This article juxtaposes contrasting discourses concerning the that impact regulatory systems—such as the NSW Children’s Services Regulation and the National Quality Improvement and Accreditation System—have on the professional practice and job satisfaction of early childhood professionals in NSW. Juxtaposing dominant government discourses with conflicting critical discourses raises theoretical and practical issues about how the regulatory environment is perceived, the place it holds in early childhood professionals’ thinking about quality early childhood practices, and the impact it may have on their job satisfaction.

Keywords: regulation, accreditation, quality care, job satisfaction, early childhood, discourse

Setting the scene: Staff shortages and job dissatisfaction in NSW long day care services

A clear understanding, therefore, of factors conducive and inhibitive to job satisfaction appears crucial if the recruitment and retention issues facing the sector are to be adequately addressed. Literature pertaining to the job satisfaction of early childhood professionals (e.g. Goelman & Guo, 1998; Hayden, 1997; Manlove, 1993; Rosier & Lloyd-Smith, 1996; Warrilow et al., 2002) shows poor work conditions, low wages, heavy workloads, a lack of time to fulfil multiple responsibilities, unrealistic expectations from management, onerous administrative duties, low professional status, organisational conflict, restrictions placed on teachers’ autonomy, and inadequate staffing levels to be predictors of burnout and job dissatisfaction, high rates of staff attrition and turnover (Lyons, 1997; Ryan, 1988; Whelan, 1993), and a shortage of qualified early childhood teachers (Department of Family and Community Services, 2003; Fisher & Patulny, 2004; Purcal & Fisher, 2004). To date there appears to have been no direct attempt to examine the impact of regulatory environments on job satisfaction.

Contrasting alternative discourses

a set of recurring statements that define a particular cultural object … and provide the concepts and terms through which such an object can be studied and discussed. Discourses produce distinctions between what can and what cannot be said about an object and establish who has the right to say whatever can be said … Each era produces different discourses through which the subject may be objectified according to the ruling values, beliefs and interests of its society (Cavallaro, 2001, pp. 90-91).

Government discourses from the NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS) and the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) respectively posit the Children’s Services Regulation (DoCS, 2004) and the Quality Improvement Accreditation System (QIAS) (NCAC, 2001) as ensuring the wellbeing of children (Dawson, 2004; NCAC, 2001). In turn, these discourses imply that regulatory systems may also enhance the job satisfaction of early childhood professionals. This latter proposition is in keeping with research that shows working with children, deriving satisfaction from seeing and contributing to their development, and ‘having the opportunity to provide a high quality learning environment’ (Rosier & Lloyd-Smith, 1996, p. 7) are reasons early childhood professionals remain in the field despite the stressors involved (Rosier & Lloyd-Smith, 1996; Sumsion, 2004; Whelan, 1993).

In contrast, critical writers from feminist, postmodern and postcolonial perspectives (e.g. Grieshaber, 2000; Novinger & O'Brien, 2003; Shepherd, 2004), in adopting Foucault’s (1980) notion of problematising the beliefs and assumptions that underpin projected ways of ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’, promote a very different view of the impact such audit systems have on early childhood practice and quality care, and thus potentially on the job satisfaction of early childhood professionals. Much of this critique stems from an assessment of regulatory environments as embodiments of outcomes-based, managerialist and economic rationalist priorities of government (Ashby & Grieshaber, 1996; Grieshaber, 2000; 2002) which, in practice, are deemed to be at odds with what constitutes effective, quality caregiving.

Critical discourses thus raise the possibility that regulatory environments not only potentially impede professional practice, but may also in fact be a source of job dissatisfaction for early childhood professionals, and thus inadvertently a contributor to the recruitment and retention issues facing the sector. In other words, these discourses provide a contrasting perspective to that portrayed by regulatory bodies. Rather than asserting that the critical position is the ‘correct’ stance to take, I suggest that the two sets of discourses represent end points on a spectrum of possible ways early childhood professionals might experience regulatory requirements with respect to their professional practice, provision of quality care, and job satisfaction.

Initial examination of these government and critical discourses was guided by one overarching question: what claims does each set of discourses make about (i) why early childhood settings are overseen by a regulatory environment (intent), (ii) the means by which early childhood is regulated (processes), and (iii) the impact regulatory requirements have on professional practice and quality care (intended and unintended outcomes).

Neither set of discourses explicitly addresses how the regulatory environment might impact on the job satisfaction of early childhood professionals. This possibility was explored by first translating commonly cited sources of job satisfaction into questions that could be asked of the regulatory environment:

Source of job satisfaction	Question to be asked of the regulatory environment
Goal consensus	1. What premises underlie the regulatory environment?
Having professional autonomy	2. Does the regulatory environment support early childhood teachers as autonomous professionals?
Quality interactions and relationships with children and parents Practising in a high-quality environment	3. Does the regulatory environment support the daily practice of early childhood professionals, in terms of their provision of quality care and their time to engage in practices conducive to this?
Professional esteem (recognition and trust)	4. Does the regulatory environment facilitate the professional esteem of early childhood teachers?

Critical discourses were then used to interrogate the claims made by government discourses on each of these four questions. Extracts representative of government discourses have been included to illustrate the claims made by regulatory bodies. Because discourses shape one’s identity and sense of reality, this problematising of government discourses was driven by questions such as:

• What ‘truths’ do they purport?
• What meaning do they give to the presence of regulatory environments in childcare settings?
• How do they construct ‘quality care’?
• What ways of ‘knowing’, ‘being’ and ‘doing’ do they include and preclude for early childhood professionals?
• To whom do they give voice and whose voices are excluded?

Consideration of questions such as these can stimulate and further our understanding of how the regulatory environment might impact upon the professional practice and job satisfaction of early childhood professionals.

Regulatory environments as potential sources of job (dis)satisfaction: Conflicting discourses

According to government discourses, regulatory requirements are conducive to professional practice and ensure the provision of quality care. These claims stem from regulatory bodies’ positioning of four key aspects of the regulatory environment:

1. the premises underlying regulatory accountability of early childhood professionals: that it is legitimate, that quality can and should be measured, and that care will shift beyond minimum standards
2. that the regulatory environment supports teachers as autonomous professionals in their delivery of quality care
3. that regulatory systems such as the NSW Children’s Services Regulation (hereafter referred to as the Regulation) and QIAS enhance the daily practice of early childhood professionals; for example, in their provision of quality care
4. that these accountability systems support the professional esteem of early childhood professionals through their recognition of the professional expertise of early childhood teachers, and their trust in the capacity of early childhood professionals to deliver quality care.

Should early childhood professionals experience the regulatory environment in these ways, then it seems feasible to suggest that regulatory systems will also enhance their job satisfaction.

Critical commentators, however, challenge such a positioning. As will be seen below, their discourses present an alternative way of thinking about each of these four aspects of the regulatory environment. What emerges is a very different perspective on how regulatory requirements are seen to impact on quality care, the practice of early childhood professionals, and potentially their job satisfaction.

The following sections of this paper contain a more detailed juxtaposition of government and critical discourses on each of these four aspects of the regulatory environment. Given the prominence of both the NSW Regulation (or equivalent state-based regulations elsewhere) and accreditation in the work of early childhood professionals, this juxtaposing also highlights the theoretical and practical value of questioning the ‘truths’ contained in taken-for-granted government discourses.

1. The premises underlying regulatory accountability of the early childhood profession
1.1 Regulatory accountability is legitimate

One of the contested values of managerialist policy is that a regulatory environment represents a legitimate and functional use of power (Appelbaum, Hebert & Leroux, 1999). Discourses surrounding the introduction and application of the Regulation and QIAS, for example, justify such accountability systems on the grounds that:

• children are a vulnerable group who need protection from the risk of substandard care (Dawson, 2004)
• a child’s early years are critical to their long-term development (NCAC, 2001)
• the numbers of children and the hours spent in child care are both increasing (NCAC, 2001)
• having accountability systems in place ‘ensures’ the wellbeing of children and the provision of quality care (Anthony, in NCAC, 2004; Dawson, 2004; Taylor, 2004).

Critical commentators (e.g. Cannella & Viruru, 2004; Grieshaber, 2002; Novinger & O'Brien, 2003), however, argue that risk discourse embedded in regulatory and accreditation requirements is created and inflated to produce a perceived legitimate need for government domination. They view government tools of quality assurance as inappropriate at best, and, at worst, facades of normalisation controls. As is discussed below, they also question the assumption implicit in this premise, that regulatory control is a guarantor of quality care and the wellbeing of children.

1.2 Quality can be defined and measured

Whether quality can be objectively defined and measured is a point contested between government and critical discourses. On the one hand, discourses adopted by NCAC (2001; 2004) assume that quality can be treated as a measurable construct, and that a centre’s demonstration of quality via its successful completion of the five-step accreditation process constitutes ‘quality assurance’ (NCAC, 2004). In this context, the notion of ‘assurance’ appears to represent ‘a positive declaration that a thing is true … a solemn promise or guarantee’ (Allen, 1990, p. 65). NCAC’s chief executive officer, for example, states that ‘the aim of Quality Assurance in children’s services is to ensure that children in care have positive experiences that foster all aspects of their development’ (Taylor, 2004, p. 4). Similarly, NCAC’s chairperson has said that ‘it’s our mission in life to make sure that the quality for children is there’ (Tooth, 2004, p. 8).

Scott (in NCAC, 2004, p. 6) writes that the QIAS process ‘was designed to assist services to implement strategies to improve the quality of care they were currently providing for children’, and indeed the notion of ongoing quality improvement is at the forefront of QIAS discourse (NCAC, 2004; Taylor, 2004). To this end, early childhood professionals are provided with ‘standards against which quality [can] be measured’ (Scott, in NCAC, 2004, p. 6), so that one of the initial aims of accreditation, ‘to guarantee a level of quality in all child care centres receiving Childcare Assistance [now Childcare Benefit]’ (Wangmann, 1994, p. 10), can continue to be realised. Similarly, according to DoCS, having clear accountability standards ‘ensure[s] the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children in children's services’ (Dawson, 2004).

In contrast, critical commentators (Corrie, 1999; Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999; Grieshaber, 2000; 2002; Novinger & O'Brien, 2003) maintain that quality is a social construct that cannot and should not be defined and measured in a standardised way. They argue that attempts to do so represent an approach to policy and curriculum that privileges those whose values concur with dominant discourses. Given the complexity and diversity of early childhood services, Penn’s (2002) evaluation of a regulatory body’s limited capacity to consistently and appropriately apply standardised measures of care across diverse nursery schools in England highlights the limitations of adopting such an approach. For these writers, then, meeting standards and indicators determined by regulatory bodies cannot and should not be automatically taken to mean that quality care is being provided.

1.3 Shift beyond minimum standards of quality

A third premise underlying the regulatory framework in Australia is that it extends service provision beyond minimum quality standards through a two-tiered accountability structure. In NSW, state regulations establish a framework for achieving base- level structural quality. That these minimum standards alone cannot secure quality care is recognised by NCAC. In emphasising process quality, QIAS ‘shifts the focus from meeting minimum standards to continuously striving towards higher levels of care’ (NCAC, 2001, p. 11).

Critical commentators, however, argue that regulation shifts the priorities of licensees and early child professionals away from quality care and education towards the minimums prescribed by accountability requirements (Grieshaber, 2002). This shift may be attributable to the fact that contextual influences shape regulatory policy (Grieshaber, 2000; Grieshaber, Halliwell, Hatch & Walsh, 2000). In the recent Australian context, these influences include an overemphasis on risk management (Shepherd, 2004), a changed focus in children’s services policy from the needs of children to the needs of parents and employers (Brennan, 2004), and an expansion of the private, for-profit long day care sector (Brennan, 2004). The concern here is that contextual changes such as these may shift the standards embodied in regulatory requirements, and/or provide a disincentive for centre managers/owners to operate above set standards even when they are perceived to be below what is conducive to quality care.

The critical literature cites several examples of how this shift has manifested in early childhood services. Burton (1997) cites research which shows how contextual factors, including the regulation of child care, lead to deleterious curriculum decisions. Similarly, Hatch and Grieshaber (2002) attribute the increasing practice of using child observation as an assessment rather than a curriculum development tool—such that the focus of curriculum is narrowed and centred primarily on accountability standards—to government-prescribed regulatory systems. Murray (1997) refers to anecdotal evidence that centre directors are pressured to employ staff numbers only to the level prescribed in regulations. Shepherd (2004) raises concerns that a child-focused pedagogy is being overshadowed by a fear of litigation and hence a new focus on orientating practice to meeting standards. Criticism was voiced in NSW last year, particularly from the not-for-profit sector, over the staff–child ratio for under-two-year-olds stipulated in the introduced 2004 Regulation. This ratio did not change from 1:5 to 1:4, as was stated in an earlier draft (DoCS, 2002). Collectively, these examples suggest that the regulatory environment has the potential to stagnate quality practices.

This section has shown that the respective positions contained in government and critical discourses on the premises that underlie regulatory accountability of early childhood professionals are intrinsically linked to divergent values and beliefs about the notion of quality: whether it can be objectively defined and measured, what it ought to look like, and if and how it can be assured. Government discourses provide very clear positionings on these issues and, as the dominant discourses, carry the power to shape not only one’s thinking on the regulatory environment but also, within this context, what constitutes appropriate professional practice.

2. The support of early childhood teachers as autonomous professionals

Government discourses position regulatory systems as supporting early childhood teachers as autonomous, professional providers of quality care. The standards inherent in the Regulation and QIAS are said to be useful tools which can guide early childhood professionals’ practices. Moreover, QIAS is projected as empowering early childhood professionals to continually evaluate the effectiveness of their practices and programs (Bryce & Johnson, 1995; Rowe, Tainton & Taylor, in NCAC, 2004, pp. 19-23). Finally, in projecting values similar to the profession’s code of ethics (Early Childhood Australia, 1990), regulatory requirements may also be seen to reflect the vision of quality care upheld by early childhood professionals.

Once again, critical discourses allow for an alternative positioning. Rather than enhance the professionalism of teachers, Grieshaber (2002, p. 162) purports that accountability systems such as QIAS create a ‘docile yet productive’ workforce, whose rules of thumb are obedience and normalisation. Subject to prescriptive ways of working, their practice is reduced from an array of complex decision-making to a technical list of required actions and behaviours (Grieshaber, 2002; Novinger & O'Brien, 2003; Shepherd, 2004). Within such a context comes an erosion of professional autonomy in negotiating a flexible application of state requirements, determining what constitutes quality care in individual situations, designing curriculum, and engaging in day-to-day professional decision-making (Duncan, 2004; Grieshaber, 2000; Maloney & Barblett, 2002; Novinger & O'Brien, 2003; Shepherd, 2004; Wolf & Walsh, 1998).

Two points here appear significant when considering the link between the regulatory environment and job satisfaction. First, goal dissension (Boyd & Schneider, 1997) and work role conflict (Manlove, 1993) have been identified as predictors of burnout. While these studies were confined to personnel within individual centres, these notions could be broadened to encapsulate the detrimental impact a contradictory vision held by regulatory bodies may have on staff satisfaction. Duncan’s (2002) account of how education and accountability reforms at odds with the priorities and expertise of early childhood teachers in New Zealand impacted on their practice and job satisfaction provides a good example of this. Second, the opportunity to exercise professional autonomy has been acknowledged in the early childhood literature as a key contributor to the provision of quality care, worker satisfaction, and staff retention (Boyd & Schneider, 1997; Edwards, 2004; Greene, 1999; Manlove, 1993; Sumsion, 2004). The restriction of early childhood professionals’ autonomy, therefore, may well lead to job dissatisfaction and a diminution of quality care.

The conflicting truths contained in government and critical discourses on the issue of supporting early childhood teachers as autonomous professionals raise pertinent questions about how early childhood professionals are to ‘be’. This is particularly problematic for those who view early childhood and quality care as more complex and fluid than is suggested by government discourses. How then do these early childhood professionals resolve such tensions? Do they reorient their thinking and practices in accordance with government discourses? Do they leave the field? Do they give voice to their concerns, and, if so, are they heard? These questions have implications for what professional practice and quality care look like and what level of job satisfaction early childhood professionals will experience.

3. Support from the Regulation and QIAS for the daily practice of early childhood professionals 3.1 Provision of quality care

International research shows that compliance with stringent regulatory systems (e.g. Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney & Abbott-Shim, 2000; Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes & Cryer, 1997) and participation in accreditation processes (Whitebook, Sakai & Howes, 1997) enhances the standards of care provided in childcare settings. In this vein, both DoCS and NCAC project their respective regulation and accreditation systems as being conducive to quality care. QIAS is portrayed as doing this by, amongst other strategies, fostering positive, responsive and respectful relationships between carers and children, and building effective partnerships between carers and parents (NCAC, 2001). Given that such relationships also impact on levels of job satisfaction (Hayden, 1997; Sumsion, 2004) if experienced in this way, QIAS may potentially enhance the job satisfaction of early childhood professionals.

Critical commentators, in contrast, posit the regulatory environment as an inhibitor of such relationships, and thus a barrier to the provision of quality care and a source of work dissatisfaction. Interactions with children are seen by some critics as strained or limited because of the regulatory paradigm within which some early childhood professionals perceive they are required to interact: having to view the child as a passive, vulnerable and at-risk subject who is required to meet externally-prescribed developmental standards irrespective of their cultural background or individual needs, interests and circumstances (Hatch & Grieshaber, 2002; Shepherd, 2004). This view is also pertinent to the difficulties experienced by some early childhood professionals when attempting to meet the imperative from QIAS to secure the active involvement of families in the development of centre policies and practices. Having to work within such a ‘one size fits all’ dynamic, irrespective of parental interest and capabilities, can provide a source of strain on both sides (Shepherd, 2004). Indeed, a lack of parent input has been identified as the second greatest source of difficulty in adhering to the accreditation process (Jackson, 1996).

Research and other critical literature focusing on the Regulation draw attention to three key areas thought to inhibit early childhood professionals’ provision of quality care. The first draws on the concern that our litigious society is thwarting the play experiences, and thus the overall development, of children (Evans, 2003). Shepherd (2004) asserts that this is indeed the case in early childhood settings, as state regulations pay homage to the litigious context within which they are embedded at the expense of what constitutes quality care experiences. Second is the early childhood teachers interim shortage policy, whereby some centres unable to attract a qualified teacher are granted a temporary exemption from having to fulfil this requirement. Because this policy has effectively led to some centres operating on at least a medium timeframe without a trained teacher, a decline in the quality of care being provided has been observed (Jackson, 1996; Purcal & Fisher, 2004).

Third, and perhaps most contentious, is the fact that currently in NSW, as per the Regulation, at least 50 per cent of long day care services maintain a 1:5 staff–child ratio for under-two-year-olds (Fisher & Patulny, 2004). This is in spite of international research that shows a ratio of at least 1:4 to be most conducive to effective interactions with, and the provision of quality care for, this age group (Gallagher, Rooney & Campbell, 1999; Phillips et al., 2000; Phillipsen et al., 1997). Anecdotal evidence cited in several studies suggests that lower staff–child ratios would reduce stress for staff, lead to more positive, responsive and effective interactions with children, improve work conditions, and ultimately enhance job satisfaction and the provision of quality care (Fisher & Patulny, 2004; Warrilow et al., 2002). Improved ratios would also enhance early childhood professionals’ capacity to implement QIAS principles (Murray, 1997).

3.2 Effective use of time

Early childhood professionals are depicted in critical and other supporting literature as struggling to fulfil accountability requirements (Jackson, 1996; Lyons, 1997; Rosier & Lloyd-Smith, 1996) and conduct fundamental tasks, such as completing observations, well (Grieshaber, Halliwell, Hatch & Walsh, 2000). In addition to creating an increased workload, regulatory requirements can dominate early childhood professionals’ time, to the detriment of ‘more pressing concerns’ (Duncan, 2004, p. 169). Excessive demands on time also limit opportunities to partake in ongoing professional development opportunities, to ‘collaborate with peers, engage in intellectual inquiry, and keep abreast of the latest research and trends’ (Nieto, 2003, p. 125), all of which help to sustain one’s interest, develop one’s expertise, and enhance one’s capacity to provide care of a quality standard.

The additional workload QIAS requirements involve has previously been acknowledged by NCAC (Bryce & Johnson, 1995). The revised QIAS in 2001 reduced the number of principles from 52 to 35, and changed the accreditation period from a possible one, two or three years to two-and-a-half years (NCAC, 1993; 2001). Whether these revisions, and the fact that some early childhood professionals are now experienced in the accreditation process, has lessened the impact of QIAS on their time remains unclear.

The conflicting views on whether a regulatory environment facilitates or undermines the daily practice of early childhood professionals, in terms of their provision of quality care and use of time, again point to the impact regulatory requirements can have on early childhood professionals’ ways of ‘being’ and ‘doing’. Those who align with government discourses may well experience support for their professional practice. In contrast, those whose views concur with critical discourses may feel constrained in theirs. This again begs the question of how this tension is managed, and what effect it may have on one’s job satisfaction.

4. Support of professional esteem: Recognition and trust

Government discourses posit external accountability mechanisms such as QIAS as increasing the professional esteem of early childhood professionals. NCAC’s chief executive officer, for example, cites a raising of ‘community awareness of the work and worth of the childcare profession’ as a benefit of the accreditation system (Taylor, 2004, p. 10).

Critical commentators present an alternative view, that external accountability mechanisms such as the Regulation and QIAS embody and perpetuate sociopolitical perceptions and priorities which undermine the professional esteem of early childhood professionals (Corrie, 1999; Grieshaber et al., 2000). The perceived simplification of practice to a prescribed, standardised set of competencies and outcomes, the undermining of one’s autonomy in decision-making, and the transference of professional judgement to external assessors are all cited as ways the regulatory environment serves to diminish respect for the profession, and detract from a sense of trust in the capacity of early childhood professionals to provide high-quality care (Hatch & Grieshaber, 2002; Maloney & Barblett, 2002; Penn, 2002; Shepherd, 2004).

A lack of professional esteem has been identified in the literature as a contributing factor to the staffing shortage facing Australian children’s services (Department of Family and Community Services, 2003; Rosier & Lloyd-Smith, 1996; Warrilow et al., 2002). Conversely, feeling respected and trusted by others fosters professional commitment and motivation, enhances professional autonomy, alleviates stress, and facilitates greater levels of work satisfaction (Burton, 1997; Hayden, 1997; Sumsion, 2004).

Equating meeting regulatory accountabilities with professional recognition, however, potentially gives the regulatory environment an attended meaning that is problematic. First, the link between recognition and fulfilment of requirements may lead to early childhood professionals orienting their practice towards the requirements prescribed by the Regulation and QIAS so as to gain the affirmation we know to be otherwise lacking. As was previously noted, once this affirmation is gained there may also be a lack of incentive for some early childhood professionals to extend their provision of care beyond what is required by regulatory bodies. Second, recognition of fulfilled licensing and accreditation requirements ‘rewards’ those early childhood professionals whose constructions of quality and ways of working fall within the bounds of government discourses. Third, such a link gives power to regulatory reviewers, as their interpretations of quality and how it is to be accounted for may well supersede the views of early childhood professionals. These issues suggest that government discourses pertaining to the regulatory environment in early childhood may have far-reaching consequences for the way professionals who align with critical discourses are able to engage in professional practices that uphold their vision of what constitutes quality care.

Conclusion

The contrasting perspectives inherent in the two sets of discourses outlined in this article suggest that there is no one ‘truth’ as to how early childhood professionals might perceive and experience regulatory requirements. Indeed, examination of government and critical discourses suggests that there is a broad scope within which early childhood professionals might view the regulatory environment in terms of its intent, processes and outcomes. Where early childhood professionals position themselves in respect of the claims made by each of these discourses, and why they do so, presents as an important area of study worth further exploration. Taken-for-granted government discourses have the potential to mould early childhood professionals’ perspectives on the regulatory environment, their perceived place in it, and their ensuing quality practices. In outlining the alternative truths contained in critical discourses, this paper has shown such a process to be problematic, given that it can exclude other ways of ‘knowing’, ‘being’ and ‘doing’ in early childhood.

On a more practical note, the critical discourses examined in this article suggest there are unanticipated outcomes of regulatory systems that may be counteracting their intended benefits, to the detriment of quality care. Given the fundamental role quality child care plays in our society, and the increasing prominence of regulatory requirements in determining what early childhood professionals do and how they need to go about doing it, the potential of regulatory systems to impact on quality standards through their effect on job satisfaction also warrants further investigation. Determining whether such a relationship exists will provide a more comprehensive exposé of the job (dis)satisfaction of early childhood professionals and may serve to inform policy initiatives aimed at addressing quality standards and recruitment and retention issues in childcare services.

Acknowledgements

This article was written as part of a doctoral study funded by the Australian Research Council and financially supported by two industry partners: the NSW/ACT Independent Education Union and the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. I also wish to acknowledge the ongoing support of my two supervisors, Associate Professor Jennifer Sumsion and Dr Joy Goodfellow, and the constructive feedback provided by two anonymous reviewers.

References

Allen, R. E. (Ed.). (1990). The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (8th edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Appelbaum, S. H., Hebert, D., & Leroux, S. (1999). Empowerment: Power, culture and leadership—a strategy or fad for the millennium? Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 11(7), 233-254.

Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10(4), 541-552.

Ashby, G., & Grieshaber, S. (1996). Culture and early childhood curriculum in Australia. Early Child Development and Care, 123, 127-141.

Boyd, B. J., & Schneider, N. (1997). Perceptions of the work environment and burnout in Canadian child care providers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11(2), 171-180.

Brennan, D. (2004). Child care and Australian social policy. In J. M. Bowes (Ed.), Children, families & communities: Contexts and consequences (2nd edn). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Bryce, Q., & Johnson, P. (1995). Quality Improvement and Accreditation System: Two years on. Every Child, 5(1), 4-5.

Burton, J. (1997). Teaching dilemmas and employment relations in child care centres. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 123-131.

Cannella, G. S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and postcolonization: Power, education and contemporary practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cavallaro, D. (2001). Critical and cultural theory: Thematic variations. London: Athlone Press.

Corrie, L. (1999). Politics, the provision of physical amenities, and the 'push-down' curriculum. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), 5-10.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. London: Falmer Press.

Dawson, S. (2004). Children's Services Regulation 2004. Sydney: NSW Department of Community Services.

Department of Family and Community Services (2003). Australian Government report on the April 2003 child care workforce think tank. Canberra: Author.

DoCS (2002). Draft Children's Services Regulation 2002 Under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

DoCS (2004). Children's Services Regulation Under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

Duncan, J. (2002). Like the crabs in the bucket: Kindergarten teachers talk changes, 1984–1996. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 37(2), 141-157.

Duncan, J. (2004). Misplacing the teacher? New Zealand early childhood teachers and early childhood education policy reforms, 1984–96. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(2), 160-177.

Early Childhood Australia (1990). Early Childhood Australia Code of Ethics. Retrieved 10 September 2005, www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/code_of_ethics/early_childhood_australias_code_of_ethics.html.

Edwards, S. (2004). Teacher perceptions of curriculum: Metaphoric descriptions of DAP. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(2), 88-98.

Evans, J. (2003). The slow suffocation of play. Prime Focus, 33, 39-41.

Fisher, K., & Patulny, R. (2004). Impact of staff ratios on under 2 year olds in children's services. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and writings. New York: Pantheon.

Gallagher, J. J., Rooney, R., & Campbell, S. (1999). Child care licensing regulations and child care quality in four states. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(3), 313-333.

Goelman, H., Doherty, G., Lero, D., LaGrange, A., & Tougas, J. (2000). You bet I care! Caring and learning environments: Quality in child care centres across Canada. Ontario: Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being, University of Guelph.

Goelman, H., & Guo, H. (1998). What we know and what we don't know about burnout among early childhood providers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 27(3), 175-199.

Greene, K. (1999). Job satisfaction, intention to leave, and the quality of teachers' interactions with children. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 7(2), 7-18.

Grieshaber, S. (2000). Regulating the early childhood field. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(2), 1-6.

Grieshaber, S. (2002). A national system of childcare accreditation: Quality assurance or a technique of normalization? In G. S. Cannella & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kidworld: Childhood studies, global perspectives and education (pp. 161-180). New York: Peter Lang.

Grieshaber, S., Halliwell, G., Hatch, J. A., & Walsh, K. (2000). Child observation as teachers' work in contemporary Australian early childhood programmes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(1), 41-55.

Hatch, J. A., & Grieshaber, S. (2002). Child observation and accountability in early childhood education: Perspectives from Australia and the United States. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(4), 227-231.

Hayden, J. (1997). Directors of early childhood services: Experience, preparedness and selection. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 49-61.

Howes, C. (1997). Children's experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult:child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 404-425.

Jackson, E. L. (1996). Work conditions in long day care in the era of accreditation. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(2), 17-20.

Lyons, M. (1997). Work rewards, job satisfaction and accreditation in long day care. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(3), 40-44.

Maloney, C., & Barblett, L. (2002). Proving quality or improving quality: Who's minding the shop? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(1), 14-17.

Manlove, E. (1993). Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(4), 499-518.

Murray, S. (1997). Minimum Australian child care standards: A comparison with international benchmarks. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 32(2), 149-158.

National Childcare Accreditation Council (1993). Quality Improvement and Accreditation System handbook (1st edn). Sydney: Author.

National Childcare Accreditation Council (2001). Quality Improvement and Accreditation System handbook (2nd edn). Sydney: Author.

National Childcare Accreditation Council (2004). Celebrating ten years of quality assurance in Australian children's services, 1994–2004. Sydney: Author.

Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York: Teachers College Press.

Novinger, S., & O'Brien, L. (2003). Beyond 'boring, meaningless shit' in the academy: Early childhood teacher educators under the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(1), 3-31.

Penn, H. (2002). 'Maintains a good pace to lessons': Inconsistencies and contextual factors affecting OFSTED inspections of nursery schools. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 879-888.

Phillips, D., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1991). Child care as an adult work environment. Journal of Social Issues, 47(2), 49-70.

Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 475-496.

Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 281-303.

Purcal, C., & Fisher, K. (2004). Review of the early childhood teachers shortage interim policy. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.

Rosier, M., & Lloyd-Smith, J. (1996). I love my job, but… : Childcare workforce attrition study. Melbourne: Community Services & Health Industry Training Board.

Ryan, P. (1988). Staff turnover in long day care: A survey of New South Wales long day care centres. Sydney: Community Child Care Co-operative.

Shepherd, W. (2004). Children's services: Dangerous places for children? Rattler, 69, 23-26.

Sumsion, J. (2004). Early childhood teachers' constructions of their resilience and thriving: A continuing investigation. International Journal of Early Years Education, 12(3), 275-290.

Sumsion, J. (2005). Staff shortages in children's services: Challenging taken-for-granted discourses. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(2), 40-48.

Taylor, D. (2004, 23-25 September). Development of standards and measurement tools for quality assurance systems in Australian children's services. Paper presented at the Early Childhood Development and Education International Conference, Questions of quality—defining, assessing and supporting quality in early childhood care and education, Dublin, Ireland.

Tooth, G. (Producer) (2004, 3 October). Child-care profits. Sydney: ABC Radio National.

Wangmann, J. (1994). Accreditation of child care centres. Every Child, 1(3), 10-13.

Warrilow, P., Fisher, K., Cummings, K., Sumsion, J., & a'Beckett, C. (2002). Early childhood teachers and qualified staff. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.

Whelan, A. (1993). Paying the price? An analysis of staff turnover in long day care and pre-school services in NSW 1990. Sydney: Community Child Care Co-operative.

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., & Howes, C. (1997). NAEYC accreditation as a strategy for improving child care quality. Washington, DC: National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force.

Wolf, J. M., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). ‘If you haven't been there you don't know what it's like’: Doing day care. Early Education & Development, 9(1), 29-47.

AJEC, Vol. 31 No. 2, June 2006, pp. 49-57.

Did you like this article? Share it with others online!  - What does this mean?               You can subscribe to ECA's Australian Journal of Early Childhood article index news feed here Learn more about RSS news feeds If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer. Read more about social bookmarks More about digg>> More about del.icio.us>> More about google>>    More about yahoo>> More about stumbleupon>> More about reddit>> Close this window