European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20
Educator identity in a neoliberal context:
recognising and supporting early childhood
education and care educators
Marg Rogers , Fabio Dovigo & Laura Doan
To cite this article: Marg Rogers , Fabio Dovigo & Laura Doan (2020): Educator identity in a
neoliberal context: recognising and supporting early childhood education and care educators,
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836583
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836583
Published online: 27 Oct 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 38
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recr20
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836583
Educator identity in a neoliberal context: recognising and
supporting early childhood education and care educators
Marg Rogersa, Fabio Dovigob and Laura Doanc
a
University of New England, Armidale, Australia; bAarhus University, Denmark; cThompson Rivers University,
Canada
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
In most majority countries, early childhood educators’ work occurs in
a context increasingly dominated by neoliberal logic. A large body of
literature emphasises that neoliberalism flourishes in society by
fuelling mutual distrust and competition among people to pursue
individual performance and material gain. This system has crept
into education systems which were set up with very different
philosophies, becoming an intrinsic part of educators’ work,
negatively affecting the educators and their image of themselves.
Utilising a variety of qualitative methodologies, this paper reports
on research projects undertaken in three countries that highlight
some of the neoliberal barriers to quality early childhood
education and care (ECEC). It also offers ways forward to support
educators within this context.
Neoliberalism; education
policy; early childhood
educators; comparative
education; early childhood
education and care;
professionalism; early
childhood professionalism
Introduction
In recent years, an increasing number of discussion papers have been published to
explore the way neoliberalism affects the life of educators working in the early childhood
sector (Moss 2019; Moss et al. 2016; Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. 2015; Smith, Tesar, and
Myers 2016). Examination of the role regulatory schemes, inspired by neoliberal policies,
play in ECEC helps understand their increasing impact on various aspects of early childhood educators (ECEs) activity such as: assessment (Brown 2015), working with parents
in poverty (Simpson et al. 2014), quality assurance (Sims 2017) and care (Nxumalo,
Pacini-Ketchabaw, and Rowan 2011). Research on ECEC services in different countries
shows that the process of reforming the ECEC sector to create a set of profit opportunities for education businesses has acquired global dimensions (Ball, Junemann, and
Santori 2017; Bloch, Swadener, and Cannella 2018; Sims 2017). However, there is a
lack of investigation on the way accounts from educators working in different countries
and cultural environments can be analysed and compared that could explore the spread
of neoliberalism in ECEC as a global phenomenon, especially concerning how it impacts
educator’s work and the identity of the educator in this environment, as well as their own
self-identity. This paper aims to fill this gap of research by critically examining how the
neoliberal framework influences educator professional identity in Italy, Canada and
CONTACT Marg Rogers
© 2020 EECERA
mbaber@une.edu.au
2
M. ROGERS
Australia. Through the analysis of interviews, we explore the way educators in each
country deal with the manifold challenges neoliberalism poses to their professional identity and integrity. We identify common concerns and patterns emerging from the educators’ accounts about the everyday strategies they developed to survive – and
sometimes counter – the rising pressures from neoliberal policies.
Neoliberal framework
Neoliberalism is a type of governance that promotes free market capitalism and consumerism, rather than government spending and responsibility (Davies and Bansel 2007). As the
dominant paradigm in majority countries, rather than promoting a cooperative community context, where people’s natural altruistic tendencies can be fostered, it places people in
competition with each other (Monbiot 2017). Supporters, such as (Friedman 2002) believe
neoliberalism is a good overall framework for the economy, with many countries adopting
these views, then imposing similar models to other parts of society, e.g. health care and
education. These have traditionally had very different philosophies underpinning them
(Apple 2006), meaning that there is a misfit which plays out in multiple ways.
Those who favour this type of policy tend to discuss the merits of user-pays systems, the
value of competition, the lack of state interference, reported efficiencies of many sectors in
society, the value of free market economics, and greater accountability of the public sector
and money from businesses and the wealthy trickling down to those in poverty. Those with
leftist political views who critique neoliberalism have been blamed for misusing the word
to describe every woe in the modern world, claiming the word has lost meaning and
become a political swearword (Hartwich 2009). While neoliberal policies and practices
not cause all societies ills, it often amplifies and legitimizes them. Neoliberalism has also
been described as the enemy of democracy, a way to divert people into consumerism
and invoke a hatred of the vulnerable (Chomsky 1999, 2016). This policy model has
forced educational institutions and services that were originally created to educate, emancipate and question the way things work, to apply a business model and Beattie (2019)
believes that economic models corrupt moral reasoning.
Neoliberalism allows managerialism to flourish (Rogers forthcoming). Importantly,
management is different to managerialism, management being the tasks to ensure the
smooth operations of an organisation (Taylor 2003; Sims 2020), whereas managerialism
identifies workers as untrustworthy and puts additional demands on staff to ensure subordination (Morrish 2016). Distrust produces higher levels of managerialism, notably in
the form of micromanagement and accountability (Giroux 2013, 2015; Rogers et al.
2020). Micromanagement influence in workplaces is evident through minutely detailed
protocols that ensure each task and responsibility of the worker is described verbosely
(Alvesson and Sveningsson 2003). Accountability of both the worker (Graeber 2019;
Monbiot 2016) and organisation is also a widespread managerialism practice developed
in the framework of accreditation or registration programs to access public funds. This
requires large quantities of evidence that the tasks are being carried out in the specific
way the accrediting organisation judges is best practice with some accountability
systems put in place for the sake of having them (Morrish 2019). The result usually is
an increase in stress felt by the worker, because their time is diverted away from their
core functions. Workers may feel undervalued, frightened of doing something that is
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
3
Figure 1. The effect of neoliberal policies on the workforce (Adapted from Rogers et al. 2020a).
not specified in the documents, and lack the confidence to be innovative (Moore and
Robinson 2016). Lower quality work and declines in productivity are often the result
of this type of managerialist approach, the opposite of what the documents are supposed
to achieve (Grant et al. 2016; Sims 2020). The effect of neoliberal policies on the quality of
the work and the workers themselves is summarised and expanded in Figure 1.
Neoliberalism in ECEC
It has been argued that the impact of neoliberalism on the ECEC sector ‘is profound and
enacted differently across different nation states’ (Moloney et al. 2019, 2). Even though
government policy documents rarely make an explicit statement concerning the need
of a market approach to ECEC education, in the last thirty years the idea that marketisation of childcare is the only alternative able to ensure quality of ECEC services has gradually been adopted in many countries (Moss 2012). Sadly, ‘viewing childcare as a
commodity to be bought and sold undermines equity and quality’ (Penn 2012, 34),
whereas it creates compliance to government’s agendas. It has been argued that neoliberalism diverts attention and resources from meeting children’s rights and needs and from
ECE as a principled activity (Brown, Lan, and Jeong 2015). In ECEC services, the value of
caring is increasingly taken over by a performativity imperative that enforces impersonal
4
M. ROGERS
Figure 2. Neoliberalism in ECEC.
steering mechanisms, through which educational interventions are framed in terms of
target setting, accountability and comparative ranking (Ball 2006; Lyotard 1984). A
complex system of standards are imposed by regulatory authorities imposed by neoliberal government policies (see Figure 2).
Within this context, there has been an alarming emphasis in many countries’ frameworks and curriculum documents (Figure 2) aimed at preparing young children for the
labour market, focussing on literacy and numeracy to create future workforce citizens to
contribute to the economy (Hunkin 2017; Sims 2017). This approach does not foster an
environment where children are taught through their strengths and interests (Osgood
2012; Sims 2017) thus children’s rights, responsibilities and holistic development are
not encouraged. Rather, the focus is placed on the creation of ‘Homo economicus’
(Monbiot 2017). These documents should be questioned, particularly thinking about
whose needs and measurements are emphasised because neoliberalism impacts various
stakeholders in ECEC (Hunkin 2017).
Grant et al. (2016) explain that there are huge ‘disjuncture between teachers’ experiences and policy intent’ (44) in ECEC services in a neoliberal context. This disunion is
produced by progressively intensifying control over teachers’ activity through management strategies based on a paradoxical approach. Educators’ sense of initiative and
problem-solving is highly praised by means of a rhetoric of delegation, which aims to
emphasise their supposed level of autonomy and decision making. Conversely, new
means of control are deployed, based on target setting, evaluation systems and ranking
exercises. Consequently, educators spend ‘enormous amounts of time [to ensure children] are correctly labelled, reports are completed, records up to date’ (Ball 2000,
326). This stress on control and performativity hinders the development of the holistic
child and undermines the professional identity of educators.
Educator identity
Katz (1972) and Vander Ven (1988) viewed the identity of educators as something that
develops over time, assuming the right supports are in place. Katz’ theoretical model
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
5
includes four stages of educator development, beginning with survival, where the educator is trying to get through each day which can last up to a year (Doan 2014). ‘During this
period the teacher needs support, understanding, encouragement, reassurance, comfort
and guidance’ (Katz 1972, 4). Veenman, Van Tulder, and Voeten (1984) has described
the transition into one’s teaching profession as being a ‘reality shock’, where teachers
can experience vast differences between what they idealized during training versus the
reality of the learning environment (Doan 2014). Katz (1972) described stage two as: consolidation, where educators feel more confident and are able to focus more on the needs
of the children, and stages three and four, renewal and maturity, where educators are
seeking further professional development (PD). Do all educators pass through all of
the stages? The OECD has suggested that teacher development be viewed as a continuum
(OECD 2005). What is the impact of neoliberal practices on the daily work of educators
and the support they receive? According to Veenman, Van Tulder, and Voeten (1984),
the influence of teacher training is weakened by the daily teaching experiences and teachers who become more conservative in their first year of teaching do not revert to the
liberalization of their training.
As our research examples clarify, neoliberal policies erode the professional identity of
ECEC teachers by adopting a paradoxical approach in order to involve them in an active
process of self-monitoring that leads to new forms of self-exploitation. In the following
sections, we outline the methodology and present data that illustrate different aspects of
the challenges to identity what neoliberalism creates.
Methodology
The three projects were conducted in Italy, Canada and Australia. The papers were firstly
presented as individual contributions at a symposium about professionalism in ECEC at
the EECERA conference. Reflecting on substantial similarities emerging from key
findings of the three studies, as well as on useful comments from the symposium audience, the authors decided to delve further into the research data analysis, and partially
reanalyse so as to provide a transnational comparison of the identity profile of the educator within a neoliberal environment. Through in-depth cross-examination and shared
discussion of our research data, we aimed to provide a better understanding that would
enhance the overarching theme of the paper.
In regard to ethics (see Table 1), the participants of each study were able to withdraw
at any time and their decisions were respected. Pseudonyms were used to protect the
identity of the participants and parental consent and children’s assent where relevant.
The Italian research project focused on developing professional practice in ECEC
through improvisation. The study examined what aspects of expert teaching in ECEC
can be associated with creative improvisation based on constructivist, dialogic, and
inquiry-based methods, and the way neoliberal policies are hindering this pivotal
aspect of teachers’ activity. To this aim, research was carried out in two rooms (A and
B) of two infant-toddler centres located in an urban area of Northern Italy. Room A
was attended by ten children (6 boys and 4 girls), while 9 children (4 boys and 5 girls)
attended Room B. The age of children ranged between 20 and 35 months with 4 educators across the 2 rooms. The children’s families represented a wide variety of socio-economic and ethnic groups. The investigation was developed through a qualitative
6
M. ROGERS
Table 1. Summary of methods.
Italy
Ethical
approval or
guides
Research
question
Participants
Qualitative
data
collection
tools
Analysis
Findings
Themes about
educators’
identity
Canada
Australia
EECERA guidelines followed
Thompson Rivers University
approval
University of New England
approval
How is educators’ expert
teaching (based on creative
improvisation) hindered by
neoliberal policies in nursery
services?
Educators working with 1–2
year-olds
Observations, interviews
Is it possible to design a
project that supports the
professional identity
development for ECE within
a neoliberal environment?
Peer-mentoring for educators
Focus groups, interviews
How do educators support young
children and parents from
military families to cope with
parental deployment within a
neoliberal environment?
Educators working with 2–5 yearolds from military families
Mosaic approach, narrative
Thematic analysis
The neoliberal environment
inhibited educator’s ability to
improvise and respond
Disempowered
Thematic analysis
Educators found the program
useful in a neoliberal
environment
Distrusted
Thematic analysis
The parents valued the educator’s
cultural knowledge, but
educators were unaware of this
Understated
methodology that integrated observation and interview. Participant observations of
indoor educator-children interaction in both rooms occurred for 2 hours a week for
16 weeks using videotape recordings and field note observations (Cherrington and
Loveridge 2014; Robson 2011). In addition, at the beginning and end of the data collection period, semi-structured interviews were conducted with every educator (Galletta
2013; Brinkmann and Kvale 2015). The analysis of the documentation achieved was
developed by coding and categorizing data with Atlas.ti software. The emerging
themes were verified by achieving respondents’ validation (Roulston 2010).
The Canadian research project focused on a peer-mentoring project for new and
experienced ECEs that was in place to support ongoing professional identity development of ECEs. This peer-mentoring project took place in an urban area in western
Canada within a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), including access
to PD, online support, access to faculty, and visits to early learning programs. The
study used a qualitative approach that included focus groups and semi-structured
interviews as described by Denzin and Lincoln (2005). Examples of questions
included:
.
.
.
.
Can you describe the support you received?
What activities did you take part in?
What was most helpful?
How could the peer-mentoring program be improved?
All interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed separately using a coding process to identify key themes. In this context, ECE are certified
through the Early Childhood Education Registry, which operates out of the provincial
government (Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia 2009). The 12 participants
ranged from assistant certification to fully certified ECEs, although one participant was
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
7
still studying. The level of experience varied from recent graduates to those with 25 years’
experience and nine early learning programs were represented. This approach built on
prior research with beginning ECEs in British Columbia (Doan 2016; 2019).
The Australian project examined young children’s understandings and experiences of
parental deployment within an Australian Defence Force (ADF) family, capturing children’s voices through the Mosaic approach (Rogers 2017, 2020a). The Mosaic approach
gathers a variety of data in different forms and then the researcher uses them to form
themes for thematic analysis (Clark 2010; Clark and Moss 2005, 2011; Clark 2010). Nineteen children from 11 families at 4 different military bases in 4 geographical states were
involved with 6 participants chosen for in-depth case study that occurred at an ECEC
service situated adjacent to a military base. An adapted version of the Mosaic approach
was applied, whereby parents and educators also provided data, assisted with theme validation and shared their experiences through informal chats, emails and by sharing family
photographs (Rogers and Boyd 2020).
A summary of the three research methodologies are depicted in Table 1 detailing the
participants, ethics, data collection tools and types of analysis. The next sections present
data, which we selected according to credibility and dependability criteria, based on our
understanding of the impact of neoliberal policies on educators in early learning programs. To begin with, each researcher looked at each country’s context, identifying the
particular neoliberal policies and practices related to early learning and care. From
there, each researcher looked at the data through the lens of neoliberal policies and
agendas, with an aim to highlight the impact on early learning work places and ultimately, the professional identity of educators. This process involved going back to the
complete transcripts to see the connections educators made with their experience and
with the neoliberal context.
Findings
Vignette 1 – Italy
What you call improvisation … I see more as helping children explore the environment
around them, making room for their own discoveries. It is easy to overlook those suggestions from the children when I, as a teacher, am under pressure because of the tight schedule
we have here after they reduced the number of teachers … We now spend less time meeting
with other teachers and more filing the reporting system. Educator 2
I’d like to do more of this [cultivating children’s curiosity], as they are really good at surprising me all the time: yesterday Paolo brought to me in a small bucket a dead grasshopper he
found near the window. But it wasn’t dead, so it came out and started jumping in the classroom. The children were chasing it all over … This was the subject of a long, exciting conversation. However, this is a rare event, as this “improvisation” is considered as a diversion
from the learning program, so it is not tolerated anymore. Educator 1
The administration asked us to define a learning program, which describes all activities
during the week and specify the educational goals of each activity. This could sound
good at first glance, but it risks to reduce free play just because is not oriented towards a
specific learning goal. I mean … reading a booklet is ok, but children often like to pursue
their interests beyond a prearranged plan … You cannot expect children to develop imagination if we impose structured activities all the time, it’s a paradox. But this is exactly what
8
M. ROGERS
parents want, so our administration is anxious to please them, unfortunately. Educator 4
(centre coordinator)
Improvisation and planning
ECEC daily activities are generally based on a positive tension between planning, which
provides teachers a clear framework for designing and deploying shared educational
interventions with children, and improvisation, which enables teachers to draw from
children extemporaneous behaviour and suggestions to produce valuable educational
interaction based on ingenuity and a sense of flow (Sawyer et al. 2003). These findings
align with the conception of good teaching involving the teacher’s ability to improvise
to promote the emergent and collaborative features of the learning environment
(Roskos and Christie 2000; Sawyer 2011). Different from the common misunderstanding
that improvisation means a lack of rules, improvising implies a careful balancing of structure and open-endedness (Dovigo 2016; Berliner 1994). Compared to novices, expert
educators are more able to act on the spot, valuing children’s prompts as an opportunity
to expand learning by encouraging unplanned interactions (Lobman 2005; Sawyer 1997).
However, the data revealed educators now experience a double pressure both from centre
administration and parents to minimize free play in favour of skill-based learning programs valued in a neoliberal curriculum. This increasing pressure hinders educators’
ability to support spontaneous creative quests and conversations and reduced children’s
opportunities free exploration. Thus, control is favoured at the expense of creativity
leading to educators’ sense of disempowerment concerning decision making, as a
pivotal dimension of their professional identity.
Vignette 2 – Canada
Sometimes things would happen and you start questioning yourself, ‘Am I actually cut out
for this?’ or [you start] slowly burning out because you are getting told, ‘No’, or you know,
you bring up ideas and they are put down. New educator
I feel like [the project] made me more confident as an educator and feel more valued not by
my co-workers or my boss, but like as an equal in the field to other educators. New educator
It has really helped me to rebuild that confidence I had 17 years ago … I have a rejuvenation
for it (the work as an educator), but I feel much more confident, and confident in myself and
my abilities. Experienced educator
Self-care was really valuable … but it’s hard to keep yourself accountable … in the peermentoring group, you got support from other educators to do self-care. New educator
This [involvement in the group] keeps us inspired and motivated. Experienced educator
Educator efficacy
The vignette data and previous studies (Doan 2019) revealed a lack of educator confidence. This is partly because there is not a specific program of support for new educators
(Doan 2014). Some educators report being in workplaces where their contribution is not
valued, and the increasing pressures from the neoliberal context push educators to feel
insecure, distrusting their own professional identity. To alleviate and counteract the
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
9
Figure 3. Peer-mentoring outcomes.
pressures, a peer-mentoring project was created. Through participation, the educators’
feelings of efficacy rose. Teacher- efficacy comes from Bandura’s concept of selfefficacy and refers to the confidence that educators feel about their own abilities as educators (1997). Educators reported feeling valued and gained mutual support through the
peer-mentoring community of practice. There was mutual learning through critical
friends, resources within the group, and PD based on their interests. Likewise, Merida
Serrano, Gonzalez Alfaya, and Olivares Garcia (2017) found that educators who were
part of a network benefitted from collaboration and sharing of ideas, gaining mutual
support. Educators who previously had been in workplaces where they felt unsupported,
found their confidence increasing through participation, which aligns well with Wenger’s
(1998) learning through communities of practice and engagement. This result is in direct
opposition to the lack of agency and confidence experienced by some educators operating
within a neoliberal environment (see Figure 3).
Vignette 3 – Australia
The parents here really understand defence (military) families. They have been so supportive. I have asked them for so much support, for resources, and information and stuff, and
they always help out. Parent 1
I turned up one day and just burst into tears because my work had demanded I do another
night shift. My mother in-law couldn’t cover me and my husband was deployed. One of the
educators came over and offered to babysit Jack after hours. She didn’t have to do that, but
you have no idea how much that helped. Parent 2
I am really scared about sending Jack to school because the teachers will not understand
what it is like for us. Parent 2
10
M. ROGERS
We moved last year across to another area of the city, but we kept Natalie here, driving an
extra 40 minutes across town because they just really understand what military family life is
like. Other services just don’t know what it is like for us, and what our kids go through. They
are able to offer the emotional support we need. Parent 3
Self-esteem and value
The educators in the project needed specific knowledge and skills to be able to support
these children and family during times of transition and stress (Rogers, 2020a). Prolonged and frequent parental absences are common in military families due to training
and deployment. Knowledge of the various stages of the deployment cycle and empathy
for the children and parents as they adjust to the changes is needed. Children require
extra support during these transitions because children responded emotionally, socially,
cognitively and physically to changes at home (Rogers 2019, 2020b). Often parents were
isolated from extended family due to frequent relocations, causing additional stress
during deployment (Baber 2016; Siebler 2009). The parents in the project emphasised
how much they valued the educators’ skills, empathy, knowledge and kindness during
these times of need (Rogers-Baber 2017) as illustrated in Vignette 3 above. Surprisingly,
when this was relayed to staff, they were shocked, despite being experienced educators.
They had not seen value in what they did and the loyalty this engendered in the families.
Educators perceived their professional identity starting from an implicit self-understatement of their actual contribution.
Overall, the key learnings from ECEs struggles is summarised in Figure 4. The
diagram displays their challenges in trying to harmonise the demands from a work
environment increasingly dominated by neoliberal policies and the sense of coherency
of their professional self-identity, depicting the manifestation of further pressures and
low self-esteem those policies generate.
Figure 4. Key learnings from the educators from the vignettes.
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
11
Discussion
Despite the diversities of the three countries, commonalities exist in the way neoliberalism is adopted as a way of transforming professionalism in ECEC. The Italian data
highlights some typical features of neoliberal credo applied to ECEC. First, a regulation and planning system is installed as an external authority that ensures
efficiency according to a predetermined notion of quality as a set of predictable
and controlled outcomes. Then, this produces an important shift in the way the educators’ role is conceived. Educators’ ability to support children’s education by creating
a rich learning environment that supports exploration and discovery is devalued and
replaced by a new professional model, which requires educators to apply a predefined
set of rules and procedures to supposedly create quality avoiding surprise and diversion. This pressure to replace educators’ agency with compliance is especially insidious
because it is based on neutral and impersonal guidelines that cannot be directly discussed, because they have been set elsewhere. Conversely, it encourages a dangerous
conception of teaching as a technical exercise, exempt from decision-making tasks,
while it disempowers the educators’ role. Consequently, educators experience ‘performance anxiety’, as they often feel unequal to the tasks required of them. Thus
the neoliberal framework is replacing free play in ECEC with an unfair game, in
which educators are held accountable for failures, while credit for success is mainly
due to the system.
In the British Columbian context, up to 50% of beginning ECEs leave the field
within the first 5 years of work (ECEBC 2012). Peer-mentoring projects build on previous research with beginning ECEs (Doan 2016; 2019), positioning educators as
having the knowledge and experience to inform projects to support ongoing PD.
Research like this helps to disrupt notions that ECEC work is simple and that experienced ECEs do not require additional support (Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. 2015). Likewise, in the research study from Italy, we see the need for educators to be involved
in complex improvisation that may go against the curriculum. Educators need to
make informed professional judgements based on peer-mentoring and mutual learning strategies, rather than acting as a technician. In this jurisdiction, ECEs are certified
through the provincial government after completing a certificate, diploma, or degree
in ECEC. Meeting the minimum requirements or standards is not enough, as evidenced by the high attrition rates. ECEs must be at the forefront of standards of
care and early learning frameworks and should be empowered to address both
inequalities and gaps. Furthermore, when critically examining standards and frameworks, it is important to identify the dominant narratives at play. Whose view is:
important, dominant and absent?
In the Australian context, the lack of ECEs self-confidence and self-worth as disturbing, considering how hard these educators worked to provide quality ECEC within a
challenging context. The frameworks and standards do not and cannot standardise the
particular skills required in specific contexts (Sims and Waniganayake 2015). This
does not mean that these skills are not valuable or valued. There is a need for professional
discretionary decision making in order to adjust practice to context. Indeed, it is important for those in the profession determine what is good practice and ensure educators
withstand these directives (Moloney et al. 2019).
12
M. ROGERS
Implications
So, what is the current professional identity of the educator? These three studies point to
the importance of examining this question and the context in which the educators
operate. Within the neoliberal context, what is the profile of the educators with regard
to their professional role? The three studies demonstrate the common emphasis on
approved tasks imposed by neoliberal accountability. This results in a lack spontaneity,
self-care and self-confidence from the educators, which provides further evidence of the
downward trends in the quality of work and employee confidence (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the educators’ needs for continued access to PD seem absent. The data revealed
that this has resulted in a systematic questioning of their abilities, as well as in an increasing sense of disempowerment. As a result, the neoliberal agenda is influencing the way
the educators perceive their professional role, by pushing it back to what Moss (2006)
refers to as a motherly care role.
Contrary to this common practice in this neoliberal context, we advocate for a
renewed understanding of the educators’ role and capability, opting for autonomy
to be ensured and shared with the educators. The data demonstrated when ECEs
are questioned, undermined and devalued, this results in a lowering of educator
efficacy. In contrast, the profile of the researching educator (Moss 2006) is a
different way of perceiving and valuing the professional role of educators. Rather
than focusing on compliance, the researching educator is viewed as having abilities
and flexibility. During discussions with colleagues, managers and parents, educators
can talk, dissent and even change their minds. Conversely, they cannot disagree
with checklists with deadlines. They can only struggle and, in some small way,
resist. Consequently, these internal struggles play an increasing role in defining the
educator’s identity. Replacing reflective conversations with procedures puts at risk
ECEC services as places where liberal and open dialogue is nurtured and flourish.
Then, reinstating the role reflexivity, conversation and PD play in ECEC environments
is pivotal to ensure that the educators develop professionalism not as complacent and
executive skills, but a way to strengthen education to democracy. The studies revealed
the importance of providing educators with time and space to reflect, dialogue, and
question, their work, practices, the implicit and explicit rules, and guidelines for practice. Imagine what might happen if educators were given time to dialogue together.
This would require a shift in agency towards the educators themselves potentially
leading to an increase in educator efficacy.
Limitations
Due to the different research context generalizability is limited. Afdal (2019) warns of the
difficulties of comparing education from different countries. Individual participants’ perspectives of their experiences mean generalisation cannot be acquired at an abstract level,
but through identification of concrete universals (Roth 2009). Studying and comparing
specific cases enables partial generalizability (Merriam 1998). However, the comparisons
shed light on some critical struggles ECEC educators are facing regarding the influence
neoliberal policies have on their professional identity, knowledge gaps and opportunities
for further research.
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
13
Further research
So far, investigation on the impact of neoliberal policies on ECEC has been mainly conducted nationally. However, globally, the investigation of the influence of neoliberalism
on the ECEC professional identity requires a special effort in supporting more systematic
cross-country studies beyond local or national descriptions to achieve transnational evidence. That would help expand understanding the way educators experience the pressures of neoliberal regulations, how they comply, resist, or counteract the increasing
and pervasive control of neoliberalism.
Conclusion
To date, neoliberalism has been very effective in colonising ECEC services throughout the
world by imposing a monocultural model of ‘puer economicus’. This success is strictly
linked with the ability of neoliberal mantra to convince policymakers, families, and
some educators that there are no alternative solutions to neoliberalism. In this perspective,
the hypothetical benefits of free economic choices are sold to replace the real benefits of
educational choices, transforming children and educators into commodities. The educator
accounts here emphasise how this worldview depreciates their professional identity, as the
locus of control of educational activity is transferred to external authorities made of impersonal regulations, predetermined objectives and standard procedures. Most of the educators struggle to preserve a sense of dignity and effectiveness against the disempowerment
techniques put in place by the neoliberal agenda, as showed in the Australian and Italian
cases. However, some others (like in the Canadian example) were able to develop alternative narratives where mutual learning, participation, and communities of practice play a
pivotal role in ECEC democracy and solidarity. Consequently, this opens up the question
of transforming good practices built on local knowledge and resources on viable strategies
that could be successfully adopted and adapted to different cultural and political contexts.
Thus we need to review our idea of diversity as an individual notion and view ECEC as an
opportunity to welcome differences as an intersubjective, common ground deeply
embedded in the way we educate, nurture and care for children.
Finally, after more than thirty years spent on debating ‘new liberalism’ in ECEC, is time
to ask ourselves: what is really ‘new’ in this formula today? Would it be better to simply talk
about liberalism? And, if so, is this parody of liberalism as a free market really reflecting the
liberal tradition of democracy and solidarity that has been the cornerstone of ECEC professionalization? If we challenge standardization in the neoliberal context, it opens opportunities to support educators and allows educators to recognize and value their strengths,
which encourages them to recognize and value the strengths of their colleagues and unique
context (Sims and Waniganayake 2015). As Hunkin (2017) states
a concerted effort by ECEC stakeholders is needed in order to break down the taken-forgranted authority of the dominant assumption that quality is universal, measurable
factors. Spaces need to be created for the quality of ECEC settings to be acknowledged as
a contestable, complex notion, likely to differ in meaning across populations and time (452).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
14
M. ROGERS
References
Afdal, H. W. 2019. “The Promises and Limitations of International Comparative Research on
Teacher Education.” European Journal of Teacher Education 42 (2): 258–275.
Alvesson, M., and S. Sveningsson. 2003. “Good Visions, Bad Micro-Management and Ugly
Ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-) Leadership in a Knowledge-Intensive Organization.”
Organization Studies 24 (6): 961–988.
Apple, M. W. 2006. “Understanding and Interrupting Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism in
Education.” Pedagogies 1 (1): 21–26.
Baber, Marg. 2016. “Narrative, Acculturation and Ritual: Themes from a Socio-Ecological Study of
Australian Defence Force Families Experiencing Parental Deployment.” Children Australia 41
(2): 141–153. doi:10.1017/cha.2016.8.
Ball, S. 2000. "Performativities and Fabrications in the Education Economy: Towards the
Performative Society?" The Australian Educational Researcher 27 (2): 1–23.
Ball, S. 2006. Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen J. Ball. Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
Ball, S. J., C. Junemann, and D. Santori. 2017. Edu.Net: Globalisation and Education Policy
Mobility. London: Routledge.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. United States of America: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
Beattie, P. 2019. “The Road to Psychopathology: Neoliberalism and the Human Mind.” Journal of
Social Issues 75 (1): 89–112. doi:10.1111/josi.2019.75.issue-1.
Bloch, M. N., B. B. Swadener, and G. S. Cannella. 2018. Reconceptualizing Early Childhood
Education and Care - A Reader: Critical Questions, New Imaginaries and Social Activism.
New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
Brinkmann, S., and S. Kvale. 2015. Inter Views: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, C. P. 2015. “Conforming to Reform: Teaching Pre-Kindergarten in a Neoliberal Early
Education System.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 13 (3): 236–251.
Brown, C. P., Y. C. Lan, and H. I. Jeong. 2015. “Beginning to Untangle the Strange Coupling of
Power Within a Neoliberal Early Education Context.” International Journal of Early Years
Education 23 (2): 138–152.
Cherrington, S., and J. Loveridge. 2014. “Using Video to Promote Early Childhood Teachers’
Thinking and Reflection.” Teaching and Teacher Education 41: 42–51.
Chomsky, N. 1999. Profit Over People. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.
Chomsky, N. 2016. Who Rules the World? New York, NY: Hamish Hamilton (Penguin Books).
Clark, A. 2010. “Young Children as Protagonists and The Role of Participatory, Visual Methods in
Engaging Multiple Perspectives.” American Journal of Community Psychology 46 (1–2): 115–123.
Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2005. Spaces to Play: More Listening to Young Children Using the Mosaic
Approach. London, UK: National Children’s Bureau.
Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2011. Listening to Children: The Mosaic Approach. London, UK: National
Children’s Bureau.
Davies, B., and P. Bansel. 2007. “Neoliberalism and Education.” International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education 20 (3): 247–259.
Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Doan, Laura. 2014. “The Early Years: An Exploration of the Experiences and Needs of Novice
Early Childhood Educators in British Columbia.” Doctor of Education, School of Education,
University of Calgary.
Doan, Laura. 2016. “The Early Years: Beginning Early Childhood Educators’ Induction
Experiences and Needs in British Columbia.” Journal of Childhood Studies 41 (2): 43–54.
Doan, Laura. 2019. “Finding Community: An Exploration Into An Induction Support Pilot
Project.” Journal of Childhood Studies 41 (1): 68–79.
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
15
Dovigo, Fabio. 2016. “Argumentation in Preschool: a Common Ground for Collaborative
Learning in Early Childhood.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 24 (6):
818–840. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2016.1239327.
Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia. 2009. I am an early childhood educator
(Pamphlet).
Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia. 2012. May 2012 is Child Care Month: Early
Childhood Educators Matter to BC’s Economy [media release]. http://www.ecebc.ca/news/
ECEBC_ChildCareMonth_2012.pdf
Friedman, M. 2002. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
Galletta, A. 2013. Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to
Analysis and Publication (Vol. 18). New York: NYU Press.
Giroux, H. 2013. “Neoliberalism’s War Against Teachers in Dark Times.” Cultural Studies: Critical
Methodologies 13 (6): 458–468.
Giroux, H. 2015. Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Publishers.
Graeber, D. 2019. Bullshit Jobs: The Rise of Pointless Work and What We Can Do About It. London:
Penguin Random House.
Grant, S., S. Danby, K. Thorpe, and M. Theobald. 2016. “Early Childhood Teachers’ Work in a
Time of Change.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 41 (3): 38–45.
Hartwich, O. M. 2009. Neoliberalism: The Genisis of a Political Swearword. St. Leonards, NSW: The
Centre for Independent Studies.
Hunkin, E. 2017. “Whose Quality? The (Mis)Uses of Quality Reform in Early Childhood and
Education Policy.” Journal of Education Policy 33 (4): 443–456. doi:10.1080/02680939.2017.
1352032.
Katz, L. 1972. Developmental Stages of Preschool Teachers. Urbana, IL: Educational Resources
Information Center Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd, E., and H. Penn. 2012. Childcare Markets: Can they Deliver an Equitable Service? Bristol,
UK: Policy Press.
Lobman, C. 2005. “Yes and: The Uses of Improvisation for Early Childhood Professional
Development.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 26 (3): 305–319.
Lyotard, J. 1984. “Special Issue on the Work of Jean-Francois Lyotard.” Diacritics 14 (3). https://
www.jstor.org/stable/i219958.
Merida Serrano, R., E. Gonzalez Alfaya, and M. A. Olivares Garcia. 2017. “Networking and
Professional Development Among Teachers of Early Childhood Education.” Forno de
Educacion 15 (23): 243–256.
Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moloney, M., M. Sims, A. Rothe, C. Buettner, L. Sonter, M. Waniganayake, M. J. Opazo, P. Calder,
and S. Girlich. 2019. “Resisting Neoliberalism: Professionalisation of Early Childhood
Education and Care.” International Journal of Elementary Education 8 (1): 1–10.
Monbiot, G. 2016. “Neoliberalism – The Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems.” The Guardian,
April 15. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problemgeorge-monbiot
Monbiot, G. 2017. Out of The Wreckage: A New Politics for An Age of Crisis. London: Verso.
Moore, P., and A. Robinson. 2016. “The Quantified Self: What Counts in the Neoliberal
Workplace.” New Media & Society 18 (11): 2774–2792.
Morrish, L. 2016. Metaphors We Work By. https://academicirregularities.wordpress.com/page/6/
Morrish, L. 2019. Pressure Vessels: The Epidemic of Poor Mental Health Among Higher
Education Staff. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HEPI-Pressure-VesselsOccasional-Paper-20.pdf
Moss, P. 2006. “Structures, Understandings and Discourses: Possibilities for Re-Envisioning the
Early Childhood Worker.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7 (1): 30–41.
16
M. ROGERS
Moss, P. 2019. Alternative Narratives in Early Childhood: An Introduction for Students and
Practitioners. London: Routledge.
Moss, P., G. Dahlberg, S. Grieshaber, S. Mantovani, H. May, A. Pence, … M. Vandenbroeck. 2016.
“The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s International Early
Learning Study: Opening for Debate and Contestation.” Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood 17 (3): 343–351.
Moss, P. (2012). "Need markets be the only show in town?" In Childcare markets: Can they
deliver an equitable service?, edited by E. Lloyd and H. Penn, 191–208. Bristol, UK: The
Policy Press.
Nxumalo, F., V. Pacini-Ketchabaw, and M. Rowan. 2011. “Lunch Time at the Child Care Centre:
Neoliberal Assemblages in Early Childhood Education.” Journal of Pedagogy/Pedagogický
Casopis 2 (2): 195–223.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2005. “Teachers Matter:
Attracting, Developing and Retaining Efficient Teachers." Education and Training Policy.
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf.
Osgood, J. 2012. Narratives from The Nursery: Negotiating Professional Identities in Early
Childhood. London: Routledge.
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., F. Nxumalo, L. Kocher, E. Elliot, and A. Sanchez. 2015. Journeys:
Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Practices Through Pedagogical Narration. Toronto, ON:
University of Toronto Press.
Robson, S. 2011. “Producing and Using Video Data in the Early Years: Ethical Questions
and Practical Consequences in Research with Young Children.” Children & Society 25 (3):
179–189.
Rogers-Baber, Marg. 2017. “Protective Factors in Families: Themes from a Socio-Ecological Study
of Australian Defence Force Families Experiencing Parental Deployment.” SAGE Open Access 7:
2. doi:10.1177/2158244017706711.rogers.
Rogers, Marg. 2017. “Young Children’s Understanding and Experiences of Parental Deployment
Within an Australian Defence Force Family.” Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education,
University of New England.
Rogers, Marg. 2019. “How to Support Children Whose Parent Works Away for Long Periods.” The
Conversation.
Rogers, Marg. 2020a. “Recommendations to Support Young Children From Australian Military
Families: A Report for Policy Makers, Family and Social Workers and Educators.” Journal of
Management Policy and Practice 20 (2): 1–26. doi:10.33423/jmpp.v21i2.
Rogers, M. 2020b. Birthdays, Holidays, Christmas without Mum or Dad: How to Support Kids
with a Parent away Fighting Fires. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/birthdaysholidays-christmas-without-mum-or-dad-how-to-support-kids-with-a-parent-awayfightingfires-146317.
Rogers, Marg, and Wendy Boyd. 2020. “Meddling with Mosaic: Reflections and Adaptations.”
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 28 (5): 642–658. doi:10.1080/
1350293X.2020.1817236.
Rogers, Marg. forthcoming “Contextualised, not Neoliberalised Professionalism in Early
Childhood Education and Care.” The Australian Educational Researcher.
Rogers, Marg, Margaret Sims, Jo Bird, and Sue Elliott. 2020. “Organisational Narratives Versus the
Lived Neoliberal Reality: Tales From a Regional University.” Australian Universities Review 62
(1): 26–40.
Roskos, K. A., and J. F. Christie. 2000. Play and Literacy in Early Childhood: Research from Multiple
Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth, W. M. 2009. “Phenomenological and Dialectical Perspectives on The Relation Between The
General and The Particular.” In 2008. Generalizing from Educational Research: Beyond
Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization, edited by K. Ercikan and W.-M. Roth, 235–260.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Roulston, K. 2010. “Considering Quality in Qualitative Interviewing.” Qualitative Research 10 (2):
199–228.
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
17
Sawyer, K. 1997. Pretend Play As Improvisation: Conversations in The Pre-School Classroom.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sawyer, R. K. 2011. Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sawyer, R., V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. Sternberg, D. Feldman, and J. Nakamura. 2003. Creativity
and Development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Siebler, P. 2009. Military People Won’t ask for Help: Experiences of Deployment of Australian
Defence Force Personnel, their Families and Implications for Social Work (Doctor of
Philosophy Major). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Sims, M. 2017. “Neoliberalism and Early Childhood.” Cogent Education 4 (1): 1365411. doi:10.
1080/2331186X.2017.1365411.
Sims, M. 2020. Bulshit Towers: Neoliberalism and Managerialism in Universities in Australia.
Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.
Sims, M., and M. Waniganayake. 2015. “The Performance of Compliance in Early Childhood:
Neoliberalism and Nice Ladies.” Global Studies of Childhood 5 (3): 333–345.
Smith, K., M. Tesar, and C. Y. Myers. 2016. “Edu-capitalism and The Governing of Early
Childhood Education and Care in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.” Global
Studies of Childhood 6 (1): 123–135.
Taylor, P. 2003. “Waiting for the Barbarians and the Naked Emperor’s Chicken.” Higher Education
Review 35 (2): 5–24.
Vander Ven, K. 1988. “Pathways to Professional Effectiveness for Early Childhood Educators.” In
Professionalism and the Early Childhood Practitioner, edited by B. Spodek, O. Saracho, and D.
Peters, 137–160. New York: Teachers College Press.
Veenman, S, M. Van Tulder, and M. Voeten. 1984. “The Impact of Inservice Training on Teacher
Behaviour.” Teaching and Teacher Education 10 (3): 303–317. doi:10.1016/0742-051X
(93)E0001-8.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.