Jennifer Sumsion
Macquarie University
Thirty years after the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, the Australian political, economic and social landscape is dominated by discourses of economic rationalism. The reification of market forces presents challenges for early childhood professionals seeking to establish a viable future trajectory for children's services that includes universal access to affordable, high-quality centre-based long day care services. This article argues that political activism, grounded in critical imagination, critical literacy and critical action, can assist in addressing this challenge.
Keywords: children's services, political activism, childcare advocacy, early childhood professionals
Introduction
Last year marked the thirtieth anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government (1972–75), a pivotal political event for many, now middle-aged, Australians like myself. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that this 30-year milestone should prompt a somewhat painful process of reflection about where we have since come as a society and what our trajectory might be. Although short-lived, the Whitlam era was intensely seductive for those of us who were seeking to move beyond the somewhat narrow socio-political horizons of previous Liberal (conservative) governments. Much of its allure lay in the ‘new philosophy and a new spirit' it heralded in social policy, for, in contrast to its predecessors, the Whitlam Government positioned its constituents as active participants and citizens, capable of identifying the needs of their communities and developing initiatives to meet them (Brennan, 1998, p. 73). It seemed a time of promise and expanded possibilities.
Within this context of political, economic and social change, the Whitlam years constituted a turning point in the provision and politics of child care—one marked by the first substantial funding of child care, the emergence of the community childcare movement, and intense conflict between feminist groups and leaders of early childhood professional organisations as they vied to influence government policy (Brennan, 1998). For the first time, according to Brennan, the latter's role as expert advisers to governments on matters related to early childhood education was challenged and their formerly hegemonic status seriously undermined. Fragmentation amongst childcare advocates, their conflicting values and interests, the conservatism of many early childhood leaders, and their apparent obliviousness to significant social developments, political agendas and changing community attitudes, ill-equipped the children's services sector to fully capitalise on the opportunities of the Whitlam era.
Three decades after Whitlam, Australia's political, economic and social landscape has changed dramatically. Government policy in general, and childcare policy in particular, is characterised by continually increasing demands for accountability, efficiency, and adherence to market-based principles. The multitude of complex administrative, regulatory and accountability requirements of different levels of government have made it increasingly difficult for voluntary, community-based groups to operate children's services (Press & Woodrow, 2005). Moreover, funding changes such as the extension of fee subsidies to users of for-profit services in 1991; the removal of operational subsidies to not-for-profit services in 1997; and the introduction of the Childcare Benefit in 2000 have been successful in their aim of stimulating private sector investment in child care. The Australian Government's recently announced 30 per cent fee rebate scheme seems likely to further enhance the appeal of childcare provision to for-profit operators and investors (Jokovich, 2005). By 2004, fewer than 30 per cent of children attending long day care services attended not-for-profit services (Department of Family and Community Services [FaCS], 2005), a dramatic contrast to the Whitlam era when almost all services were not-for-profit (Brennan, 1998).
This article arises from the belief that privatisation constitutes another crucial turning point for the children's services sector, and aims to identify possibilities that may assist in negotiating this turning point strategically. Its focus is deliberately theoretical, both to complement and to provide a conceptual framework for the practical strategies outlined in the many excellent guides to early childhood advocacy. Intentionally provocative, it seeks to disrupt the feelings of ‘collective impotence' (Bauman, 1999, p. 2) that sometimes seem to characterise the children's services sector. Like Bauman (p. 1), I use this term to refer to the tendency ‘to believe … that there is little we can change—singly, severally, or all together—in the way the affairs of the world are running or are being run'. Collective impotence conditions us to assume that ‘it would be futile, even unreasonable, to put our heads together to think of a different world from the one there is and to flex our muscles to bring it about' (Bauman, 1999, p. 1). When collectively we consider that we lack the agency to bring about change, we risk sinking into a state of indignant resignation that exacerbates our sense of impotence. Over time, perceptions of lack of agency can become entrenched in the cultural narrative that we tell about ourselves as early childhood professionals.
I begin by briefly describing the contemporary socio-political context and the impact of economic rationalism on children's services, specifically centre-based long day care services. I then identify key challenges for early childhood professionals, including early childhood academics like myself, who are seeking to establish a viable future trajectory for children's services that includes universal access to affordable, high-quality long day care services. In the remaining sections, I explore the role of critical imagination, critical literacy and critical action in assisting us to address these challenges.
Economic rationalism and children's services
Economic rationalism refers to a mindset that the market should provide the foundation for all economic, political and social decisions (Pusey, 2003). It is grounded in assumptions that ‘economies, markets, money and prices can always, at least in principle, deliver better outcomes than states, governments, and the law' and that ‘the market provides the only practical means for setting values on anything' (Pusey, 2003, p. 9). In many respects, economic rationalism is the antithesis of the participatory citizenship vision of the Whitlam Government. A sustained commitment to economic rationalist policies by successive Federal and to a lesser extent State governments in the past decade-and-a-half has dramatically affected Australia's political, economic and social landscape. Economic rationalism has resulted in a downsizing of government's role in the provision of human services; the expansion of the private sector; the positioning of individuals as consumers and services as commodities; the reification of market forces; and the valuing of profits and private interests over social benefits (Pusey, 2003; Yeatman, 1998). Economic rationalist thinking has been elevated to a ‘new form of common sense' (Luke, 2004, p. 1432) amongst many political and business leaders and, increasingly, policy debates are framed only in economic and other pragmatic discourses (Sharp, 1999). Indeed, some contend that policy ‘is no longer discussed in terms of broad visions and ideals but in terms of what governments believe to be possible and often expedient, and what interest groups feel they can persuade governments to do' (Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 1997, p. 3, citing Kemmis, 1990).
One of the most significant consequences of economic rationalism for children's services has been the rapid commercialisation of childcare provision. Following policy changes referred to the introduction that aimed to create a supposedly ‘level playing field' for not-for profit and for-profit providers (Brennan, 1998), the number of places in privately owned for-profit long day care services increased by almost 400 per cent compared to only 55 per cent in not-for-profit services between 1991 and 2001. By 2001, 67 per cent of long day care services were privately owned, while the proportion of non-profit services had dropped from 52 per cent to 33 per cent (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003). Since 2002, the growth of for-profit services has continued at a rate eight times greater than that of not-for profit services (Department of Family and Community Services, 2005).
The floating of the first corporate childcare business on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2001 has complicated and exacerbated the privatisation trend. In June 2005, by far the largest of the four currently listed childcare providers, ABC Learning, owned 660 centres (ABC Learning, 2005) with a market share of 25 per cent of all childcare places nationally (Herde, 2005). In August 2005, ABC Learning announced a net profit of $52.34 million for 2004–05, an increase of 76.6 per cent over the previous corresponding period, with net profits projected to rise to $88 million in 2005–06.
A second consequence of economic rationalism is the repositioning of child care from a community focal point to a commodity. Increasingly, parents are seen as consumers rather than citizens contributing to and benefiting from the enriched social fabric accruing from vibrant community-based services (Press & Woodrow, 2005), while children are positioned as private ‘property' to be invested in and maintained (Goodfellow, 2005).
A further consequence is that childcare provision has come to be considered primarily as ‘a narrowly focused instrument' of economic policy (Brennan, 1998, p. 187), rather than primarily concerned with children's wellbeing. Some argue that this explicitly economic focus has had the advantage of bringing child care from the margins to the mainstream of the political arena (Wong, 2006). They refer to substantial increases in Federal funding, mainly through the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, a health, welfare and early intervention–focused initiative to support children and families in disadvantaged communities, and the Childcare Benefit that subsidises families for the cost of care. Others (e.g. Jokovich, 2004) contend that this seemingly increased status is illusory and point out that, although the development and care of young children featured prominently in the 2004 Australian Federal Election campaign, post-election developments saw the removal of the position of Minister of Children and Youth Affairs from Cabinet and its downgrading to secretarial status. Similarly, they point to the National Agenda for Early Childhood, launched in 2003 but until recently seemingly in abeyance. While there may be a case for arguing that attention to the early years has been elevated on the political agenda, ironically the children's services sector, as a whole, still lacks a strong political voice.
Despite widespread concerns within the sector about the nature and impact of Federal funding policies, childcare advocates have been unsuccessful in their attempts to have these concerns addressed at policy level. Why this remains the case is a matter for speculation. Contributing factors conceivably include the gender composition of the children's services that renders it in the eyes of many a relatively insignificant force; the difficulties women generally continue to face in having their voices heard and concerns addressed in highly-gendered senior policy and political echelons; and the ‘predictability factor': ‘People do not ask us what we think … because they know what we are going to say' (Labaree, 2005, p. 189).
Key questions for early childhood professionals
The tendency for our voices not to be heard and the cultural narrative of marginalisation we have subsequently taken up exacerbate the challenges we face in identifying and establishing viable future trajectories for children's services. If we are to successfully challenge the current political and policy orthodoxy that the provision of child care should be determined primarily by market principles of efficiency and competition, rather than merely seek to alleviate its effects, we will need powerful and strategic alternatives to our current advocacy efforts. What might these alternatives look like? How can we use them to engage more effectively with the new social, political and economic order? How can we push the boundaries of what is currently seen as possible, given current socio-political and economic constraints? And how can we overturn perceptions of predictability and ensure that our voices are heard rather than marginalised?
Rethinking our strategies
Despite their supposedly subordinate and marginalised status, early childhood professionals have long been committed to public advocacy for children and are ‘already quite adept' (Sharp, 1999, p. 5) at using an array of advocacy strategies. Early Childhood Australia President Judy Radich (2004, p. 1) has emphasised, however, the need to make our advocacy efforts more ‘strategic, effective, and sustainable'. In this article, I go a step further to argue that we should consider shifting our priorities from advocacy to activism and from policy to politics. These are fine distinctions and warrant elaboration.
By advocacy, I mean speaking on behalf of others, often from within existing political, social, and economic frames of reference. In contrast, activism involves resisting and challenging those frames of references and the power bases that support them (Kenny, 2004). Activism is fundamentally concerned with ‘control, recognition, participation and action' (Kenny, p. 73) and thus is inherently political. In relation to children's services, advocacy might involve lobbying for a more stringent implementation of the National Childcare Accreditation Council's Quality Improvement and Assurance System, while activism is more likely to mean challenging its underpinning assumptions.
Like advocacy and activism, policy and politics are closely interrelated. Here, I conceptualise politics broadly-extending beyond governments and political parties to mean a concern with the operation of power, from ‘the daily experience of everyday life', to far wider questions about ‘resource allocation … and the self-determination of communities' (Kenny, 2004, p. 74). My interest lies particularly with democratic politics, which is ‘aimed at persuading people to broaden their range of commitments to others' (Mouffe, 2000, cited in Couldry, 2004, p. 4); in this case, to the provision of universal access to affordable, high quality children's services. Policy is necessarily political because it represents ‘compromises over struggles' amongst competing values, interests, constructions of social, cultural, economic, and political circumstances, and the discourses associated with them (Taylor et al., 1997, p. 26).
As early childhood advocates, perhaps we have been overly focused on policy at the expense of politics; in other words, in responding to the effects of economic liberalism, as it has played out in the provision of child care, rather than contesting its legitimacy. There may be a case for focusing more ‘on the system itself' (Sharp, 1999, p. 7) and the ‘big picture' questions about ‘where, ultimately, our politics should be taking our society' (Taylor, 2004, p. 39).
The Australian Government's report on the 2003 Childcare Workforce Think Tank (Department of Family and Community Services [FaCS], 2003) illustrates the limitations of focusing primarily on policy. The Think Tank was convened to bring together key participants in the childcare sector to address critical issues concerning the childcare workforce. A key recommendation was ‘that governments address the costs of improving the pay and conditions of the early childhood workforce while ensuring that the cost to families is affordable' (FaCS, 2003, p. 75). Clearly illustrating its determination to uphold the market principles that underpin economic rationalism, the Australian Government responded that, while it agreed ‘that childcare workers should be appropriately remunerated … It is not up to governments to determine, however, what the remuneration should be' (FaCS, 2003, p. 75, my emphasis). Tellingly, there were no measures in subsequent Federal Budgets to improve the industrial conditions or status of the children's services workforce. This example highlights the ease with which governments can stonewall advocates' concerns, and provides a sobering reminder that our good intentions as early childhood advocates and the passion we bring to our lobbying do not guarantee success (Yeatman, 1998). It also raises questions about the strategic wisdom of allowing ourselves to be reactive, rather than proactive, and of maintaining a relatively narrow focus on policy issues.
What does guarantee success in advocacy efforts, or at least increase the likelihood of success? Yeatman (1998) identifies the need for ‘guile and cunning, commitment and passion, imagination and vision, good management skills and a capacity for networking' (p. 3); in other words, capacities that will enable us to pursue ‘a visionary opportunism' (p. 11) with the aim of reform. Sharp (1999) highlights the importance of developing our skills in analysing and articulating our concerns and deepening our understanding of the political and economic arenas in which decision-making takes place. In a similar vein, Giroux (2000) advises us to connect our concerns to broader social and political projects, while Taylor et al. (1997) caution us to be mindful of the dynamics of power; in their words, ‘to ignore issues of power is to ensure our own powerlessness' (p. 20).
In the remainder of this article, I synthesise these ideas to propose capacities and strategies that might assist us in successfully challenging the dominance of economic rationalism. The discussion that follows is premised on assumptions that a politicised and activist profession would yield benefits for early childhood professionals themselves, for the parents and children with whom they work, and for Australian society generally. For early childhood professionals, benefits could include a place at the table in policy discussions, improved work conditions and pay rates, and greater public recognition of the importance of their work and the need for a well-qualified children's services workforce—including recognition by accrediting bodies such as the recently established NSW Institute of Teachers which currently excludes teachers in children's services. A politicised and activist early childhood profession could lead to improved access for parents to high-quality, affordable services and recognition of children's rights as active social participants and citizens. More broadly, society would benefit from well-resourced children's services supporting the development of local communities. In my view, critical imagination, critical literacy and critical action are key to realising these visions.
Critical imagination
Central to critical imagination is the capacity to envisage a more equitable and just world. Critical imagination involves thinking differently in order to act differently (Giroux, 2000). It requires openness to new ways of framing problems; a willingness to conceive better solutions; and optimism about change being possible. Being critically imaginative entails recognising and deconstructing the ‘myths and meanings structuring our imaginations' (Haraway, 1991, p. 169, cited in Threadgold, 1996) to enable us to see and act from different perspectives. Critical imagination can prevent us being ‘captured' (Dugdale, 1998, p. 110) and constrained by the traditional perspectives and interests of early childhood professionalism that limited the effectiveness of many early childhood leaders during the Whitlam era (Brennan, 1998). It can give us the confidence to venture beyond the limits of narrow traditional notions of professionalism (Sumsion, 2005) and to join with others in challenging existing policy discourses and agendas.
The possibilities for critical imagination are endless. They could entail visions of early childhood professionals facilitating connections between disparate groups with a shared commitment to progressive social, economic and political agendas; orchestrating successful campaigns to mobilise corporate childcare shareholder activism; securing legislation requiring all corporations to report on how they are meeting their social responsibilities; writing childcare policies for political parties; and mounting nationwide coordinated action to lobby politicians and policy-makers. In the UK, Moss and colleagues (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Moss & Petrie, 2002) are engaging in critical imagination in envisaging new possibilities for children's services as spaces for bringing about transformative social and political change. In Melbourne, critical imagination underpins the success of the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood in bringing together activist early childhood academics, practitioners and policy-makers.
Critical literacy
If we are to move beyond merely imagining new possibilities, we need to develop skills in critical literacy. Critical literacy involves learning to ‘read' political, economic and social discourses and recognising how these shape agendas and choices (Threadgold, 1996). Being critically literate means honing our ability to recognise and respond to the prevailing political ethos and policy environment, as well as to community opinions, attitudes, interests and aspirations. It also means tracking shifting frames of reference and identifying points of vulnerability where pressure might be effectively applied. At the time of writing, current points of vulnerability include the widespread public discontent at the lack of investment in public infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and public transport, and the consequent deterioration of services; concerns that the Australian Government is failing to meet its moral responsibilities (e.g. on issues ranging from its lack of support for an Australian citizen detained without charge in Cuba to allowing the illegal deportation of Australian citizens); and its industrial relations legislation aimed at exerting downward pressure on minimum wages despite record levels of business profits. In relation to children's services, they include the escalating costs of child care that are far outstripping the rate of inflation and the likelihood of further cost increases following the implementation of the 30 per cent fee rebate scheme (Peatling, 2005). Points of vulnerability, by their very nature, are fluid; they reflect and are responsive to often unanticipated events and circumstances. Developing the ability to discern emerging points of vulnerability, therefore, is a vital critical literacy skill.
Being critically literate also involves understanding how governments and the media use particular discourses to put ‘a spin' on situations and events, and how ‘spin' steers public attention (Lingard & Rawolle, 2004) and creates new myths. The frequent but erroneous assertion that all boys, because of their sex, are necessarily educationally disadvantaged is one example of a myth that has been used to deflect attention from the less politically-palatable problem that socio-economic status, far more than gender, is a key determinant of educational achievement (Alloway, Freebody, Gilbert & Muspratt, 2002). Critical literacy also entails recognising the power of crisis narratives, such as those associated with child protection, to ‘provoke policy action' by investing situations and events ‘with political importance, almost regardless of the relative weight of evidence and analysis concerned' (Nicoll & Edwards, 2004, p. 45). It involves being aware that politicians are maintaining far tighter control than previously over policy agendas (Lingard & Rawolle, 2004) and strategising accordingly. Critical literacy means being able to make selective use of dominant economic rationalist discourses (see, for example, Martin's [2004] assessment of the contribution made by child care to the Australian economy) and realising that judiciously appropriating these discourses will increase the likelihood of our causes being placed on the policy agenda (Dugdale, 1998). This is not to imply a cynical appropriation to serve our own interests, but rather an ethical one in which we use discourses ‘to fight more effectively what we see as improper, harmful, or offending our moral sense' (Bauman, 1999, p. 2).
Bauman (1999) would argue that, collectively, these skills in critical literacy assist us in developing our capacities to translate our concerns about the impact of economic rationalist policies on children's services into public issues that command political and policy attention. To a large extent, they involve being able to mount timely and compelling arguments that politicians and policy-makers cannot afford to ignore. Without these skills we are reduced to simply publicly airing our grievances and concerns, which, as Bauman points out, is insufficient to turn them into public issues. The best we can hope for, without a sound foundation of critical literacy skills, are occasional short-lived explosions of concern; for example, over the failure of an individual service to ensure children's safety and wellbeing. These eruptions momentarily capture public interest but quickly disappear without trace.
Critical action
Giddens (1998, p. 2) rightly warns, ‘Ideals are empty if they don't relate to real possibilities'. By enhancing our critical imaginations and our critical literacy, we can create many possibilities for critical action. By critical action, I mean manoeuvring strategically within the current political, economic and social climate to open up possibilities for challenging the hegemony of economic rationalist discourses and for re-framing policy debates about child care in terms of accessibility, affordability, quality and equity. Manoeuvring strategically covers a wide range of actions. Below, I focus on four possibilities: forging new alliances, strategic representation, leveraging community concerns, and critical engagement with government agendas.
Forging new alliances
The highly competitive funding environment that characterises economic rationalism and the subsequent intensity of struggles to obtain funding can militate against productive alliances. We cannot afford to disregard the competitive funding arena and, indeed, must continue to participate in it. But we should not let it constrain us. Developing and strengthening alliances with individuals, groups, organisations and communities similarly concerned about the excesses of economic rationalism could open up new collaborative opportunities extending far beyond traditional early childhood networks. These alliances may not necessarily be with those that funding regimes condition us to see as competitors. Closer alliances with unions, human rights organisations, feminist movements, political parties, ethical investment groups, ‘think tank' institutions, professional bodies in other fields, and academics from a range of disciplinary backgrounds could enable us to work jointly towards articulating a ‘unifying vision of the common good' (Giroux, 2000, p. 141). A vision that challenged the more damaging tenets of economic rationalism and offered a viable alternative would provide a powerful focus for mobilising our concerns and guiding purposeful collective action (Ettlinger, 2004). In Sydney, the Social Justice in Early Childhood group, an informal, grass roots activist movement, is experiencing considerable success in forging new alliances as the basis for strategic political action. Although it is too early say to what impact this group might ultimately have, Ettlinger (2004, p. 25) reminds us that even local and transitory sites of action can be ‘catalysts for significant change'.
Strategic representation
To bring about significant change, we need to identify points of leverage—those relatively small actions that can have a disproportionately large impact. According to Stone (2002, p. 9), political reasoning is essentially about metaphor and analogy, for it involves ‘trying to get others to see a situation as one thing rather than another'. In part, then, strategic representation involves invoking powerful metaphors and analogies. Early childhood professionals recently used strategic representations to good effect in successfully lobbying the NSW Government to retain the requirement in the NSW Children's Services Regulation that university-qualified teachers be employed in services licensed for 30 or more children. Particularly successful were the graphic analogies of the community outcry that would arise if young children were denied qualified medical treatment on the basis of their age or if the employment of teachers without qualifications in schools were proposed. Given the tendency for politicians and the media to conceive of ‘policy as sound bite' (Lingard & Rawolle, 2004, p. 363), we need more analogies and metaphors that have an equally powerful bite as those described above. We also need to be mindful of the discourses we take up and to select those that position us more powerfully than traditional early childhood discourses have permitted (Sumsion, 2005).
Leveraging community concerns
Articulating our concerns about the failure of market forces to ensure equitable access to affordable, high-quality children's services, to wider community concerns about the limitations and excesses of economic rationalism, could provide further opportunities for leverage. The groundswell of concern about government under-investment in basic public infrastructure and consequent lack of universal access to adequate medical and dental services, for example, could be readily extended to child care and particularly to the critical shortage of long day care places in many geographical areas, especially for children aged two years and under. By highlighting the gaps between the rhetoric of economic rationalism and people's experiences of the impact of economic rationalist policies on their lives, and by refusing to accept that these policies are beyond interrogation, we can begin to force politicians to engage in serious dialogues about future directions for economic, political and social policy. But to do so, we need to challenge politicians when they retreat to ‘rhetorical cleverness' (Giroux, 2000, p. 14) and refuse to engage with community concerns.
The Australian Government's belated and unofficial retreat from ultra-hardline policies in relation to asylum seekers, in response to growing community concerns, is evidence that challenges to government policies can and do lead to change. In relation to children's services, the recent establishment of a Task Force by the NSW Government to investigate and recommend how an improved staff–child ratio of 1:4 for children under two years of age (as opposed to the current 1:5 ratio) might be introduced is a further example of how intense community pressure can lead to a rethinking of government policy. Significantly, early childhood professionals were instrumental in mobilising community support for improved ratios, which culminated in a well-attended public march that attracted extensive media coverage.
Critical engagement with government agendas
At the same time, however, we need to acknowledge and engage with the agendas that are important to governments while looking for opportunities to re-write them. Currently, fertility rates, labour force shortages, and the need to build social capital and manage risk are high on the Australian Government's political agendas. These issues provide opportunities for discussions with politicians about how childcare policies might further these agendas. When we engage with politicians' agendas, using their preferred discourses, we can gain further insights into the claims that politicians want to be able to make. We are then in a position to identify weaknesses, gaps and inconsistencies in policies that could jeopardise their ability to make these claims.
We can draw repeated attention, for example, to the recent report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2005) concerning barriers to employment. Given that more than 174,000 women (32% of those surveyed) nominated child care as the main reason they were not actively looking for work, we can argue that affordable, high-quality child care is key to addressing the skills shortage. Equally convincingly, we can argue that leaving the provision of child care to market forces is misguided, given the apparent reluctance of many for-profit long day care services to participate in community capital building programs recently instigated by the Australian Government. Moreover, because being seen as effective managers of risk is a high priority for government, we can ask unsettling questions about the political and other risks associated with a high concentration of corporate ownership of childcare services. By finding productive ways to work with governments to support and critique their agendas, we can increase our chances of moving activists into 'insider' positions (Dugdale, 1998).
From polemic to practice
It is tempting in a theoretical article such as this to remain at the level of distanced polemic and thus avoid the challenge of critically imagining what these ideas might look like in practice. In this section I provide ‘a reference point of possibility' by returning to the work of the Social Justice in Early Childhood (SJEC) group—not as a prototype or exemplar, for localised efforts must inevitably depend on local interests, capacities and priorities (Sachs, 2003), but as an illustration of critical imagination, critical literacy, and critical action ‘on the ground'.
SJEC is a dynamic activist group, without formal membership or structures, that promotes socially just agendas within and beyond children's services. It revolves around an electronic list serve with almost 200 subscribers: children's services practitioners, academics, tertiary students, parents, employers, early childhood organisations and union officials, as well as people from outside children's services, including politicians, with an interest in social justice issues. The list serve functions as a voluntary and informal clearing house by drawing attention to events, media reports, developments, and invitations that provide numerous opportunities for strategic engagement, lobbying and collaboration. SJEC has proved adept at mobilising support for timely, well-targeted action, in part because of its participatory ethos; the energy, passion and commitment of those involved; the flexibility that comes from operating outside formal and predictable structures; its formidable reach; and its capacity to bring together people with diverse expertise, disciplinary insights and connections. Many of the most active participants, including the core organising group, are in positions of considerable influence within the children's services sector. Because they are politically savvy and have strong community and political affiliations, they are well-placed to assist other early childhood professionals to further develop the skills and strategies required for critical action.
In 2004, SJEC was instrumental in organising the petition and public march resulting in the establishment of the NSW Government task force to reconsider staff–child ratios referred to previously. More recently, after sustained lobbying, it was invited to rewrite the early childhood education policy of a socially-progressive political party, and seized the opportunity to incorporate a focus on children's rights as participatory citizens. A high-profile Member of Parliament of the party subsequently convened a round table discussion to solicit feedback from key children's services stakeholders on proposed policy initiatives. Currently, SJEC is formulating plans for a national day of action to draw the attention of the public, politicians and policy-makers to social justice issues associated with children's services. Its next annual conference will focus on developing strategies to maximise the impact and momentum of this national action. This interweaving of critical imagination, critical literacy and critical action, a hallmark of SJEC, enables it to challenge public perceptions of the contribution of children's services and early childhood professionals to Australia's social, cultural and political fabric.
Conclusion
Given the massive shifts in Australia's political, economic and social landscape and the concomitant changes in childcare policies, it is timely to reflect on our capacities as early childhood professionals to strategically navigate complex and challenging political and policy terrains. In particular, it seems pertinent to ask whether, as a profession, we are better placed to do so than we were 30 years ago and how we might further enhance our strategic skills. In this article, I have argued the case for political activism, for seeing ourselves as what Freire (2004, p. 16) would call ‘progressive militants' who are constantly and skilfully engaged in ‘reading the world' and responding to the challenges it throws at us. By cultivating our critical imagination and critical literacy we can equip ourselves with the capacities to engage in effective critical action. In this way, we can work towards transforming the world, rather than simply resigning ourselves to adapting to it. While a shared vision of universal and equitable access to high-quality children's services might seem to some utopian in the present political, economic and social climate, it seems to me a moral and ethical imperative that we resist succumbing to a belief in the inevitability of the status quo. Collectively, I am convinced, we can develop the capacities required to ‘reinvent the future' by creating ‘a new horizon of possibilities' for children's services (Santos, 1995, p. 479).
Acknowledgements
This article has benefited from insightful critique by Sandra Cheeseman, Miriam Giugni, Tonia Godhard, Joy Goodfellow, two anonymous reviewers, and seminar participants at the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood.
References
ABC Learning (2005). So much more than childcare! Retrieved 1 September 2005, http://childcare.com.au/.
ABS (2005). Persons not in the labour force, Australia. Cat. No. 6220.0 Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 13 March 2005, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs%40.nsf/mf/6220.0?OpenDocument.
Alloway, N., Freebody, P., Gilbert, P., & Muspratt, S. (2002). Boys, literacy and schooling: Expanding the repertoires of practice. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003). Australia's welfare. Canberra: Author.
Bauman, Z. (1999). In search of politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brennan, D. (1998). The politics of Australian childcare: Philanthropy to feminism and beyond (rev. edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couldry, N. (2004). In the place of a common culture, what? The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 26, 3-21.
Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Department of Family and Community Services (2003). Australian Government's report on the April 2003 Childcare Workforce Think Tank. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 19 November 2004, http://www.dcita.gov.au/cca.
Department of Family and Community Services (2005). 2004 census of childcare services. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 4 August 2005, http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/childcare/04_census.htm.
Dugdale, P. (1998). The art of insider activism: Policy activism and the governance of health. In A. Yeatman (Ed.), Activism and the policy process (pp. 104-121). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Ettlinger, N. (2004). Toward a critical theory of untidy geographies: The spatiality of emotions in consumption and production. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 21-54.
Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of indignation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Oxford: Polity.
Giroux, H. A. (2000). Impure acts: The practical politics of cultural studies. London: Routledge.
Goodfellow, J. (2005). Market childcare: Preliminary considerations of a ‘property view' of the child. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 54-65.
Herde, C. (2005, 31 August). Fattened ABC calls halt to acquisitions. Sydney Morning Herald (p. 25).
Jokovich, E. (2004). Budget blues: Same again for childcare. Rattler, 70, 2-3.
Jokovich, E. (2005). Family payment: About face muddies the waters. Rattler, 73, 6-7.
Kenny, S. (2004). Non-government organisations and contesting active citizenship. In G. Patmore (Ed.), The vocal citizen: Labor essays 2004 (pp. 70-85). Melbourne: Arena.
Labaree, D. F. (2005). Life on the margins. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 186-191.
Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2004). Mediatizing educational policy: The journalistic field, science policy, and cross-field effects. Journal of Educational Policy, 19(3), 361-380.
Luke, A. (2004). Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitan. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1422-1443.
Martin, J. (2004). ‘More than just play dough'—a preliminary assessment of the contribution of childcare to the Australian economy. Australian Social Policy 2004. Canberra: Family and Community Services.
Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children's services to children's spaces: Public policy, children and childhood. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Nicoll, K., & Edwards, R. (2004). Lifelong learning and the politics of spin: Policy as persuasion. Journal of Educational Policy, 19(1), 43-55.
Peatling, S. (2005, 31 August). Child care inflation leaves CPI for dead. Sydney Morning Herald (p. 1).
Press, F., & Woodrow, C. (2005). Commodification, corporatisation and children's spaces. Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 278-291.
Pusey, M. (2003). The experience of middle Australia: The dark side of economic reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radich, J. (2004). Early Childhood Australia 2003–04 Annual Report. Voice, 4(4).
Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Santos, B. (1995). Towards a new common sense: Law, science and politics in the paradigmatic transition. London: Routledge.
Sharp, C. (1999). Systems advocacy in a changing political climate. Rattler, 49, 5-7.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision-making (revised edn). New York: W. W. Norton.
Sumsion, J. (2005). Staff shortages in children's services: Challenging taken-for-granted discourses. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(2), 40-48.
Taylor, M. (2004). The future of progressive politics. In G. Patmore (Ed.), The vocal citizen: Labor Essays 2004 (pp. 22-41). Melbourne: Arena.
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of change. London: Routledge.
Threadgold, T. (1996). Everyday life in the academy: Postmodernist feminisms, generic seductions, rewriting and being heard. In C. Luke (Ed.), Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life (pp. 280-314). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wong, S. M. (2006). Early childhood education and care in New South Wales: Historicising the present. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Macquarie University.
Yeatman, A. (1998). Introduction. In A. Yeatman (Ed.), Activism and the policy process (pp. 1-15). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
AJEC, Vol. 31 No. 1, March 2006, pp. 1-10.
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
|
|
