bsc social science year 4 dissertation 02052015

1 | P a g e

DISSERTATION

“We’re bringing up tomorrow’s society, but society doesn’t care

about us” Early Years Practitioners, who cares?

ANISSA BEKKOUCHE

BSc Social Sciences

10,948 words

BSc Social Sciences Student no: 12804925 May 2015

2 | P a g e

I confirm that this dissertation is my work alone, that I have not submitted any of this work elsewhere and that all the ideas and work, written or otherwise, of other people or organisations are correctly and fully attributed to them.


3 | P a g e

Abstract

This study examines phenomenological experiences of being an Early Years Practitioner. Its

aim is to explore if and how constructions of Early Years Professionals in both public and

policy discourses impacts Early Years Practitioners. It will consider how discourses about

professionalism and quality are of particular importance in the lived professional experiences

of Early Years Professionals.

Data was collected through seven semi-structured interviews and participant observer field

notes. Seven current and past Early Years Practitioners who work(ed) in the private setting

of a North London Borough. Each participated in one in depth interview. The data was

subjected to phenomenological data analysis which was chosen for its ability to provide

relevant exploration of the Early Years Practitioners (Berger, 2013). Significant statements,

quotes and notes revealed that Early Years Practitioners, although taking pride in working

with children and “bringing up tomorrow’s society”1, were very sensitive to the image of their

profession. The analysis also revealed that the lack of recognition experienced by Early

Years Practitioners was located beyond material and financial characteristics but rather in a

symbolic sphere of social and societal esteem.

KEYWORDS: Early Years Practitioners, public and policy discourses, phenomenology,

social recognition, social value.

1 Transcribed from one interview


4 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………6

2. Literature Review ………………………………………………….............7

2.1. Policy context ………………………………………………………7

2.2. Perception of the job and impact on professional identity….9

2.3. Policy regulatory gaze…………………………………………......122.4. ECEC, a classed & gendered workforce: aesthetics & lack of cultural

capital as the prominent discourse………………………………14

3. Methodology ……………………………………………………………….....16

3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………16

3.2. Epistemological and Ontological considerations………….......17

3.2.1. Researcher reflexivity……………………………………….......17

3.3. Methods of research ………………………………………………...18

3.3.1. Participant observation…………………………………............18

3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews……………………………………..19

3.3.3. Data analysis……………………………………………………....20

4. Findings……………………………………………………………………….....21

4.1. The childcare Market: a customer/seller relationship….............21

4.2. Public (non) recognition……………………………………………...25

4.3. Policy regulatory gaze ……………………..…………………………30

5. Conclusion……………………………………………………….......................34

6. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………......36

7. Appendix 1………………………………………………………………………..40


5 | P a g e

List of abbreviations

EYPS ………………………… Early Years Professional Status

EYFS ……………………….... Early Years Foundation Stage

ECEC ……………………….... Early Childhood Education and Care

OFSTED……………………….Office for Standards in Education, Children’s service and Skills

Definitions

Practitioner: Early Years Practitioners

Workforce: Early Years Practitioners labour force

Settings: Nurseries


6 | P a g e

Introduction

“[They need] to make sure people working in Early Years belong to a professional identity (....). We don’t have a professional identity as Early Years Professionals. Once this happen,

I think (...) people would feel better, I would!”

Julia, Early Years teacher with 11 years of experience, mum of two

The past two decades have seen nothing short of a revolution in the way successive

governments have addressed concerns in Early Childhood Education and Care. Since

ECEC has moved up the policy agenda, so did the workforce. The main purpose of this

research is to illustrate if and how Early Years practitioners (un) welcome public and policy

discourse with regards to their profession. It argues that public and policy discourse has an

impact on the professional practice and perceptions of Early Years practitioners. Through

exploring autobiographical accounts of practitioners , this study aims at illustrating that

discourses of quality as well as negative constructions of the professionals is inevitably

infecting their perception of the job as well as their professional identity.

In a first part, this study briefly overviews the policy perspective of ECEC in UK in order to

set up the context of the study. It then embarks on a critical discourse analysis with the

purpose of demonstrating that such discourses convey firstly, a negative image of the

practitioner and secondly, a form of control, authority and regulatory scrutiny on the practice

of the workers for the motive of improving quality of ECEC. In the second part, the study

draws directly upon the primary data collected. The interviews data collected is presented as

raw and carefully analysed alongside ethnographic reflections collected during fieldwork.


7 | P a g e

2. Literature Review

“Government has long recognised the collective interest in ensuring that children get a good start in life: it is in the nation’s social and economic interests: children are the citizens,

workers, parents and leaders of the future. It is in everyone’s interests… Investment in children to ensure that they have opportunities and capabilities to contribute in positive ways

throughout their lives is money well spent and will reduce the cost of social failure”

(HM Treasury et al, 2004, section 2.11:7)

Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has had an important place in the policy

agenda over the last twenty years. I have identified three important themes. Firstly, the

unarguable benefits that good quality early education has on children, both in the short and

in the long term (See Phillips and Lowenstein, 2011; Roulstone and al, 2011). Secondly, the

importance of the need for the working mother. The economic rationale for this, framed by

feminist perspective, was that an increased availability for childcare meant an increasing

access for women to the labour market, and ultimately greater national economic prosperity

(Randall, 2000; Osgood, 2012). Lastly comes the positive societal outcomes ECEC

provides to children from disadvantaged communities. Evidence (Daly et al, 2014; Barnett et

al, 2008) shows that by improving the standard of early years intervention, the rewards

included decreased social problems, reduced inequality, increased productivity and growth

in GDP.

By reviewing relevant literature I want to draw attention to public perceptions of the ECEC

profession spawned by the last two decades of public policy discourses, the constant

negative attention drawn by discussion of quality, and the current pressures on this

professional group.

2.1. Policy Context

Labour's national childcare strategy will plan provision to match the requirements of the modern labour market and help parents, especially women, to balance family and working

life.

(New Labour Manifesto, 1997)


8 | P a g e

Since the early nineteenth century, the organisation of the profession has been traditionally

separated in both public and policy dialogues between education and care (Moss, 2006;

Osgood, 2012). While teachers have been linked to education, carers seem to have been

associated with sole nurturing and mothering duties. The split was not only ideological but

also structural with the creation of different governing bodies related to responsibility,

policies, services and workforce (Moss, 2006; 31). New Labour’s target in 1997 to tackle

child poverty was central to moving ECEC up the policy agenda (Nuffield Foundation, 2015;

17). Indeed, policy makers seem to have had confidence that early educational intervention

would be central to tackle inequality and thus reduce poverty (ibid). The first relevant

conceptual change was to join up both care and education and make them an “all-

encompassing” term (Osgood, 2012; 6). In their party manifesto, New Labour put education

as their number one priority: “Education will be our number one priority, and we will increase

the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic

and social failure” (New Labour Manifesto, 1997). Educational provisions extended

immensely and became available to all three to four years old children (Osgood, 2012;

Nuffield Foundation, 2015). Some of the landmarks of New Labour’s work included the

creation of Sure Starts centres in 1999, which targeted the needs of the most disadvantaged

families and was seen as a boost for maternal employment (Osgood, 2005, 2012; 23). In

2000, New Labour introduced the Foundation Stage curriculum for children from the age of

three to the end of their reception year, thus covering a range of learning development

goals. In 2001, Ofsted was given regulatory responsibility over local authorities (Nuffield

Foundation, 2015; 18). Finally, in 2005 the introduction of the Ten Year Strategy gave the

ECEC workforce both a new specialised status and a more specific description: Early Years

Professionals. A series of childcare reforms was promised and put in place in order to

transform provision in a number of ways: the government discourse on raising the workforce

standards was prominent at that time (Osgood, 2012; 22; Nuffield Foundation, 2015;17).

ECEC has been since then at the center of the UK’s “social inclusion agenda” (Levitas, 1998

cited in Osgood; 2012, 22).


9 | P a g e

The Conservatives took power in 2010 and the same attention towards ECEC continued.

Despite revising the EYFS (Early Years Foundation stage curriculum) and bringing in slight

modifications (Osgood, 2012; Nuffield Foundation, 2015) the ECEC government agenda

under the Conservatives remained broadly similar (Osgood, 2012).

Such changes in ECEC and public policy was not exclusive to the UK and research from

around the world (see Novinger and O’Brian, 2003 for USA; Kilderry, 2006 for Australia,

Osgood, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c 2008 and 2012 for UK) has been conducted in order to

assess the implications of such a transformation for the workforce. It is still unclear whether

the changes are welcomed by the ECEC workforce however, studies have revealed

increasing pressures and complexities to working in ECEC (Osgood, 2012; 23-24).

Consequently, ECEC workers currently have to constantly adjust, negotiate and struggle

between the highly prescriptive approaches of teaching and caring (EYFS), the increased

accountability (Ofsted inspections), and the standardised methods to their

profession(Qualifications framework) (Osgood, 2012; 24) (see also Novinger and O’Brian,

2003; Kilderry, 2006 Cohen, 2008; Osgood, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2008; Vincent and Braun,

2011).

2.2. Perception of the job and impact on professional

identity

A mother like job

Traditionally, the ECEC workforce has been depicted as being mainly about “caring” and

“minding” (Lloyd & Hallet, 2010; 77), or in other words, as a “mothering” and nursing

workforce. Over time the perception produced by this notion of practitioners working in

ECEC, as argued by Moss (2001; 34), has created an image of the profession as both

gendered (feminine) and requiring little education to actually do the work. The practitioners’

role is understood as one more related to domestic labour and “housework skills” than to a

skillful career. Effectively , the idea of the worthy citizen (Hey, 1996; Levitas; 1998) which


10 | P a g e

encourages working and earning a living as the best option in order to enjoy “individual and

social prosperity” (Hey and Bradford, 2006; 4 cited in Osgood, 2012; 22) makes it difficult to

recognize that caring and educating children is valued and valid in our society (Osgood;

2012; 22). Furthermore, the fashionable policy notions of “family friendly” employment

policies, characterised by flexibility and a work-life balance are exposed as exclusionary to

this occupational group (Osgood; 2012, 6). This (ideo) logic behind the idea of the working

mother encouraging women to get back into employment appears to “shapes and infects”

(Osgood, 2012; 22) the construction of a professional identity for ECEC workers (Williams,

1999; Dean, 2001).

As a consequence of such policy reforms, practitioners seem to have experienced a shift in

the understanding of their work. Now that the ECEC agenda has become more important in

the government policy agenda, it is inscribed within performativity and managerialism

(Novinger and O’Brien, 2003; Osgood 2004, 2006a, 2009, 2012; Urban 2008; Ball, 2003;

Kilderry, 2013).

A quality job: bureaucratic duties

The ‘new’ practice involves an increasing workload in the intensification of bureaucratic

duties (commonly named as paperwork by the practitioners) (observations, trackers,

reviews, planning, reports, learning journals…), ongoing assessments putting pressure on

the practitioners’ performativity and their technical competences (Osgood, 2006a; 6), and

societal and policy assumptions that higher quality work is needed. The pressure of

deadlines coming from the management, which in fact is also enduring pressures from

above, emphasises what Ball (2003) calls “the terrors of performativity”. The introduction of

this new culture of competitive performativity in ECEC have allowed management to aim at

standing out during inspections and therefore discipline their employees (Ball, 2003) in order

for the settings to achieve the ultimate Outstanding grade, which in the case of private and

independent settings gives them the possibility to aspire at increasing their fees and

displaying a greater image of their business. The role of the teachers/carers seems to have


11 | P a g e

been repositioned as that of technicians in charge of delivering high quality education

straight from a strict curriculum (Ball, 2003; Novinger and O’Brien, 2003; Osgood, 2012).

Their work has changed a lot through society’s expectations and social and professional

pressures, the parents now acting like clients (the childcare market and its implications will

be discussed in chapter 4.2), and the school management and Ofsted adding administrative

pressure The work context seems to have also changed considerably (Urban, 2008), yet

ECEC practitioners give the impression to have accepted the new curriculum as an

authoritative truth as they are constantly told what to do and how to do it (Urban, 2008;

Osgood 2006a, Kilderry, 2013) and are not required to use their professional autonomy:

“ Every step along the path of learning must be pre-specified in the class agenda, turning the syllabus into a kind of pedagogical algorithm – a step-by-step procedure in which everything

is explicitly stated so that a “problem” can be mechanically solved- and the teacher into a mere technician velcroed to the lesson plan or manual “

(Solway, 2000; 20 cited in Moss, 2006; 35)

A handbook perspective

Given the nature of the work in ECEC, the “handbook” perspective can be seen as irrelevant

when situations do not fall easily into “simplistic problem-solving-through-application-of-

knowledge-mechanism” (Urban, 2008). For example, if or when a child is struggling to settle

in, or if a mum has come late (again) to pick up her daughter smelling of alcohol, then

handbook knowledge is not always sufficient to resolve the issue (ibid). The practitioners’

day-to-day, professional, field experiences should be preserved as a valid and valuable.

Instead, standard models and practices as they appear in official and statutory documents

often do not match with the real world of the practitioners, wherein not only every day comes

with a range of different problems given the nature of the work, but value based decisions

and experiences could help find solutions to resolve such problems (Urban, 2008).

Consultations held at a national level by the government’s departments which are

introducing new policies hardly don’t seem to ever reach the individual practitioner who is

supposed to be working towards the application of the new policies. There seems to be little

room for personal teaching experiences. Instead, the practitioners seem subjected to a strict


12 | P a g e

curriculum and a rigid statutory framework as well as to negative and stereotypical

assumptions about their profession. This eventually leads to what Osgood’s latest work

(2012; 13) names “ontological insecurities from nursery workers to their sense of

professionalism”.

2.3. Regulatory discourses

Each society has its regimes of truth, it “general politics” of truth; that is the types of discourses which it accepts and make function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is

sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who charged with saying what counts as true”

(Foucault, 1980a, 131 cited in Cohen, 2008)

Research on the professionalization of the ECEC workforce has proved how practitioners

are subjected to powerful discourse strategies in order to bring forward a particular view of

the expected practice (Novinger and O’Brien, 2003; Dahlberg and Moss; 2005; Moss, 2006;

Urban, 2008; Osgood, 2006a, 2006b; 2006c, 2008). Following a Foucauldian discourse

analysis (1980, 1982, and 1994), I now want to explore and expose the effects of power

relationships at stakes within current public policy discourses about ECEC. Foucault’s work

is important in that matter for it provides a basis which makes it possible to establish how

some common ideas about the practitioners profession have become accepted as

convincing truths (Osgood, 2012), by being stated and reinstated through discourses. In the

National Childcare Strategy (1997), a whole chapter is dedicated to “Raising the quality of

Care” (Osgood, 2012; 46). Inherent within the need to deliver a chapter on the quality of care

is the evident lack of the quality of services.

“We also want to ensure that families have access to good quality childcare. This matters to us all. To children who thrive under good quality childcare. To parents - especially mothers -

who face the strain of juggling work with raising children: many are unable to take up job, education or training opportunities as a result. To businesses, who suffer when skilled and

talented people are unable to take up work”

(DfEE, 1997; 3)


13 | P a g e

From obscurity to spotlight, the ECEC worker has become a key agent of national economic

and social wellbeing:

“Investment in learning in the 21st century is the equivalent of investment in the machinery and technical innovation that was essential in the first great industrial revolution. Then it was

physical capital; now it is human capital… We know that children who benefit from nursery education – especially from disadvantaged backgrounds- are more likely to succeed in

primary school… Our aim is that all children should begin school with a head start in literacy, numeracy and behaviour, ready to learn and make the most of primary education.”

(DfEE, 1997: 14-16 cited in Osgood, 2012; 42)

Away from the tradition of a caring and nurturing practitioner, the ECEC worker is now in

charge of providing the “best start in life” (DfEE, 1997) for children. Moreover, from an

economic perspective, ECEC offers the possibility to mothers at home to seek employment

and join the labour market. The ECEC worker has thus become “an objectified worker

through government discourse” (Osgood, 2012; 43), and acts as a means in applying

ambitious policies.

Despite being ‘in charge’ of such a mission, the ECEC practitioner remains, the one to

blame if things haven’t worked out:

“For too long the UK has lagged behind in developing good quality, affordable and accessible childcare. The approach taken by previous Governments to the formal childcare sector has been to leave it almost exclusively to the market. But this simply hasn’t worked”

(DfES, 1997; 5 cited in Osgood, 2012; 47)

The Early Years workforce is constructed within written discourses as incompetent and

continues to be depicted as lacking the relevant skills and competences. The Strategy is

clearly setting the landscape of the ECEC. The aspiring policy agenda is repetitively making

assumptions that the practice is not of good quality. It then sets the expectations of a

refashioned workforce practice hence on this basis. Consequently, as Osgood argued

(2006a; 2012), the ECEC is constructed through “deficit notions of quality”. Yet the workforce

is the potential by which government can and will achieve “good quality” of ECEC.


14 | P a g e

It has been argued (Vogt, 2002; Osgood 2006c) that emotional effort is a necessary part of

labour in ECEC but one that is impossible to qualify and assess. Feminist scholars such as

Osgood (2006) have argued that the hyper-feminine nature of this unquantifiable and

unqualifiable non-assessable emotional labour provokes fears in government because it

becomes uncontrollable and impossible to regulate. However, I dispute against such claims.

It is my belief that if emotional labour is feared by government and is not part of ECEC

ambitious policy discourse towards quality, it is not because of its feminine nature but more

because of its incompatibility with neo-liberal policies currently shaping the public and policy

discourse around ECEC.

ECEC plethora of new policies in order to reform and reinforce knowledge and “good

practice” seem to have led to a developing authoritative, standardised and highly prescriptive

statutory guidance, which is used both to guide and to evaluate Early Years Practitioners’

teaching. Osgood (2006a, 2006c) argued that governments’ discourses on professionalism

have been implicitly controlling the workforce by demanding for more self-regulation and

compliance. It seems that ECEC have accepted the authoritative truth and, as my research

and Osgood’s work show (2012) express it through feelings of powerlessness and fatality

towards the profession.

2.4. ECEC, a classed & gendered workforce: aesthetics & lack of cultural

capital as the prominent discourse.

In 2006, the chair of the Professional Association of Teachers Deborah Lawson made the

headlines when, talking at a conference in Oxford, she stated her fears of “a generation of

Vicky Pollards” (the Guardian, 2006; Osgood, 2012; 13). Vicky Pollard is a fictional character

from the famous British comedy show Little Britain, a satire of British Society. Vicky Pollard’s

character is an exaggerated stereotype of a “chav” living in an inner-city housing estate

(Osgood, 2012; 26). Mrs Lawson went further by stating that “a growing number of young

nursery staff also dress inappropriately, with long nails and "chunky" shoes” (The Guardian,


15 | P a g e

2006) and that “Some nursery workers even discuss in front of toddlers how hungover they

are after a night in town” (ibid). The statements made then by Mrs Lawson about the

aesthetics of the workforce and the inherent assumption that the workforce is gendered as

well as classed are not only present in the media but also deeply entrenched in policies and

statutory guidance of the workforce.

The main mechanism in order to raise the quality of ECEC has been widely anticipated

though raising the levels of credentials of the workforce (Vincent and Braun, 2011; 774) with

the increase of the minimum entry level for all, from level 2 (equivalent to GCSE) to level 3

(equivalent to A-level) and the establishment of a new graduate-led post know as Early

Years Professional Status EYPS (DCSF 2008, 2009; DfES, 2005; Vincent and Braun, 2010).

Level 2 training book advises ECEC students to:

“Keep makeup to a minimum- the natural look is best and looks more grown up”

(2007; 9 cited in Vincent and Braun, 2011; 781)

Not only ECEC is gendered by its role nature as well as by the virtue of distribution of roles

(Cameron et al, 1999; 158), it is also clearly gendered in the public and in the policy

discourses. Moreover, a critical discourse analysis of the students’ textbooks is most likely

to picture a situation in which working class females are in fact encouraged to judge

themselves and to aspire at middle class normative values (Osgood, 2005).

A professional does not watch the clock or cut corners in order to get home early or on time. A professional understands that sometimes extra time has to be spent in order for the work

to be completed […] even if you are worried about a friend or have had an argument it does not show in your work or behaviour”

(2007; 209 cited in Vincent and Braun; 2011; 776).

Students undertaking level 2 diploma in ECEC and the workforce being associated with

Vicky Pollard are clearly considered as lacking any cultural capital (Apesora-Varano 2007;

Vincent and Braun, 2011). Not only ECEC workforces are portrayed negatively in public

discourse, they are also constantly micro managed and highly controlled by bureaucracy,

managements, local authorities and Ofsted.


16 | P a g e

SUMMARY

In conclusion this literature review has attempted to depict how policy and public discourses

construct negative images of the ECEC workforce. Through a critical discourse analysis, it

has exposed practices wherein political ambitions and objectives for ECEC seem to in fact,

reveal repeated and damaging narratives of the professionals. The profession is largely

understood as classed (working class), gendered (feminine) and lacking cultural capital (cf.

Vicky Pollard). What is more, this literature review has also illustrated how regulatory policies

in ECEC put considerable emphasis on performativity and managerialism. I argue that

although being an ECEC professional requires qualifications, skills, knowledge and training,

indeed there is a lack of room for autonomy, passion, personal experiences, approaches,

values and beliefs that are, as my research will show later, as important in a job with children

as the rest according to the practitioners.

The socio and ideo logics behind the negative construction of the job and policy regulatory

gaze could be argued through a deeper analysis of the historical societal constructions of the

job as well as theories of neoliberalism. However in this research, I believe that most of all,

there is a need to listen to the voices and perceptions of the ECEC practitioners and try to

measure how and if ECEC practitioners (un) welcome public and policy discourses.

3. Methodology

3.1. Introduction

The literature review has revealed two important issues. Firstly, that the reconceptualization

of the ECEC profession seem to have transformed the workforce professional’s identity.

Secondly, that the public and the policy discourses have come to regulate the ECEC

practice, and seem to convey negative assumptions of the quality of the EY Practitioners. I

would now like to inform the epistemological and ontological positions and methods chosen


17 | P a g e

to undertake this study on the potential negative influence of public and policy discourses on

ECEC professionals. .

3.2. Epistemological & ontological considerations

The focus of the research is on the examination of the phenomenological notion of “being an

Early Years Practitioner”. The goal of the study is not to develop a grand explanatory or

determinist theory but to describe qualitatively the everyday lived experiences of Early Years

Practitioners. Accordingly, my study is seeking knowledge to understand the basic structure

of that lived experience as well as understanding the meaning of the phenomenon for the

group selected (Bryman; 2012). I therefore embarked on my study through a social

constructionist framework informed by symbolic interactionism. Indeed, as symbolic

interactionism culturally and historically situates interpretations and is concerned with

language and its meanings (Giddens, 2013; 22), it appeared to be the best approach for my

research. Whilst designing my study, my concern was to maintain coherence between the

subject of my research, the goal of my research and the paradigm alongside its methodology

and methods. Social constructionism involves looking at the ways in which social

phenomena are shaped, recognized, established, institutionalized and accepted by

individuals (Bryman, 2012). I believe the reception of public and policy discourse on the

professional identity of EY practitioners lies at the heart of an interpretivist research process.

3.2.1. Researcher reflexivity

“No research is free of the biases, assumptions, and personality of the researcher and we cannot separate self from those activities in which we are intimately involved”

(Sword, 1999; 277 quoted in Berger, 2015; 229)

It is important to reflect and acknowledge my position as a researcher when working

within such a theoretical framework: that is post structuralism informed by symbolic

interactionism. I am myself an Early Years practitioner which means that I acted as

“simultaneously being an onlooker in the stalls and a member of the cast” (Shaw, 1996; 10


18 | P a g e

quoted in Berger, 2015; 15). My working class French-Algerian background has certainly

played an important role throughout my research. Issues such as class, gender and social

value have had implications on both my sense of professional and social self and have

without doubt echoed throughout the research. I shall recognize my subjectivity when

exploring the lived experiences of EY practitioners. Finally, my insider position has allowed

me with an easy start to the topic and an advantage in knowing about the topic and

understanding the nuanced reactions of my participants (Berger, 2015; 223).

3.3. Methods of research

The study is based on a qualitative and interpretive research conducted in a private and

independent nursery in a North London Borough as well as in my professional network.

The key research question is:

Do Early Years Practitioners welcome public and policy discourse of their

profession?

To explore this question, two ethnographic methods were used. A participant’s observation

method coupled with semi structured interviews.

3.3.1 Participant Observation

As the study took place at my place of work. I acted as a participant observer for my

research (Bryman, 2012). I knew that as a social constructivist, my objectives were to

understand the lived experiences of the early professionals, to document their experiences

using their own viewpoints and to understand if and how public and public and policy

discourse was affecting their professional identity. I felt that as a participant observer I would

be well placed for gaining a grip into the subject of my research and the opportunity to gain a

complete understanding (Bryman; 2012) of their perceptions. I took notes of things I saw and

heard, but also being a participant observer allowed me to gather some thoughts that were

useful in the formulation of the semi-structured interviews.

3.3.2. Semi structured interviews


19 | P a g e

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of seven participants. These

interviews ranged from forty-five minutes to two hours length. The interview questions were

designed following Seidman’s Phenomenological Interviewing Model (1998). However unlike

his three interviews series (15-27), I believed a single in-depth interview per participant was

applicably enough to the scope of a dissertation at this level. I found that his

phenomenological and interactionist approach to the questions design was effective to my

research and used it as a basis for the interview structure to enable the participants to be

able to reflect on the subject of my research in relation to their life history as well as to

specific moment of their professional lives. (See annex 1)

The participants:

A stratified purposive sampling strategy was used to select participants. The recruitment of

the participants took place at my place of work as well as in my professional network. My

plan was to engage with different individuals evocative of a subgroup (age, education level,

time in employment, marital status, gender and ethnicity). The rather small number of

participants enabled this interpretive study to maintain an in depth attention to their lived

experiences as professionals. The interviews took place in the participants’ homes, cafes

and my home, were audio recorded and saved in my password locked laptop. The

participants were assured confidentiality and their names are being changed for the purpose

of my study.

Five participants are currently Early Years practitioners in the nursery setting mentioned

above. Julia, Tom, Charlie, Beatrix and Liz work in the same setting and are at different

levels of their careers. Julia and Tom lead their classroom and are involved in a lot of office

based tasks, Charlie and Beatrix have both entered the workforce recently and both hold a

degree in humanities and finally Liz is currently undertaking her NVQ3 in employment. Louis

was an Early Years Practitioner for 35 years in mainly public settings and is now an Early

Years Consultant for a local authority. Finally Jade was an Early Years professional at a


20 | P a g e

Montessori school in a North London Borough until September 2014 and is now offering her

services as a freelance Early Years behaviour specialist across London.

Ethical issues

Although the research were not aimed at causing any distress to its participants, issues of salary

and/or self-esteem were brought in and could possibly cause distress to the participants. To

ensure the welfare of the participants at all times, I made sure to give all the information related to

the study (rationale, theories, aims and methodology) beforehand each interviews as well as

reminded them afterwards. Participants were also reminded of their rights to withdraw at any time

from the study. Such ethics concerns were clearly stated in my ethical proposal submitted to the

School of Social Science, History and Philosophy ethics department and approved on 26 January

2015.

3.3.3. Data Analysis

I followed the procedure for a phenomenological data analysis. It involved going through the

data and highlighting “significant” statements, quotes or notes that provided me with an

understanding of how the participants experienced being an Early Years practitioner

(Creswell, 2007). This phenomenological approach to data analysis was carried out based

on the theory that phenomenology, would give me the opportunity to “describe the meaning

for several individuals, of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon” (Creswell,

2007; 57). In the case of this piece of work, how Early Years Practitioners (un) welcome

public and policy discourses.

As I acted as a participant observer as well as carried in depth interviews I gained total

immersion to rich accounts of data. The data is carefully presented as both raw and detailed

in a critical analysis in chapter 4.


21 | P a g e

4. The struggle for recognition.

Introduction

In the literature review, I argued that within recent discourses, the Early Years Professional

seems to be constructed as classed, lacking cultural capital, feminine and lacking

professional behaviour. Data from the interviews and field notes reveal that such

constructions are impacting directly upon the workforce’s conceptions/perspectives of their

job as well as of themselves. All participants shared awareness and concerns of how their

profession was portrayed in public discourses as well as how strictly regulated the plethora

of new policies make them feel. My data reveals three recurrent themes: first, the impact of

the childcare market and more importantly how it shapes the relationship between

professionals and parents. Second, the image of the profession. EY practitioners felt they

were victims of the negative image in public discourse. In addition, they felt and shared their

frustrations regarding the disparity between the benefits they received in comparison to the

difficulties of their job. They clearly felt demoralised. Third, the regulatory scrutiny imposed

by the government felt by the participants as both unnecessary and undervaluing their

professional maturing.

4.1. The childcare market : a customer/seller relationship

“(…) ate well, slept well? Thank you Goodbye!”Julia

Although the concept of a market in childcare is widely contested in other areas of education

(Hey 1996; Osgood, 2012), in the early years system it seems to be widely accepted

(Osgood, 2012; 18; Vincent and Ball, 2001; Kilderry, 2006) due to the dominance of sales of

services (paying for a place in nursery) commercialisation and economic concerns (Osgood;

2012; 18). Indeed, there is a growing and increasing private sector to profit from this demand

led industry (ibid). I briefly mentioned the childcare market in the literature review when

reviewing the impact of policy changes on the professional identity of ECEC workers. The

effect of a market in childcare has considerably changed both the provision itself and the


22 | P a g e

delivery landscape. The concept of a market in childcare is more and more accepted

(Osgood, 2012; 18). The increased formalisation of a financial and costly exchange between

customer (parents) and service provider (nursery settings thus practitioners on the front

lines) appears to have repositioned the relationship. That is from a professional service to a

purely commercial service where the practitioner has been placed on the front lines:

“They [parents] can be a real mixed bag of people. (…) Some parent see you purely as a baby setting service [Beatrix tells me to emphasize the word service in my writing] they can dictate you their needs and wishes, as if you only care for their child not a room of 24. I think

asking for a take home service and babysitting or even expecting it makes me think they believe we have no commitments outside work and would be grateful for the money. At one interview it was expected of us and written in our job description to babysit and take home. I have seen this become a liberty, where staff are more and more taking a child home (…) I also hate that we cannot impart opinions or suggestions to parents in case we offend them

and have to go through management to do so as if our knowledge and experience isn’t trustworthy or correct where we are meant to be the experts. Parents can be quick to blame

too”

Beatrix

Beatrix quotes shows two main things. First and foremost, how the financification of ECEC

has led parents to consider the providers as purely commercially driven. The assumption,

rightly explained by Beatrix, that it seems acceptable in exchange of currency, to expect

after school services out of educating and caring services. Second, is the way nursery

providers profit from the marketization of ECEC by requiring from employees to deliver such

services. All my participants work/ed in private settings which were exclusively fee paying.

Largely white European middle/upper class families from three months old to three years

old. ECEC is marketed to parents as an expensive service (GBP 1413 per calendar month

for 0 to 2 years attending nursery from 8 to 6pm, 5 days a week). For that reason, it seems

that private settings wherein fees are so high, results in a classed relationship between the

parents and the practitioners. The middle/upper class families able to pay the fees and the

working class employees of the nursery. Class seems to be inscribed in their relationship

and repetitively signified through distinctions (Osgood; 2012), one of the participants

discussing her relationship with the parents clearly stated:

“The parents able to afford education here are wealthy. We [practitioners] are working class people, I mean lets face it yeah?”


23 | P a g e

Julia

The symbolic cost of the class relationship between the participants (practitioners) and the

parents seemed very important to all the participants. Furthermore, Julia and the other

participants’ narratives were all indicative of an understanding of a difference between

“them” and “us”. There is a recurrent binary opposition of them and us, which comes back

throughout the narratives of the practitioners. They often refer to the parents/managers as

they/them and us/we as the practitioners. This could be interpreted as an indicator of how

marginalised and excluded the practitioners feel.

The quote below continue to show how parents treat ECEC as a commercial service rather

than a specialized and skilled service and, more importantly, how parents ignore personal

lives of the practitioners:

“Parents don’t think we got a life outside of nursery It’s all about care for their children, If they’re late they think: its ok, they aint got a life. Like on Monday, ummm, a mum called at 6.10 pm [all children are supposed to be gone by 6pm] and said she was stuck on a train.

She asked if someone could bring her little boy home. No sorry, no please, parents assume they will pay a late charge, an extra ten pounds for the hour and that’s it. All about money.”

Liz

The market seems to have intensified the expectations coming from the parents. Findings,

from both interviews and field notes, reveal that the practitioners feel dehumanised and

underestimated by parents who act as happy/unhappy customers rather than parents. Often,

the feelings were also reinforced by the management:

“Few months after I started I was a bothered with a parent that would turn up 5 to 10 minutes late every evenings without saying sorry or explaining what happened. I was patient

to a point when I realised she didn’t care about me and my wellbeing at all. I mean I work from 8am to 6pm and as much as I love my job at 6pm I would like to go home. Anyway, I was aware of a late charge fee and I mentioned to my manager that I would tell the parent

later that evening but she [manager] told me not to as she would do it herself. She said something about this side of the job not being my responsibility. (…) I have been wondering

a lot the meaning of this discussion for the past few months. The whole thing is such a business anyway.”

Charlie

Though, frustrations reported above were also leading to a coping mechanism of counter

narratives from the practitioners. Data shows how practitioners questioned the parenting


24 | P a g e

choices such as working five days a week, being career driven and spending too little time

with their children. From my field notes, I recall:

“Friday seems always quieter and calmer. Only 11 children in compared to 24 on Tuesday and Wednesday. The practitioners are cheerful and look forward to the week end. However,

on Friday there are recurrent and animated talks amongst practitioners regarding parents who work from home this particular day of the week and still bring their child in nursery.

Everyone seem to agree that a good mothering practice would be to stay home more often and longer with their child” I quote further from a colleague: “Who wants to leave their child

at nursery when they can spend an extra day together?”

Friday 13 February 2015

Further, I recall of another day:

“[name of girl]’s dad mentioned she is a little unwell. He told [name of carer] to call him if her state would deteriorate as he and his wife are home unwell too. Once the dad passed the door, there is clear frustrations amongst some of the girls [practitioners] as to why would someone bring their unwell child in nursery only to go back home and rest themselves”

Monday 16 February 2015

Osgood (2012) has argued that parents often held strong negative and “class infected

judgements” and opinions of childcare workers and vice versa. Field notes reported above

clearly illustrate that practitioners hold judgements about parents. Her qualitative study

demonstrated that parents often raised doubts about intellectual capacities and the

professionalism of child carers and, similar to my findings, she also found that caregivers

held strong narratives about mothers. What’s interesting is that such issues are completely

silenced and (almost) absent from parents and practitioners everyday interactions because

of the evident and vulnerable need of each other (Osgood; 2012; 12). This situation of “dual

powerlessness” (Uttal, 2002; 110) seems to arise as a result of the privatisation and

financification of the ECEC market which seems to put market values such as profit making,

customer service at the forefront of the relationship between parents/customers and

practitioners/sales advisers instead of valuing their labour.

Furthermore, most participants spoke of not receiving adequate recognition from the

parents, sometimes their narratives expressed feelings of lack of respect. They clearly

articulated a desire for recognition beyond the usual courtesy of a commercial service sold to


25 | P a g e

the parents. Although they all showed awareness and understanding of the cost of childcare

for those families in a private setting however they did not excuse their behaviours and felt

they deserved better. The practitioners’ professional context requires complex decision

making and emotional involvement. Participants showed that a more comprehensive

approach from the parents would help them to adjust their feelings and experiences in

relation to their professional status. Being valued by parents instead of being taken for

granted or provider of an expensive service, would probably reinforce the personal

satisfaction of the professionals. Indeed, as all participants have widely agreed, being an

Early Years practitioner is immensely gratifying in the sense that achievements of the

children are also their professional’s achievements. However, as parents are the first

witnesses of the steps taken by their offspring, their recognition, esteem and value would be

an immense step forward in bringing a positive image of the professional contribution of

Early Years practitioners.

4.2. Public (non) recognition

“Most theories of recognition assume that in order to develop a practical identity, persons fundamentally depend on the feedback of other subjects (and of society as a whole).

According to this view, those who fail to experience adequate recognition, i.e., those who are depicted by the surrounding others or the societal norms and values in a one-sided or

negative way, will find it much harder to embrace themselves and their projects as valuable”

(Stanford, Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2013)

The nature of ECEC work could be considered as a difficult job solely given the hardship and

unpredictable nature of working with children. However, what is most representative as

challenging in the data collected, appeared to be the social, cultural and societal lack of

recognition for themselves. Meaning (as sense) has been studied by generations of

philosophers (Loriol, 2011; 2). What is meaningful in society is what is linked to a project

(here, education and care), an intention towards the external word (bringing up tomorrow’s

society) justified and recognised through positive discourse (Loriol, 2011). It is therefore a

social and societal production. What is not accepted or recognised by society appears to be


26 | P a g e

“meaningless boring shit” (expression borrowed from Novinger and O’Brien, 2003). As a

consequence we, as social bodies, assume a career is meaningful because it is legitimised

by socio-societal norms and values (Loriol, 2011). For some of the participants, lack of public

recognition translated into being completely ignored from policy discourses and being hidden

behind expectations of quality:

“I don’t think they [policy makers] have a clue of what it is to do the job. They sit behind their expensive desks and dictate the way the job should be done without even consulting us. I

assume they’re experts of some sorts on the subject, but really since when if ever have they worked on the floor?”

Charlie

“I don’t think they really know nothing because they don’t really work with the children, they just putting it down in paper and say this is how it should be done” (Talking about Ofsted and

policy makers)

Liz

“I hear quality of education a lot in the media. But if quality is about ticking the boxes and deciding if a child is over or under achieving, sorry but that’s not my conception of quality in

education you know”

Tom

Others were concerned about new policy changes and new systems of regulations that

stopped them from thriving; they felt stuck in a regulatory system of assessments,

procedures and expectations. They expressed how far away from a

teaching/educating/caring perspective the new systems of accountability led them to

practice:

“We’re hard workers. One minute of inattention and it can cost the life of a child. We work under pressure, the need to meet the deadlines, to tick all the boxes to be in phase for

government policies. Lots is demanding from us but not much is coming our way, I trained to be a teacher and I’m stuck into all the boring paperwork”.

Tom

For all however, there was a feeling of lack of respect and recognition in public discourses.

The lack of recognition as meaning appeared to be difficult and stressful for the practitioners.

All participants had lots to say when I asked the question: “What do you think of the image of

your job”? The data is saturated with autobiographical accounts of how and why these

feelings are disturbing their professional identity.


27 | P a g e

Public perception of the job

On social occasions

“ […] when I say I’m a nursery nurse I feel like ummm the conversation is ending umm blocked quite quickly you know, however since I use the term as Early Years Professional umm I get more positive responses from the people I talk to you know (…) I also think that

umm depending on how we present ourselves the response changes”

Julia

I had moments where I felt undermined because of my profession. As if it wasn’t so exciting to talk about my profession.”

Jade

It seems clear for both Julia and Jade that their professional identity has an impact on social

and personal encounters. Julia qualified as a primary teacher back in Italy where she grew

up in a “working class household”. She admitted that for her, gaining this qualification as well

as a late postgraduate diploma in humanities made her proud and “extraordinarily” gratified

to climb up the social ladder. However, Julia has been struggling to be recognised as a

teacher in the UK. Her diploma was not recognised and she was not able to teach at a

Primary level. This is mainly why Julia entered the Early Years workforce. It has cost time

and energy for Julia to build up and subsequently enjoy from her social and cultural capital

and as a result of classed relationships, negative portray of the practice, Julia felt that her

professional situation was not fair and did not reflect all her years of hard labour. Osgood

notes (2012; 99) that class is now widely understood as relational where middle classness is

the norm and working classness a negative reference point.

On the nature of the job

“They don’t recognise the education side of things. The mum never trained to be a mum so they don’t think we need qualifications to do the job”

Tom

“People think we are nannies”

Tom

“Most people like men when you tell them you’re working with children they tell you: “Oh that’s easy! I can do that!” But they don’t actually like get that you can have like 22 children

in a day with 6 staff “


28 | P a g e

Liz

“(…) People think you’re painting all day, actually it will be so much fun if you didn’t have to do the paperwork side of it. I have to always justify myself [because] people think you drop

out at school at sixteen and you work with children. They think we’re watching TV and singing songs all day, they don’t know it’s actually an education AND [Beatrix asks for me to

highlight and] care for them until they have kids and realise what it is”

Beatrix

On societal contribution

“I give a lot, I feel useful. I feel very useful, it’s a shame I always have to justify myself”

Julia

“”We look after people’s children so they can go out and work, if we weren’t about then people wouldn’t have a job”

Liz

“People don’t realise. Children spend a large part of their life in nursery when they come 8 to 6 5 days a week. Our tomorrow’s society is made of these young children and I don’t think

we are rewarded enough on a financial level but also in the way we are portrayed in society. We’re bringing up tomorrow’s society, but society doesn’t care about us”

Jade

“I’m helping the younger generation”

Beatrix

“I’m very passionate about the subject. I feel people don’t have a clue about what’s going on behind the doors, people see the job as just changing nappies and singing all day, which we do but not only. My day is filled with love, fun and enthusiasm but also with paperwork

duties, struggle, and stress. But at this age my job is also to support these kids going through a lot of frustrations, anger and sadness. I do teach them about letters, numbers, phonics and all, but what I love about my job is the teaching and guiding about the bigger picture. Managing frustrations, acknowledging difference, learning though play, becoming

independent and all these things you know”

Charlie

On comparison with teachers

“Why can’t we have the same status?”

Beatrix


29 | P a g e

The philosopher Alex Honneth (2000, cited in Loriol, 2011) argued how the struggle for

recognition was a key element of identity construction. According to him there are three

types of acceptance of the self through others. Firstly, the “love sphere” where close

relationships respect and value the work we do. Most participants indicated that their close

friends and family grasped very well the nature of the job as well as the difficulties of the job

(see question 2 from annex 1) sometimes because they felt empathically for the participants,

that is the difficulties associated with the job, the societal contribution compared to the

poverty earnings benefits, poor conditions and the worries and struggles that the

practitioners share with them(Charlie, Tom and Julia) Also, because they had family

members in the workforce (Jade, Liz, Beatrix). Secondly, the “rights sphere” inscribed in a

formal confirmation of (social, economic, cultural) rights and equality with others that is

conditions and benefits of the job. Thirdly, and most important to the participants is the

“social esteem sphere”. The social esteem sphere is the possibility for individuals to think of

themselves positively originating from a positive cultural identity. It is in this very context that

work, and in the case of this study of EY practitioners, is a place and space where social

value and importance is crucial in the construction of social and professional identity.

Knowing that they contribute to the positive and working social order of society and being

perceived as someone valued is what mattered the most for the participants. Their narratives

as well as behaviours on their site of work seemed to match Honneth’s convincing account

of the social esteem sphere. From my field notes I recall:

“I followed some of the girls [there are three boys employed in this setting but none of them have joined] to a local pub to get an insight of social interactions out of the nursery setting.

Everyone is really cheerful! Some of the girls don’t get a chance or are too buys chit chattering amongst them that they won’t have an interaction with strangers. But Charlie,

Beatrix and Julia encounter strangers at the bar and get into introducing themselves. Charlie: “I work in the early years”. Julia: “I’m a nursery nurse”. Beatrix: “I’m an illustrator but

I currently work in a nursery in order to become an art therapist.”

Friday 20 March 2015

Here again, I notice that practitioners, in order to avoid having to face a negative judgement,

turn to a form of self-defence and self-preservation by creating narratives that would suit


30 | P a g e

their social encounters in public space. Where they obviously feel less at ease with their

social and professional status, they adapt their narratives to the least judgmental approach

to their profession. The analysis offered here painted a bleak picture of the experiences of

the Early Years professionals in the private sector. Whilst linked to structural factors, such as

the profession’s poor benefits (absence of sick pay leave, long hours) and poverty earnings

levels, were mentioned during interviews and captured in my notes. It seems that it is in fact

the lack of appreciation and recognition as well as a positive image of the work they deliver

that greatly impacted the practitioners’ professional identity. The ECEC practitioners felt they

make incredible sacrifices in their careers, whether it be the long hours they work and the

huge responsibilities they take on. However, it seems that what they felt considerably

frustrated about was the lack of public recognition.

4.3. Policy regulatory gaze

In the literature review I have critically analysed how public and policy discourses appear to

construct negative identity of the EY professionals as well as reduce their autonomy by

imposing a strict curriculum and “terrors of performativity. I concluded by arguing that the

notions of quality and professionalism prevail within such discourses and seem to legitimise

and justify their authoritative context. Here I want to continue to present some of the lived

experiences of the EY workers through their own words as well as my experience of field

work, but this time in relation to government requirements. The “terrors of performativity”

have saturated my data with descriptions of powerlessness, frustration, injustice and anger

feelings. Though sometimes it also translated into fear and acceptance of the legitimised

truth. I have been lucky as a researcher to witness events in the nursery setting where my

study took place, before Ofsted came for an inspection. The nursery turned into panic mode


31 | P a g e

when they were advised that Ofsted were due three days later 2. This is what I noted that

day:

“Ofsted is coming in three days. Everyone is worried and talking about it. The consulting ladies are here from the Learning Trust and informed staff that Ofsted are “hot” on

paperwork this year (learning journeys, observations, planning and so on). Literally everyone is in panic mode. Management expects from all staff to come on day of inspection even if they are off, ill or on annual leave. Management also expects and requests everyone to come to work on Saturday and Sunday and make the nursery look perfect for inspection day. I ask Julia why everyone is in such a panic mode and she explains that Ofsted are

really tough guys and that there is no chance to talk to them when they are here, so anything they want to justify (unfinished, missing information) will have to be obvious on the

materials inspectors will assess. I ask details about “no chance to talk to them” and she explains that inspectors don’t talk to staff unless they decide to question them. They come

in, inspect, go and write their report. I’m surprised but I am obviously the only one surprised. I then go to talk to the owner and the manager of the nursery. I ask the same question and I

also ask why is it that nobody seems to care so much about the practice itself, by this I mean care and education of the children. Both ladies answered me that unfortunately Ofsted

are very hot on paperwork and they have to make sure everything is perfect. They also advise that it was always the case that when Ofsted comes in paperwork must be perfect as

you could get downgraded just for that. They advise me not to lose so much time questioning things and get back to work. The atmosphere is very tense.

Friday 17 April 2015

Once again, it seems that the biggest difficulties and most challenging side of the work lies

not in the nature of the practice (working with small children, physical difficulties of bending

down and carrying them…), but rather in factors associated with the image of the job. In this

case, the assumption that Ofsted will automatically disregard the quality of their everyday

practice and the urgent need to update their practice over a weekend to make it look perfect.

In the midst of the rush, I quickly ask Charlie, who seems really upset, what she thinks about

the present Ofsted situation:

Me: “How do you feel about coming in this week end and working on your paperwork?”

Charlie: “I do feel overwhelmed by the paperwork. But it’s the bigger picture that upsets me. Nobody fights, nobody stands up. I’m really upset. I don’t want to come and work over the week end. I’m not even sure they’ll pay me for it! I know I do a good job. I believe in my team but unfortunately my team don’t. I think there is too much pressure on paperwork, and I am convinced that we should stand up and say something. Nobody believes in fighting. I don’t know what to think. It has been a very hard day. Everyone is so stressed out.”

2 Unofficially advised - Oftsed inspectors guidelines state that no notice should be given to early years settings prior to inspection. It is worth noting here that School are officially advised up to 48 hours prior to the inspection


32 | P a g e

Charlie’s point about standing up and saying something is really interesting, Indeed, I have

witnessed, observed and gathered a considerable amount of self-doubt and anxiety

alongside frustrations. Sometimes even, feeling of alienation from the values and practices

of the setting:

“I don’t think they really know nothing because they don’t really work with the children, they just putting it down in paper and say this is how it should be done” (Talking about Ofsted and

policy makers)”

Liz

“The workload is huge, we are asked to cover their basic needs and also to do all the paperwork involved (…) it’s unbelievable what you got to do in eight hours you know”

Julia

“I’ve lost myself in the way with paperwork I’m too busy. I’m so tired and stressed when I get home I just want to watch a movie”

Beatrix

Some of them, protected themselves by legitimising the pressures like Tom:

“They [Learning trust and Ofsted] are here to help. To get the job done. Not to actually be against us but with us. For the benefit of the children. It’s a bit frustrating not to do things the way I want the way I learnt(…) , but truth is they are the professionals and the ones who rule

the system anyway so really there is nothing we can do”

It is interesting to note that Tom’s quote was captured the day Ofsted was announced.

During our in depth interview, Tom spent a great amount of time explaining to me how the

paperwork was impacting on his personal life and how the regulatory gaze imposed by the

statutory requirements impeded him from getting a job in the past :

“I hate having to take folders home, I have a two years old and I hate having to tell him that Daddy is busy with work this week end, on the other hand I don’t have much choice, You

have to send the folders home at Christmas, Easter and when the kids move classrooms but in between we do millions of activities with them and to record everything take pictures, put

the development bands and write an observation takes for ever”

“I went to an interview last year and I was confident I could do the job. I was interviewed by a team of four people and they questioned me only about the statutory requirements. How’s

about my passion for the job, experience, background and all huh?


33 | P a g e

Yet going back to Charlie’s quote, it was the first time that I heard someone mentioning the

words “fighting” and “standing up”. During interviews and observations, even when the

participants showed anger and frustrations, these feelings seemed to quickly turn into

fatalism and powerlessness like this young woman whose anger was captured in the midst

of the Ofsted inspection announcement day:

“I wanna quit man I better get a job at Waitrose. I don’t get it. You spend the whole year telling management paperwork is too much and we can’t manage and nobody gives a shit.

Then Ofsted is about to show up and you want me to forget about my own kids for the week end and come and do the job? No way”.

(Early Years practitioner, mum of two, employed since September 2014)

I noticed two kinds of response to the amount of workload considered as “too much” by the

participants. Leaving the workforce or having plans to leave the workforce was mainly the

answer I received from Question 6 during interviews: Do you have plans for your

professional future? Jade left the workforce in September 2014 when she realised her

passion, love and ambition for the job had been taken over by bureaucratic and endless

reports, learning journeys, assessments, evaluations and so forth. Her explanations about

quitting her job and becoming self-employed as an Early Years behaviour consultant

captures the situation and the general feelings obvious in the data collected:

“Because of all the paperwork, we reduce our time with the children and get stressed as well because of the paperwork. The goal is carried away from good quality time with the children.

The goal is to be good enough for Osfted. The goal is to reach Osfted standards. This is exactly why I left the workforce. Because I had enough of the stress, I had enough of losing

quality time”

Tom’s answer also help to capture the frustration associated with the paperwork:

“Lots of friends qualified as the same time as me, but they left the workforce because it’s too bureaucratic. I’m hoping to leave the workforce soon. Working with pressure for little rewards, so much paperwork, trying to have a family side for so little money is too much. I’m looking at teachers positions elsewhere in the world. Somewhere where I will be recognised for my job. Africa, France, Singapore, Japan (…)”


34 | P a g e

What is interesting and important to note here, are the feelings of powerlessness and

fatalism perceived by the practitioners. There were constant doubts related to their practice,

deeply reinforced at the end of my field work by the soon coming Oftsed inspection. They all

had different ways of responding to the demands of constant accountability (stressing,

fatalism, powerlessness, legitimizing the truth). However and overall what the narratives of

the practitioners give the impression to show, is that the potential judgments of their practice

through the strict and assessed expectations and Oftsed inspections, seemed to intensify

their stress levels and increase their doubts about the reasons they actually do the job. Like

Tom and Jade, they raised concerns about the goals of working in ECEC and questioned the

changing nature of the work that is the performativity targets taking over the teaching, caring

and educating practice.

5. Conclusion

The preceding chapters of this study have sought to research and understand if and how

Early Years professionals welcome public and policy discourse of their profession.

Consequently, conclusions were drawn from each of them. What is clear from the literature

research is that ECEC has gained more importance in public and policy discourse over the

last twenty years and so did the workforce. Changes made to improve ECEC have been

argued with no doubts to be beneficial for the children and the most disadvantaged families

of the country. It is also evident from literature research that ECEC has moved towards a

more neoliberal end of the spectrum. ECEC became a prosperous market hence seems to

work accordingly: that is notions of accountability, targets, indicators and evaluations (Ball,

2003) have become prominent in discourses of ECEC quality. In addition, there also seem to

be a long lasting idea of a classed, gendered and poorly educating professionals leading to

ill judgements Early Years Practitioners who struggle to be recognised for “bringing up

tomorrow’s society.


35 | P a g e

“Redefine the education spirit. The role and importance of the practitioner. The job we are doing is very important. Who is bringing up tomorrow’s society? One should emphasize this

side of the work rather than the business side of things.”

Jade

The broadly ethnographic approach taken in this project enabled an analysis of how Early

Years practitioners negotiate between public and policy discourse and their professional

identity. I attempted to research, through lived experiences interviews, how the participants

perceive the discourses and how they adjust their everyday practice according to it. As

stated in the methodology this study was not intended to claim some grand theory nor

determinist truths through scientific method.

The participants explored the notions of professional identity and being an Early Years

Practitioners. They did not seem to make a natural association between what is asked from

them (accountability, paperwork, evaluations) and how they conceive their jobs (caring,

educating, loving, guiding). Their professional identity seemed hurt by ill judgements coming

from public discourses and images of the professional group.

It is likely that the situation will remain the same for practitioners. Indeed, even though they

unwelcome the discourses and gather feelings of frustrations, it is clear from my research

interviews that practitioners respond to the discourses by either leaving the workforce and/or

accumulating feelings of powerlessness and fatalism and continue to practice. The findings

presented here raise the question: How to (re) connect practitioners and the discourses

around them and give them a central and valuable place in public and policy discourses?

I suggest that opportunities happen for the variety of professionals working in ECEC to have

their voice heard in order that together with policy makers and Ofsted inspectors they can

engage in projects aimed to reconfigure the role and the image of the practitioners. I also

suggest that Union affiliation should be made more available and proactive for the

practitioners in order for them to challenge the status quo, poverty earnings level, poor

condition, and poor benefits


36 | P a g e

6. Bibliography

Ailwood, J. ( 2007). Mothers, teachers, maternalism and early childhood education and care: Some historical connections. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 157-165.

Apesora-Varano, E. 2007. Educated caring: The emergence of a professional identity among nurses. Qualitative Sociology 30: 249–74

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18(2), , 215-228.

Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [February 2015] from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/preschooleducation

Berger, R. (2013). Now I see it, now I don't: researcher's position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1468794112468475.

Blanden, J., & Machin, S. (2010). Intergenerational inequality in early years assessments. Children of the 21st Century–The First Five Years, 153-168.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Cameron, C., Mooney, A., & Moss, P. (2002). The child care workforce: current conditions and future directions. Critical Social Policy, 22(4), 572-595.

Cohen, L. E. (2008). Foucault and the early childhood classroom. . Educational Studies, 44(1), , 7-21.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Day, C. K. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: stable and unstable identities. . British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601-616.

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2004). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Routledge.

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

Dean, H. (2001). Working parenthood and parental obligation. Critical Social Policy, 21(3), 267-286.

Department for Education and Skills (2004a) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. London: The Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Skills (2004b) Every Child Matters: next steps. London: The Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Skills (2004c) The Children Act. London: The Stationery Office.


37 | P a g e

Department for Education and Skills (2005) Ten Year Strategy. London: The Stationery Office

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2005. Children’s workforce strategy: A strategy to build a world-class workforce for children and young people. London: DfES.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2008. Building brighter futures: Next steps for the children’s workforce. Nottingham: DCSF.

Department for Education (DfE). 2013. Early Years Outcomes. London : DfE.

Department for Education (DfE). 2014. Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. London : DfE

DCFS. 2009. Next steps for early learning and childcare. London: DCSF.

Daly, M., Delaney, L., Doyle, O., Fitzpatrick, N., & O'Farrelly, C. (2014). Can Early Intervention Policies Improve Well-being? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial.

EDUCATION, I. E. Y. (2013). EARLY DE ELOPMENTS. Institute for Public Policy Research

EARLY EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE Lessons from Evidence and Future Priorities. 2015, Nuffield Foundation

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, , 777-795.

Foucault, M. (1994). Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Volume 3. ed. James D. Faubion/trans. Robert Hurley and others.

Guardian, The (2006) "Nurseries" "Fostering a generation of Vicky Pollard" Accessed 27 January 2015 at http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/03/schools.earlyyearseducation

Hey, V. (1996). ‘A Game of Two Halves’—A Critique of Some Complicities: between hegemonic and counter‐hegemonic discourses concerning marketisation and education. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 17(3), 351-362.

Hey, V., & Bradford, S. (2006). Re-Engineering Motherhood? Sure Start in the Community. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1).

Treasury, H. M. S. Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Trade and Industry (2004). Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy for childcare.

Kilderry, A. (2014). Teachers in early childhood policy. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), , 242-262.

Levitas, R. (2005). The inclusive society?: social exclusion and New Labour(pp. 224-226). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lloyd, E., & Hallet, E. (2010). Professionalising the Early Childhood Workforce in England: work in. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 11(1), 75-88.

Loriol, M. (2006). Autonomie, reconnaissance et stress au travail. . Projet, (291), , 74-79.

Maisey, R., Speight, S., & Marsh, V. (2013). The early education pilot for two year old children: age five follow-up.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/03/schools.earlyyearseducation

38 | P a g e

Manifesto, L. P. (1997). New labour because Britain deserves better. Labour Party, London, 21.

Moss, P. (2006). Structures, Understandings and Discourses: Possibilities for Re-Envisioning the Early Childhood Worker. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 7(1).

Novinger, S. &. (2003). Beyond ‘Boring, Meaningless Shit’in the Academy: early childhood teacher educators under the regulatory gaze.). Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(1.

O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. . Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), ., 117-126.

Osgood*, J. (2005). Who cares? The classed nature of childcare. . Gender and Education, 17(3), , 289-303.

Osgood, J. (2006a). Professionalism and performativity: the feminist challenge facing early years practitioners. Early years, 26(2), 187-199.

Osgood, J. (2006b). Rethinking “Professionalism” in the early years: Perspectives from the United Kingdom. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 1-4.

Osgood, J. (2006c). Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 7(1), 5-14.

Penn, H. (2000). Policy and practice in childcare and nursery education. . Journal of Social Policy, 29(01), , 37-54

Phillips, D. A., & Lowenstein, A. E. (2011). Early care, education, and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 483-500.

Randall, V. (2000). The politics of child daycare in Britain. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Reay, D. (2001). Finding or losing yourself?: working-class relationships to education. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 333-346.

Roulstone, S., Law, J., Rush, R., Clegg, J., & Peters, T. (2011). Investigating the role of language in children’s early educational outcomes.

Tickell, C. (2011). The Tickell Review of the Early Years Foundation Stage.

Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.

Svendsen, G. L. H., & Svendsen, G. T. (2003). On the wealth of nations: Bourdieuconomics and social capital. Theory and society, 32(5-6), 607-631.

Tassoni, P. 2007. Child care and education, CACHE level 2. Oxford: Heinemann.


39 | P a g e

Urban, M. (2008). Dealing with uncertainty: Challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession. . European early childhood education research journal, 16(2), , 135-152.

Vincent, C., & Braun, A. (2011). I think a lot of it is common sense.…’Early years students, professionalism and the development of a ‘vocational habitus.Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), 771-785.

Vogt, F. (2002) A Caring Teacher: explorations into primary school teachers’ professional identity and ethic of care, Gender and Education, 14(3), pp. 251-264

Whitebook, M. (1999). Child care workers: High demand, low wages. . The annals of the American academy of political and social science, ., 146-161.


40 | P a g e

8. ANNEX 1

Interview Protocol Form

Project: Early Years Professionals: Who Cares?

Date: …………………………

Time: …………………………

Location: …………………………………………………………….

Interviewer: …………………………………………………………………

Interviewee: …….……………………………………………………………

Notes to interviewee:

Thank you ever so much for taking part in this project. I believe your input will be invaluable for this research.

Names will be changed for the purpose of the study.

Approximate length of interview: 1 hour.

Purpose of research: Giving a voice to Early Years Professionals regarding their profession and getting to know more about their perceptions and understanding and their role.

History of entering the workforce : reasons of entry

Professional identity, the job’s image

Likes and dislikes about the job

Satisfaction linked with the job

Jobs difficulties

Future aspirations & possible exit

Policy change


41 | P a g e

Interview Questions with Potential Probes

1) Take me back to the reasons that brought you to work within the Early YearsWhat qualifications do you have?When?Why the Early Years?How this job, this setting?

2) What do you think of the image of your job? Public opinion (news, press, media….)Hierarchy?Family and friends? Do you think they quite grasp the difficulties associated with your job?

3) Can you describe what you like and what you don’t like about your job?Good & bad aspects of your job?Does the job meet the expectations that you had?Do you feel useful?

4) Are you satisfied with your job? Are you involved in ongoing or upcoming projects within your setting?Why?Do you feel your job is recognised at by your hierarchy and those at the periphery of your work? (Ofsted, training agencies, Learning Trust Adviser/consultants)

5) Can you tell me what the biggest difficulties of your job are?Does this impact on private life? (Family, friends….)Would you like to work less? Is money a problem? How much money would you like to earn?

6) Do you have professional plans for the future? Earn more?Exit the job? Transferable skills?Doing something else?

7) What could make your job better?If you could talk to a policy adviser in Westminster with regards to your job, what would you like to tell him?


42 | P a g e


bsc social science year 4 dissertation 02052015

Documents