Positive Discrimination Policies and Indigenous-Based ECEC Services in Bogota, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is very interesting and provides a critical view of the idea of social inclusion and a tension in what we understand as equity.

I think that it requires reviewing the writing, I could not understand the content fluently. Just as an example:

Line 64 -65 As 64 a result of this approach is the development of the early childhood 'industry' and also the 65 institutionalization of communities ECEC services such as

165 166 they have their own specific physical space, but under control by an ECEC services pedagogical coordinator

If you improve the writing, it is possible that your article can better define the aspects that it relies on affirmative action, on inclusion and on equity, and better impact the relevant aspects that the article proposes

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my proposal. It was with great pleasure that I received your comments and suggestions.  

I am glad to inform you that the article has been proofread by an English native speaker, to make the reading more fluently and to assure, as you pointed it out, that the article can “better impact the relevant aspects that the article proposes”.  

Thank you again for your review, 

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this a fascinating read. The paper has, I am convinced, a lot of potential for making a valuable contribution to a global discussion on culturally appropriate and culturally embedded early childhood services. The strength of this paper is that it is clearly ‘grounded’ in one local context (Bogotá) but makes an argument that is relevant to a much wider debate about the value and possibility of diverse approaches within universal early childhood policy frameworks (in the case of Colombia, the national policy de cero a siempre).

I particularly appreciated the short but strong section on the ethical implications of research undertaken with minority indigenous communities.

However, in order to make that argument as strong as possible the paper needs careful revision before it can be published.

My main question to the author(s) would be about the focus of the paper. In its current state it carries the foundations of two papers, both of which could (and should!) probably be developed into two strong separate articles. At the moment, the argument shifts between a discussion of positive discrimination, affirmative action etc. and a critical phenomenological interrogation of performing ‘indigeneity’. My advice would be to re-focus a revised version on the interesting and original analysis of the latter.

Other considerations for review are:

This paper addresses an international audience that will not be familiar with the context of early childhood development, care and education services in Colombia. It would therefor be helpful if the authors could give a more substantial introduction to the Colombian background, especially its demographic, social, cultural and political aspects

It would also be necessary to introduce and critically discuss cultural diversity and the situation of indigenous peoples in Colombia

The specific political and economical context of Bogotá and the Capital District in relation to other regions of the country should be discussed

As well as a broader contextualisation for an international readership, the paper needs more specific information about current and recent developments in Colombian early childhood policy. The aims and implementation strategy of the policy framework de cero a siempre need particular attention

 An international readership cannot be expected to e familiar with key concepts and terms of the paper. Introduce and explain (‘CPI’, ‘SDIS’, ‘PPE’ etc.)

Finally, a revised version of the paper would benefit from careful proofreading for English phrasing, grammar, and spelling. I am aware of the dilemma of using English as academic lingua franca. Native English speakers that are not prepared to engage with academic texts in languages other than English can and should be expected to engage with diverse approaches to using language. At the same time, important messages and complex arguments will get lost if not communicated properly.

To sum up, I would very much like to see this paper published – after substantial revision and resubmission.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my proposal. It was with great pleasure that I received your comments and suggestions.  

I am glad to inform you that the article has been proofread by an English native speaker, to make the reading more fluently and to assure, as you wrote it, the argument as strong as possible.

Concerning your first question about the focus of the paper, I do agree with your comment, there are two main aspects that are argue on the article. This two aspects are better developed on my ongoing thesis dissertation, and will eventually be treated separately as my reflection on them continue to be developed. I truly think that the analysis you suggested, will be done on my dissertation, but I do not feel I could developed properly in such a short notice.   

On the other hand, your other considerations concerning the need for a context for an international audience, specially about Colombia demographic situation and childhood policies and services, have been included in the revised version of the article. I also add some information about Bogota context and the indigenous situation, from a quick policy review, which allow the reader to comprehend the relation between Bogota and the national context. 

I add some notes to clarify the terms used on the paper like CPI, SDIS, PPE, PPEI, etc.

Thank you again for your review, 

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well written paper with many useful insights for effective approaches to early years education for Indigenous children. 

The methodology section needs improvement... we do not know how the researcher appraoched the community and what ethical processes were in place to ensure that the PPEIs had control over data about them and so on. 

The paper would be strengthened through reference to some of the key writings on Indigenism in early childhood contexts. See for example: 

Kaomea, J. (2000). Pointed noses and yellow hair: Deconstructing children's writing on race and ethnicity in Hawaii. Identity and representation in early childhood education, 151-181.

Martin, K. (2007). Ma (r) king tracks and reconceptualising Aboriginal early childhood education: An Aboriginal Australian perspective. Childrenz Issues: Journal of the Children's Issues Centre, 11(1), 15.

I have added comments in the PDF where I felt clarification or more information was needed.

I also think some recommendations for practice and further research would be of benefit. 

All in all, I found this an interesting paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my proposal. It was with great pleasure that I received your comments and suggestions.  

I am glad to inform you that the article has been proofread by an English native speaker, to make the reading more fluently and comprehensible for an international reader.

Concerning your first question about the methodological section I clarified the data collection process and the ethical questions that arouse during this process, and some recommendations for further research. 

I completely agree about the importance of the references suggested. I did not know them, but after reading some of the work of Kaomea and Martin, I add some references to their work. Thank you for sharing those references, that will be definitely used on my thesis dissertation. 

I try to rephrase some of the phrases that pointed out as difficult to understand on the PDF attached. I also took your advice on presenting the information about the Casas using a table and a second one for better illustrate the data collection. 

I also try to better explain what the Taita approach is and how is different to the “professional” approach, on line 301. 

I hope the review version of the article is more clear and fluently to read, and that I managed to answer to your suggestions and comments. 

Thank you again for your review, 

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx