Chapter 2 Leaders in Practice Profiles

Kathryn Bown

Early Childhood PhD candidate, Sydney (NSW)

I have always been interested in early childhood policy, particularly so towards the end of my undergraduate early childhood teaching degree. It was then that I decided to embark on the honours program, which involved conducting a small scale study to explore early childhood teachers’ experiences with, and perceptions of, the NSW regulation for early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. The honours program fuelled my interest in theory, policy and research, so after graduating I taught in a long day care centre for two years and began my PhD during that time (and at the time of writing, it is still ongoing). My PhD research investigated influences on politicians’ decision-making for ECEC policy in Australia. It seemed an important topic to me, given that I had first-hand experience with how policy affected the daily lives of the children, teachers, staff and families with whom I worked. I was also motivated to research in the area of policy and influences on politicians’ understandings of ECEC because of my involvement in the activist organisation the Social Justice In Early Childhood group.

Even though the topic of influence in policy seemed extremely interesting to me, I realised that it was an area that had received little attention in research. I designed the study with three phases of data collection. The first phase was the collection and analysis of policy texts, using a critical discourse analysis approach. Policy texts included sources such as government documents; politicians’ speeches and media releases; media; and government websites. The second phase of data collection involved interviews with Australian politicians (9) and senior public servants (3) who had been involved in ECEC policy in recent years. The final phase of the data collection was two case studies on two significant issues in the contemporary policy landscape. The first issue was the contention over the minimum regulated staff-to-child ratios for children birth to two years of age in New South Wales. The second issue was the national quality debate beginning with the Howard Government’s ‘quality assurance overhaul’ and the Rudd Government’s ‘national quality agenda’ for ECEC. Data for both these case studies was drawn from interviews with key early childhood stakeholders who had had significant involvement in one or both of the issues.

While the study is still ongoing, there are some emerging findings that can be shared. I found that during the interviews, a majority of the politicians drew on maternalist discourses when talking about their understandings of ECEC settings and policy. Maternalist discourses have been previously identified as influential in ECEC policy and practice (Ailwood, 2007; Wong, 2006). Indeed, my analysis found maternalist discourses to be ‘normalising, and therefore frequently difficult to detect and disrupt’ (Bown, Sumsion & Press, 2011, p. 3), such as the use of maternalist descriptors for personal qualities of ECEC staff, or the belief that female politicians were better able to understand and make decisions for ECEC policy than their male counterparts (Bown et al., 2011). There are potentially serious limiting implications for ECEC policy if maternalist discourses continue to shape politicians’ understandings of the ECEC portfolio. For example, if ECEC is perceived by politicians to be a women’s workforce issue ‘policy on ECEC workforce strategies may also continue to be undermined and ECEC policy “solutions” will continue to focus on parents as consumers rather than being driven by concerns for quality and children’s well-being’ (Bown et al., 2011, p. 16).

I hope that ECEC activist organisations will benefit from my research to better understand politicians’ perspectives, which may contribute to designing more strategic campaigns to effect change. If a greater understanding of politicians’ decision-making processes can be achieved, it may entice more early childhood teachers and staff to become engaged in policy activism. This engagement in policy activism is a crucial part of our teaching roles and pedagogical work, and should be encouraged and supported by the management of the organisations in which early childhood teachers and staff work. Having a cross-section of ECEC sector professionals involved in policy activism, with significant representation from face-to-face practitioners, will contribute to an empowered and dynamic space for policy discussion and critique. Finally, I would be delighted if my research contributed to politicians engaging in some critically reflexive work of their own.

Published 2012

Professor Deborah Brennan

Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney

Why are you interested in early childhood policy?

I became interested in EC policy during the Whitlam years, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Sydney. As well as studying politics and philosophy, I spent a lot of time going to demonstrations and marches and debating issues in the student union. I stumbled across the issue of childcare through my involvement in women’s liberation. The second wave of feminism was organised around a series of demands, including ‘free childcare’. One of my lecturers suggested that I write an essay on this topic as part of a course on public policy, and I was quickly hooked! I really enjoyed being able to study an issue that was unfolding in the media and on campus, and a ‘hot topic’ in public debate. As part of the course, I had to explore the different ways that various actors framed the issue of childcare and how this opened up a range of contested policy solutions. A few years later I did a masters degree in Childhood Studies with Professor Jacqueline Goodnow at Macquarie University. Jacquie was an incredibly inspiring teacher and instilled in me a lasting appreciation of the importance of the child’s perspective in public policy. Later still, I undertook a PhD in political science (back at the University of Sydney) where I investigated the changing ways in which women had mobilised around the care and education of children since the late nineteenth century.

How does the broader policy context interact with/ affect ECE policy?

EC connects with numerous other aspects of social policy— housing, income support, health and education, for example. That is part of its fascination for me. Even population ageing, for example— strange as it may seem— is connected to EC. How does this occur? As populations age, a shrinking proportion of the population is of workforce age and personal income tax revenue declines. At the same time, a growing proportion of the population is made up of older people who require expensive health care and income support. For many governments, the easy way to generate more tax revenue to pay for these measures is to encourage (or push) more working-age people into paid work. This can lead to a narrow, instrumentalist approach to EC, in which the promotion of labour force participation, rather than promoting children’s well-being and development, becomes the guiding rationale.

What are other countries doing that contrasts with EC policy in Australia?

Forward-thinking countries are doing three things that contrast with Australia’s approach to ECE. They are:

• introducing child-based entitlements to early learning and care that are not based on whether or not parents have paid work
• investing in the skills of the workforce and paying educators properly
• ensuring that a fair proportion of services remain in the non-profit sector.

Many European countries take a holistic approach to family policy, enabling parents to move seamlessly from well-supported parental leave, to a guaranteed place for their child in an early learning and care service and then ensuring that they have access to reduced hours of employment, time off to care for sick family members and other practical supports. Australia, by contrast, puts each of these issues into a separate box— and often pits one service or benefit against another.

How have you attempted to inform EC policy directions through research and discussion papers?

Throughout my career, I’ve tried to conduct research that will have an impact on policy and, at the same time, be accessible to a broad audience. My first book, co-authored with Carol O’Donnell, was called Caring for Australia’s Children: Political and Industrial Issues in Australian Child Care. Carol and I tried to put the wages and working conditions of EC educators onto the agenda and to make connections with broader policy debates around the funding of EC. I developed this theme and also tried to provide a nuanced historical understanding of the politics of EC policy in my next book, The Politics of Australian Child Care: From Philanthropy to Feminism. Since then I’ve published numerous reports, papers and articles relating to gender and social policy and have made submissions to just about every Australian government inquiry into EC and related policy areas. I strongly believe in staying connected with a range of people, both inside and outside the sector, in order to avoid being caught in a single, narrow perspective. EC is a vital and wonderfully interesting area of public policy and of everyday life. I feel fortunate to have stumbled into this area all those years ago.

Published 2017

Tonia Godhard AM

Early Childhood Consultant, Sydney (NSW)

My interest in EC policy and advocacy started soon after I graduated. I was invited to attend an international conference in London, where I planned to work. At this conference I met and heard from people from many nations who were passionate about quality experiences for young children and support for families. I began to develop a better understanding that what I had learnt about and observed in services in Australia was in fact a right of very few young children in the world. Upon my return to Australia I was fortunate to work with a ‘master teacher’ who mentored me and showed how when working as a teacher in a centre we could be informed about policy and its impact on young children’s experiences and teaching in EC settings. This included learning something about the opportunities available for practitioners to play a role in influencing policy and helping those outside the profession, including families, to understand the importance of the early years.

Thus, I became an advocate in my work as a teacher in an EC centre and in my contacts with the local community. I soon realised that if I wanted to be involved in trying to promote better quality services for all young children at the level of government policy then I would need to be a member of a group where members shared similar values. Early in my career I became a member of the Australian Preschool Association, which is now Early Childhood Australia (ECA). This shaped my belief that to be effective in influencing policy, active membership of advocacy groups is an important way to share one’s passion with colleagues and to work together over an extended time to achieve commonly held views for change. Over the years a lot of the advocacy work I have been involved with has related to policies which centred on maintaining or improving the quality of education and care services for young children and trying to enable universal access to high- quality services, including making them affordable. Some key things I have learnt from my journey so far include:

• the influence that leaders can have and therefore the need to be well informed about the context in which any change to policy is being sought
• the development of strategic alliances
• the use of multiple strategies in a planned approach to achieving change
• the role of evidence and practitioner wisdom.

The following gives a brief description of some Australian policies that I have been involved with over the years that relate to improving the quality of children’s services. I discuss these in relation to two key points I think are important when striving to influence policy. The first is a strategic and planned approach and the second is understanding the context, along with building relationships and alliances.

1 Multiple strategies and a planned approach

It is essential that any policy change that is being sought can be clearly and succinctly expressed even though there is a need for multilayers of information behind the key message. I was a member of a taskforce set up by the New South Wales government to make recommendations around a change from a one- to- five ratio of staff for under two year olds to a one- to- four ratio. The report with recommendations was completed but included a minority report from one member of the taskforce. The members involved in the majority report agreed that a further campaign was required so the matter did not slide off the government agenda. Community Child Care Co- operative (NSW) took on a facilitating role and established a planning group with a commitment to the change. This not only reduced the workload of an already very busy group of people, but enabled the sharing of strengths and interests. Some people had important media contacts, others were happy to speak to the media and others could work on keeping practitioners involved and informed. There were meetings with the minister, the opposition and senior bureaucrats. Strategies to raise the profile of the campaign included a march to Parliament House, and extensive use of the media including press releases, appearances on television and radio, and stories in local and state- wide newspapers. The slogan ‘one to four make it law’ was catchy and an easy message to then explain and to use in gaining publicity.

2 Context, relationships, strategic alliances and evidence

In 2013, the Productivity Commission was asked by the Commonwealth government to undertake an Inquiry into Child Care and Early Learning. The inquiry had a number of objectives including examining and identifying future options for:

• childcare and early learning that supports the workforce participation particularly of women
• a system that addresses children’s learning and development needs
• a system that has financially sustainable funding arrangements to support more flexible, affordable and accessible quality childcare and EC learning.

The EC sector, after becoming aware of the inquiry, was first involved in reading an Issues Paper circulated by the Productivity Commission, which made it clear that consultation was an essential part of the process, including written submissions to the issues paper and later to a draft report, attending public hearings and providing evidence. The sector was quick to recognise the need to work together to develop common positions where possible and to assist each other in providing evidence to support positions being put forward. All major advocacy groups had it on their agenda, and strategic alliances were formed to work together first in identifying common principles that needed to be promoted and argued for by all groups in such a wide ranging inquiry.

As the process proceeded, it became apparent where the greatest threats to the rights of children and the quality of services lay. One of these was a threat to the requirement to have qualified staff working with under two year olds in services with little or no recognition of the importance of a planned program. The minister had said in a forum attended by many national and state- wide advocacy groups that training was not required and lots of grandparents would love to work with this age group. This was then followed by an interim report from the Productivity Commission saying there was a lack of evidence to support a requirement for qualified staff to work with this age group and in particular EC teachers.

The strategic alliances that had been formed then worked on responding through written submissions, giving evidence at hearings and at individual meetings with members of the commission. Help was sought from academics and others who were researching in this area and who were familiar with the research evidence. They also put in submissions and attended and gave evidence at public hearings. It was acknowledged that the input of other disciplines was essential, so forums were organised and commission members were invited to hear the views of a wide range of professionals with expertise in areas including economics, health, political science and social policy. At the same time, services were also involved in advocacy informed by the peak group of which they were a member.

It sounds simple, but the reality of change is that it is a complex process and as an individual you are listening to a diversity of views. Gaining consensus to move forward as a group requires pragmatism, and a willingness to compromise while learning from the views of others. For me, the test was, ‘Will what we are arguing for be in the best interests of young children?’