2012
DOI: 10.1177/183693911203700402
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Critical Analysis of the National Quality Framework: Mobilising for a Vision for Children Beyond Minimum Standards

Abstract: THE NatioNal Quality Framework (nQF) has been heralded by the Australian Government as a significant reform that will raise the quality of early childhood education and care (ECEC) across the country. Drawing on Foucault's (1991) conceptualisation of governmentality this article critically analyses the NQF. From this analysis we conclude that while overall, children in ECEC settings across Australia will be somewhat better off, the NQF nonetheless falls well short of its intended outcomes. Sumsion's (2006) con… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
3

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
16
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…For the five participants of this study, who represent government bureaucrats and sector advocates, the quality agenda represented a long-awaited acknowledgement of the importance of ECEC (Fenech et al, 2012) . An independent education consultant, Emily, who was active on the board of the advocacy group Early Childhood Australia at the time of the reform, reflects as follows:…”
Section: Producing Policy (Discourse)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the five participants of this study, who represent government bureaucrats and sector advocates, the quality agenda represented a long-awaited acknowledgement of the importance of ECEC (Fenech et al, 2012) . An independent education consultant, Emily, who was active on the board of the advocacy group Early Childhood Australia at the time of the reform, reflects as follows:…”
Section: Producing Policy (Discourse)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many professionals and academics have critiqued components of the NQF in a bid to highlight potential or actual limitations, and contribute to policy decision-making concerning future development of the NQF. These professional and academic critiques include: a call for reform of the current funding model (currently subsidies are paid directly to eligible parents/guardians who use NQF-regulated services) to better facilitate meeting the goals of the NQF (Brennan and Adamson, 2014; Tayler, 2011); claims that the standards are not ambitious, falling ‘short of precedents set by ECEC systems overseas’ (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2011: 25); the suggestion that the NQF overly relies on cosmetic regulatory reform that bypasses the structural inputs required for high-quality provision (Fenech et al, 2012); and considerations for future iterations of the Early Years Learning Framework, including calls for a more critical focus (e.g. see Millei and Sumsion, 2011; Peers and Fleer, 2014; Sumsion and Barnes, 2010; Sumsion et al, 2009).…”
Section: The Australian Policy Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The NQF was similarly heralded politically as offering the 'promise of a new era' (Fenech, Giugni & Brown, 2012, p. 5). To the Australian ECEC sector this attention to young children in policy and discourse offers the promise of hope, transformation and reinvigoration (Cheeseman & Torr, 2009;Fenech et al, 2012;Sumsion et al, 2009). In fact, much of the celebration around the reforms emerges from a field that has often bemoaned its invisibility and consequently views the attention as belated recognition.…”
Section: Narratives Of Hopementioning
confidence: 99%