry, 1998). For example, 'Following rules and taking roles in play is a pleasurable, intrinsically motivated experience for children' (Monighan-Nourot et al., 1987: 18) or 'Play comes naturally to 3-5 year-olds and is a thoroughly enjoyable activity' (Perry, 1998: 1). Play, however, is not always fun. As critical psychologist Erica Burman argues,

One ethnographic example of this is Danby's (1998) study of masculinities in a preschool block corner. This study discusses the ways in which young boys police and monitor their masculinity as they play in the block corner. Within this play context, threats of both symbolic and physical violence were very much a part of the play activity amongst the boys involved. The younger and smaller boys were the targets of these violent threats and the play session studied ended in their tears and calls for adult intervention. In this instance, for the younger and smaller boys, following the gendered rules and roles of masculinity in the block corner could hardly have been considered pleasurable or even intrinsically motivated.

Very early last century Vygotsky (1978: 92) pointed out that 'to define play as an activity that gives pleasure to the child is inaccurate for two reasons'. First, he argued, there are other activities the child participates in that may be enjoyable - but not considered play. Second, play is not necessarily pleasurable in and of itself. Indeed, even for some other early childhood educational leaders who advocated play, such as Froebel and Montessori, the pleasure play may provide children was not a reason for its inclusion in preschool curricula. For all of these influential individuals working in different places at different times, play was a tool through which young children might learn - about their path to Unity (Froebel), about how to be human (Montessori), or how to develop intellectually and socially (Vygotsky). Play was, therefore, the means to a managed end; spiritual, moral, intellectual or social.

One reason for the current valorisation of play in early childhood education is offered by Bishop and Curtis (2001) who point out the tight discursive linking of 'tradition' with 'good'. Further, they assert that for some adults 'good' games are 'traditional' games, such as hopscotch, marbles, skipping or swinging. Some adults may selectively remember such play as the play of their childhood. This nostalgic vision, however, conveniently forgets that 'practical jokes, initiation rites, games involving forceful physical contact, racist and sexist joking, nicknaming and taunting, are equally as traditional' (Bishop & Curtis, 2001: 10).

Policing the social life between children in the playground, including gender, sexuality and race, is an integral function of children's play (Thorne, 1993; Danby, 1998; Bishop & Curtis, 2001; Strandell, 2000). Play functions to manage and organise relationships between groups of children and between children and adults. I am suggesting, therefore, that play needs to considered by early childhood educators in less innocent and naturalised terms, for as Thorne (1993: 5-6) points out in her study of children's gendered play, she 'witnessed anger, sorrow, and boredom, as well as sport and jest'.

It is through a consideration of play in less romantic and innocent terms that play can be viewed as a form of regulation and governing of early childhood. In considering play from a perspective suspicious of its supposed naturalness and timelessness, I am thinking through 'the contingent conditions under which that which is so dear to us has taken shape' (Rose, 1999: 60). Through such a perspective the pedagogising of play may be viewed as one important way through which relations of power are maintained and perpetuated between childhood and adulthood. For as Foucault (2000/1977:120) states, 'What makes power hold good...is simply the fact that it doesn't only weigh on us as a force that says no; it also...induces pleasure, forms knowledge, [and] produces discourse'. There is power, therefore, in the pleasure of play. This power is all the more regulatory for the dominant knowledges and assertions of truth that may be produced through the linkage of pleasure and play.

One regime of truth produced through the pleasure-play linkage is that play is 'a highly differentiated and separate activity - an activity that separates children from the real, adult world' (Strandell, 2000: 147). Strandell's point is that play is often viewed as something that children engage in while waiting to enter into the 'real' adult society. Both Strandell (2000) and Thorne (1993) refer to the trivialisation of play when it is coupled with the word 'child', as in 'child's play'. In this critique there is a sense that play is something easy, fun and therefore not rational, sensible or real. Perhaps this is a discursive echo of Froebel, who observed children's play and turned it to his adult purposes, redefining it as work. As Hughes (1897: 145) has suggested, Froebel emphasised that 'the love of play in the child should become the love of work in the man [sic]'. Sutton-Smith (1995) also develops this idea that play is a means through which childhood and adulthood are understood as separate spheres. He points out that 'Children's play is said to be innocent and adaptive. Adult play is said not to exist' (Sutton-Smith, 1995: 280). His point is not that adults do not play, but that their play is more likely to be labeled as leisure, sport or recreation.

The concept of child's play contributes to the separation of children from adult society where play is a world of its own with little connection to the 'real' adult world. This separation also produces childhood and adulthood as oppositional spheres of existence. One consequence of this, as Thorne (1993: 6) suggests, is the way in which the trivialisation of children's play results in a distance from the 'real' adult world, which also then enables the consequences of power relations to be discounted. Reiterating this is Sutton-Smith (1995) who argues that through the separation of childhood play from adult play, similarities can be ignored and childhood play may be valorised and romanticised while the social and power relations evident in their play are trivialised.

As Harry Hendrick (1997) has suggested, the production of separate child and adult worlds has not occurred quickly, and it has not occurred in isolation from broader social issues. Several important factors have contributed to the separation of childhood from adulthood and play from work. Two suggested by Hendrick (1997: 42-47) are the production during the late 18^th and into the 19^th centuries of the 'delinquent child' and the 'schooled child'. Out of these discourses, particularly in Britain and other western nations, laws were developed defining and regulating childhood. For example, legislation in Britain early in the 19^th century concerning child labour prohibited particular employment situations for children under 9 and regulated the working hours of children aged between 9 and 13 (Hendrick, 1997). Towards the end of the 19^th century, as discourses of the 'schooled child' became more dominant, universal, compulsory schooling legislation was enacted; in Queensland this was evidenced in the Education Act, 1875. These shifting discourses of childhood produced changing regimes of truth and practice through which children where regulated; and within them the 'proper' place of children shifted from work to school.

Creating the notion of play as the work of childhood has been one powerful regime through which early childhood has been produced and separated from adulthood. For example, one early childhood text links play with work habits;

Given this dominant adult discourse of play as the work of childhood, it is really not surprising that children's definitions of play are almost invariably linked to the level of adult presence and influence over an activity (R. King, 1978; N. King, 1983; 1992). According to Nancy King (1992), from a child's perspective, there is little opportunity for play in any educational setting for as soon as the activity is 'made educational' by the teacher it is no longer defined by children as play. King found that even activities children enjoyed and defined as play when self-chosen, were defined as work when required by the teacher. In this way, play can be viewed as a preschool contradiction; it may be variously defined by adults as natural, intrinsic, pleasurable and vital to development; but it is also 'the real business of preschooling' (Romero, 1991; 132) or the work of childhood.

Central to the work of children in a preschool setting is the discourse of school readiness (Bloch, 1987; Romero, 1991; Grieshaber, 1998). School readiness not only involves being exposed to various adult defined preliteracy and prenumeracy activities and knowledges, it also involves learning how to successfully function in the institutional setting of a classroom (Luke, 1992). The knowledge of how to 'do' school; how to sit and listen to a story in a large group, remembering to put your hand up before you speak in a large group, having 'inside' and 'outside' voices are seen to be as important as preliteracy or prenumeracy skills.

Learning to be 'school ready', however, may also involve learning how to creatively resist classroom routines without being caught (N. King, 1982; Romero, 1991). Romero (1991: 129-130) suggests that children seemed to

She goes on to offer several examples of children resisting the classroom routine of clean up time, sometimes through play. She suggested that children resisted clean up time through beginning an activity they know will not be stopped by the teacher, such as painting at the easel, or by selecting to clean up those activities that could be rendered playful in the process.

Through play, relations of power-knowledge and constructions of childhood in early childhood education may be analysed. R. King (1978) touched upon these relations of power in his sociological study of infant classrooms almost twenty-five years ago. However, they do not seem to have been widely taken up in early childhood circles. As King emphasised then, play was (and it remains) largely defined and regulated by adults in early childhood settings. He pointed out the blurring between play and work in the various ways in which infant classrooms were governed, for example, play was used as a reward for working; play may be chosen - but work could not be refused; teachers defined when work was completed, and therefore when play could begin (R. King, 1978: 20). King suggested that much of the play found in early childhood education settings is defined as such by adults, and the children are actively regulated, managed and governed through the adult separation of play from work.

Although some aspects of play are currently being critiqued in curricula terms (e.g. Fleer, 1998), there remains resistance to the notion that play in early childhood educational settings is a means by which adults regulate and manage young children. The guiding idea of this paper, play as pedagogy, is not a new concept. As already emphasised, play has been used in early childhood settings as a pedagogical tool, with particular ends in sight since first introduced in a major way by Froebel in the 19^th century. Montessori wanted the children in preschools bearing her name to play, but not in free, creative or dramatic ways, rather it seems she wanted them to play in the 'right' way - her way (May, 1997). Further, the compensatory discourses of play were obviously regulatory, drawing on wider social issues and political circumstances to produce preschool programs that not only managed the population of children living in poverty in various ways, but also their mothers.

The dominant discourses of play in early childhood education have shifted, merged, coagulated or disappeared at certain points over the last 150 or so years. Influences beyond the hallowed play space of the preschool have been significant in shaping the activity that occurs in that space. Government policy, rational 'scientific' research, commonsense regimes of truth, economic imperatives and popular culture, for example, have all contributed to the political rationalities that function to regulate the conditions of possibility and technologies of governmentality available in preschool classrooms.

In the remainder of this paper I will consider two mutually constitutive techniques of governance and regulation that have evolved in early childhood education; the rationalising of play and the observation of play. These two techniques of governance have been, and remain, fundamental to the way in which adults construct and manage early childhood education.

Through the rationalisation of play, a whole language has been created for describing the play of young children; for example as natural, spontaneous, pleasurable, developmentally appropriate, fine motor, gross motor, dramatic, parallel, free, rough and tumble, pretend, exploratory, representational, manipulative, block, water, sand, creative. As is evident through the discussion in this paper, it is necessary to understand play as a heterogeneous bundle of ideas and knowledges that have been part of the production of various understandings of play, of childhood and of early childhood education. Importantly, this language enables talk and thought about what is normal play including age based phases of play and types of play; thus producing matrices of regulation that contribute to the formation of conditions of possibility for understandings of childhood in preschool settings. However, by the very definition of these matrices and templates for normalcy and practice, there are also created matrices of impossibility, radical exclusion and potentially violent foreclosure (Butler, 1993).

The classifying, dividing and normalising of play in early childhood education is reflective of Foucault's arguments in Discipline and Punish (1977). That is, the more an activity is divided up the more it is regulated, monitored and governed. Timetables, checklists, floorplans and assessment and observation proformas are all ubiquitous in early childhood education - young children often cannot even go to the toilet in early childhood settings without the potential for an adult gaze monitoring their 'progress', deciding if they are taking too long or just 'playing' around. Within this heavily regulated space, play has been a key concept through which adults have tried to produce, understand, monitor, regulate and govern childhood.

The establishment of various matrices of play has been central to the production and rationalisation of young children. These matrices are excellent examples of thought made rational, technical and practical; in other words, of making the greatest use of the most instrumentally efficient knowledges in the exercise of power (Gordon, 2000). In the west in particular, the DAP text has constructed an incredibly influential 'tableaux vivants' (Foucault, 1977: 148) of young children. The 'tables of life' found in DAP create an imaginary order out of complexity, messiness and disorder. Despite the critque DAP has received, particularly as ethnocentrist and masculinist, it remains stubbornly embedded in the soul of early childhood education.

Open any text on early childhood teaching practice and there will be a section on the importance of observations for planning an appropriate early childhood curriculum. Indeed, one text goes into great detail regarding ways in which this observational task may be managed; suggesting (with an accompanying photo of a woman wearing a small, frilly, embroidered apron) that teachers wear a small apron or tool belt that holds appropriate notepaper, 'stick-it' notes and pens (Puckett & Black, 2000). Thus, as Walkerdine (1984: 162) has pointed out, and any early childhood teacher could tell you, 'observation of play is singled out as an activity for the teacher to engage in'. Adults within early childhood education are trained to observe the play of young children in ways that identify a child's individual needs. This training is supported through a plethora of props such as developmental checklists and developmentally appropriate toys and equipment.

A brief historical sense of child watching, or the mapping childhood, is necessary here. Froebel produced his 'Mutter Und Kose-Lieder' through observations of mothers and children. Towards the end of the 18^th century and into the 19^th century, the keeping of journals recording the progress of their child's development was a very fashionable activity for educated women (Stainton-Rogers & Stainton-Rogers, 1992). While these journals followed Rousseau in that they were very personal and biographical, this method of recording the lives of babies and young children began to attract scientific attention. As Stainton-Rogers and Stainton-Rogers (1992: 87) point out, in 1877 Darwin published a diary of his son's development entitled, A Biographical Sketch of an Infant. This text and others had a deal of influence on G. S. Hall (the 'founder' of developmental psychology) and gradually, observation as a tool for producing childhood became dominant.

One reason for the reverence in which Montessori's work was held was the detailed and scientific observations from which she developed her methods and apparatus. Skinner's Behavourist theories were based, in part, on his observations of his own daughter in her (infamous) 'baby box' (Stainton-Rogers & Stainton-Rogers, 1992; see also Skinner's Walden Two, 1962). Piaget's Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood (1962) is packed with his observations of young children in various settings, including his own children at home. Watching children, therefore, often in isolated laboratory settings, has been a cornerstone of psychology and its assertions regarding children's development through progressive stages of growth. The dominance of psychological discourses in early childhood education has thus ensured the dominance of observation, particularly of children's play, as the key means by which teachers regulate young children.

I would support the position of Dahlberg, Moss and Pence (1999) in the quote that began this section, that observation in early childhood is predominantly about mapping each individual child against developmental templates, such as DAP, thereby judging their normalcy or otherwise. I would extend this thought to assert that this has been an astoundingly successful technology for governing preschool childhood. While the often romantic and nostalgic language of play as described earlier in this chapter is evident in early childhood educational texts and settings, it is the DAP version of play that currently dominates practice. One example of this is the story of 'Anne' in MacNaughton's (2000: 64) study of gender and early childhood. Anne built her classroom programme upon the developmental observations of individual children that she diligently collected, as per her teacher education. Gender, and other social aspects of identity formation, were radically excluded from the DAP picture created through the observations. Viewing her classroom practices through a 'gender lens' was therefore a significant shift for this particular teacher. Particularly telling in this story is Anne's reference to DAP observations as normal, where gendered observations are something to be done apart from the 'normal DAP' classroom processes.

It may be asserted that the regime of observation and play in early childhood also functions to regulate the adults who work in this setting. Walkerdine (1992) protests that the expectation that early childhood educators should monitor and observe each individual child for developmental progress is an impossible fiction, and further that this sets teachers up to fail. In Queensland government preschools, the preschool teacher may be in contact with up to fifty 4 to 5 year old children each day, depending on the timetable. Even observing rotating groups of young children in any depth is an overwhelming feat under these circumstances. Several of the participants in the Grieshaber, Halliwell, Hatch and Walsh (2000) study of the role of observation in the work of teachers, reiterated the impossibility of this expectation. Grieshaber et al. (2000: 48) go on to report that the 'time constraints associated with early childhood teaching limit what is possible or practical' in terms of observations.

Clearly evident in the emphasis placed upon observation is the persistent belief that through play young children make the contents of their minds known externally. Grieshaber et al. (2000: 45) point out that 'in one-third of the incidents where teachers said that child observation was critical to their decision making, the primary purposes was [sic] to make an assessment about 'development, progress, weakness and so on''. That this is an adult's regulated interpretation of a regulated childhood is not usually taken into account.

Early childhood educators operate within a discursive regime of rarely challenged 'commonsense' understandings of the importance of play in childhood. The educative discourse of play, based in a combination of romanticism and developmentalism, is used to regulate parents (particularly mothers), teachers of young children (mostly women) and childhoods. This paper has considered some of the discourses that currently produce and dominate thought and practice about play in early childhood education. Finally, the paper interrupted these dominant discourses of play, considering instead the regulatory and governing aspects of play.

Anning, A. (1991). The first years at school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Bennett, N., Wood, L. & Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching through play, teachers' thinking and classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bishop, J. & Curtis, M. (Eds.). (2001). Play today in the primary school playground. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bloch, M. (1987). 'Becoming scientific and professional: An historical perspective on the aims and effects of early education'. In T. Popkewitz (Ed.). The formation of school subjects, the struggle for creating an American institution. (pp. 25-62). New York: The Falmer Press.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Brown, G. (1999). 'Child's play'. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies. 11(3). 76-96.

Burchell, G. (1993). 'Liberal government and techniques of the self'. Economy and Society. 22(3). 267-282.

Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of "sex". New York: Routledge.

Caplan, F. & Caplan, T. (1974). The power of play, New York: Anchor books.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care, postmodern perspectives. London: Falmer Press.

Danby, S. (1998). Interaction and social order in a preschool classroom. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Queensland.

Fleer, M. (1998). 'Universal fantasy: The domination of western theories of play'. In E. Dau (Ed.). Child's play: Revisiting play in early childhood settings. (pp. 67-80). Sydney: Maclennen & Petty.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (2000/1978). 'Governmentality'. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.). Power, the essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, 3. (pp.201-222). London: The Penguin Press.

Foucault, M. (2000/1977). 'Truth and power'. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.). Power, the essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, 3. (pp. 111-133). London: The Penguin Press.

Gordon, C. (2000). 'Introduction'. In J. Faubion (Ed.). Power, the essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, 3. (pp.xii-xli). London: Penguin.

Grieshaber, S. (1998). Changed times: What we need to know and why. Keynote address to the Townsville Early Childhood Conference. May.

Grieshaber, S., Halliwell, G., Hatch J. A. & Walsh, K. (2000). 'Child observation as teachers' work in contemporary Australian early childhood programs'. International Journal of Early Years Education. 8(1). 41-55.

Hendrick, H. (1997). 'Constructions and reconstructions of British childhood: An interpretive survey, 1800 to the present'. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. (pp. 34-62). London: Falmer Press.

Hughes, J. (1897). Froebel's educational laws for all teachers. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Hurst, V. & Joseph, J. (1998). Supporting early learning, the way forward. Buckingham: Open University Press.

King, N. (1979). 'Play: The kindergartners' perspective'. The Elementary School Journal. 80(2). 81-87.

King, N. (1982). 'Children's play as a form of resistance in the classroom'. Journal of Education. 164(4). 320-329.

King, N. (1983). 'Play in the workplace'. In M. Apple & L. Weis (Eds.). Ideology and practice in schooling. (pp. 262-280). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

King, N. (1992). 'The impact of context on the play of young children'. In S. Kessler & B. Swadener (Eds.). Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue. (pp. 43-122). New York: Teachers College Press.

King, R. (1978). All things bright and beautiful? A sociological study of infants' classrooms. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Lindberg, L. & Swedlow, R. (1980). Early childhood education, a guide for observation and participation. (2^nd Ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Luke, A. (1992). 'The body literate: Discourse and inscription in early literacy training'. Linguistics and Education. 4. 107-129.

MacNaughton, G. (2000). Rethinking gender in early childhood education. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

May, H. (1997). The discovery of early childhood. Wellington: Auckland University Press.

Monighan-Nourot, P., Scales, B., Van Hoorn, J. & Almy, M. (1987). Looking at children's play, a bridge between theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Moyles, J. (1989). Just playing? The role and status of play in early childhood education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Moyles, J. (Ed.). (1994). The excellence of play. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Pellegrini, A. & Boyd, B. (1993). 'The role of play in early childhood development and education: Issues in definition and function'. In B. Spodek (Ed.). Handbook of research on the education of young children. (pp. 105-121). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Perry, R. (1998). Play-based preschool curriculum. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, Trans.). New York: The Norton Library.

Postman, N. (1994). The disappearance of childhood. (2^nd Ed.). New York: Vintage Books.

Puckett, M. & Black, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of the young child, celebrating development and learning. (2^nd Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Romero, M. (1991). 'Work and play in the nursery school'. In L. Weis, P. Altbach, G. Kelly & H. Petrie (Eds.). Critical perspectives on early childhood education. (pp.119-138). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom, reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1962). Walden two. New York: MacMillan.

Stainton-Rogers, R. & Stainton-Rogers, W. (1992). Stories of childhood, shifting agendas of child concern. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Strandell, H. (2000). 'What is the use of children's play: Preparation or social participation?'. In H. Penn (Ed.). Early childhood services, theory, policy and practice. (pp. 147-157). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1995). 'Conclusion: The persuasive rhetorics of play'. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.). The future of play theory: A mulitdisciplinary inquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. (pp. 275-295). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play, girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). 'The role of play in development'. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.). Mind in society, the development of higher psychological processes. (pp. 92-104). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walkerdine, V. (1984). 'Developmental psychology and the child-centred pedagogy: The insertion of Piaget into early education'. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn & V. Walkerdine (Eds). Changing the subject, psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. (pp. 153-202). London: Methuen & Co.

Walkerdine, V. (1992). 'Progressive pedagogy and political struggle.' In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.). Feminisms and critical pedagogy. (pp. 15-24). New York: Routledge.

(Accessed July 2001).