Whose quality? The (mis)uses of quality reform in early childhood and education policy

Hunkin, Elise

doi:10.1080/02680939.2017.1352032

Cited by 48 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The scope of this study was limited in terms of the scale of participants, and there is an imbalance in terms of social class. However, the study contributes to the international discussion about the dysfunction of neoliberal childcare markets (Hunkin, , 2018a,b) by suggesting that parental choosing behaviours do not conform to the market logic of competition and choice. In the English mixed‐economy childcare market, except for a few very affluent families, parents significantly lack ‘real choice’ through which they can balance family and work life.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In addition, in contrast to the negative opinions of Liu () and Peyton et al . () towards parents’ ability to judge childcare quality, we argue that parents actively offer a unique ‘non‐economic’ (Penn, ) perspective of quality by emphasising children's happiness and daily experience, which is largely absent in the present neoliberal performativity quality notions (Hunkin, 2018a,b). Quality, in this research, appears to be a stable maternal feeling which is not fundamentally different, although it did vary across socio‐economic status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parental choice of childcare in England: Choosing in phases and the split market

Chen

Bradbury

2019

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores how parents choose childcare settings for their pre‐school children within a context of complex policy on eligibility for free provision and a developing market. Using data from interviews with 17 mainly middle‐class parents in England, we explore in detail how parents go about choosing a childcare setting and the different phases of this process. This adds further nuance to the existing literature on choosing practices and the dysfunction and inequalities of a neoliberal childcare market, and also updates the discussion to include recent policy developments such as the provision of ‘30 hours free childcare’ for 3 and 4‐year‐olds. We conclude that parental choosing involves a series of decisions in two or three phases, which start from practical considerations, followed by quality comparison and then back to practical constraints if a decision has not been made. The options open to parents are split between not only those able to accommodate shorter ‘free’ provision and those that require longer periods of childcare to work, but also between those with children under three and above. Contrary to previous findings in this area, this split may work to the disadvantage of some middle‐class families, whose children attend lower‐quality settings as a result.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental choice of childcare in England: Choosing in phases and the split market

Chen

Bradbury

2019

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, while tracking undertaken by the Australian Children's Education and Quality Authority (ACECQA)the national quality assurance agency in Australia and by TUSLA in Ireland, has resulted in increasing levels of complianceii it is posited that "performing 'quality' actually involves the homogenisation of settings towards common 'outcomes' or quality indicators" [37, p. 41]. Consequently, a 'good' service becomes one that best addresses the government's economic agenda rather than one that best supports the rights of young children and their families [38]. The tension between these two positions (attempting to ensure improvements in quality through the creation of national standards, national curricula and quality assurance processes, and the expectation that professionalism is defined by discretionary decision-making) remains unresolved.…”

Section: Neoliberalism and Early Childhood Personnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second tension between neoliberalism and the professionalisation of early childhood is connected with how children are perceived. Although early childhood is commonly underpinned by a children's rights perspective [39], it has been suggested that this rights agenda has been high-jacked by neoliberalism and turned into a children-ashuman-capital (investment for the future) discourse [14,37,38]. Hence early childhood services are justified on the basis of their potential to ameliorate disadvantage and enhance human capital development [1,40].…”

Section: Neoliberalism and Children's Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resisting Neoliberalism: Professionalisation of Early Childhood Education and Care

Moloney¹,

Sims

Rothe

et al. 2019

IJEEDU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the relevance of early childhood services to children, families and nation states, the sector is largely undervalued and under resourced and, is not recognised as an established profession. Using collaborative auto ethnography, researchers from six different countries (Australia, Chile, England, Germany, Ireland and the United States) all members of the EECERA Professionalisation Special Interest Group (P-SIG) share their reflections on the professionalisation of early childhood. While professionalisation is associated with discretionary decision making that is premised upon an accepted body of knowledge, neoliberalism imposes constraints from on top, identifying through various forms of curricula, legislated standards, and policies what is appropriate and desirable practice. As a consequence, early childhood personnel are restricted in their professional agency and, their work is characterised by tension, as they strive to balance external expectations from a neoliberal stance and their own perspectives that prioritise a children's rights perspective. This paper questions how the sector manages the constraints imposed on it in a neoliberal political and social world. It calls upon those in the profession to resist neoliberalism and, to make a stand in terms of what is considered best practice. It further argues that ongoing debate is required as to the boundaries of what would be called the early childhood profession: considerations of ways in which the different sectors (education, health, and welfare) contribute to a holistic approach in working with children balanced against the requirement for a profession to have an identified and discrete body of knowledge. The implications of this for professionalisation of early childhood are widespread and, worthy of debate. While the inclusion of different sectors for example, addresses the holistic nature of early childhood work, it risks creating a broad and diffused knowledge base that might make it difficult to claim professionalisation. We hope that this paper contributes to reenergizing conversations on the professionalisation of the early childhood sector.

show abstract

“…The pathos evident in both policy texts is the importance of high quality provision and the positive impact this has on children's outcomes. Although 'quality' remains a contested concept in ECE (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 1999;Hunkin 2018) there is a rational consensus that high quality provision is dependent on staff who have the 'necessary skills, knowledge and understanding' to improve experiences for babies and young children (DfE 2012). More Great Childcare (DfE 2013) likewise declares quality to be 'paramount' to secure the success of the children (34), positioning early years leaders as the responsible agent driving the policy objectives of what Osgood (2009) argues is the '(discursively constructed) "childcare challenge"' (747).…”

Section: The Emerging Consequences Of This Policy Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problematising policies for workforce reform in early childhood education: a rhetorical analysis of England’s Early Years Teacher Status

Kay

Wood

Nuttall

et al. 2019

Journal of Education Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines workforce reform in early childhood education in England, specifically the policy trajectory that led to implementation of the Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS) qualification in 2014. Taking a critical perspective on policy analysis, the paper uses rhetorical analysis to make sense of the how EYTS is understood within workforce reform. From an assemblage of salient policy documents, we report our critical analysis of two key texts: Foundations for Quality and More Great Childcare. Both documents identify policy levers and drivers for reform, but from markedly different perspectives and with contrasting recommendations. By using rhetorical analysis to examine how these policy texts construct not only problems but also preferred solutions, we illustrate the paradoxical nature of early childhood policy in England as it relates to aspirations to raise the status of the sector and improve quality through the implementation of EYTS. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Whose quality? The (mis)uses of quality reform in early childhood and education policy

Cited by 48 publications

References 35 publications

Parental choice of childcare in England: Choosing in phases and the split market

Parental choice of childcare in England: Choosing in phases and the split market

Resisting Neoliberalism: Professionalisation of Early Childhood Education and Care

Problematising policies for workforce reform in early childhood education: a rhetorical analysis of England’s Early Years Teacher Status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About