Revised ECEJ 18th November

Running head: Childcare Regulations: Regulatory Enforcement in Ireland 1

Child care regulations: regulatory enforcement in Ireland. What happens when the Inspector calls?

2 CHILDCARE REGULATIONS: REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT IN IRELAND

Abstract Child care regulations ensure childrens rights to settings that protect them from harm and promote their healthy development (Gormley, 1995, 2000, Oberhuemer et al. 2010, and Sciarra et al. 2009) while attending Early Childhood Care and Education settings (ECCE). Or do they? Drawing upon Foucaults notions of power and resistance, and using a qualitative methodology, this paper examines ECCE teachers and managers perspectives and experiences of the regulatory environment in Ireland. According to Gormley (2000) public officials disagree on the most appropriate professional back ground for inspectors. This paper also examines the qualifications and back-ground of the authorised officers (DHC, 2006, p.7) of the Health Services Executive (HSE) whose role it is to enforce the Child care regulations in Ireland. Findings provide insight into a sense of frustration and helplessness experienced by ECCE teachers/managers in terms of regulatory enforcement. There is compelling evidence that power is a repressive hypothesis (Foucault, p. 82); and is unquestionably owned and imposed by the powerful - inspectors onto the powerless ECCE sector. Key words: Child care regulations, inspectorate qualifications, enforcement, risk management


Children are a countrys most valuable resourceand governments have a keen interest in ensuring that [they] are well cared for (Carroll-Lind &Angus, 2011, p 13). This acknowledgement, coupled with irrefutable evidence of the relationship between quality Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) and positive outcomes for children establishes quality as a key policy objective in many countries. Thus, quality provision is generally monitored through statutory regulations and a mechanism for enforcement. Although the objective of regulation is similar across countries, approaches to enforcement differ considerably. Such differences are associated with issues of governance, i.e., the agencies responsible for ECCE at national level and the extent to which care and education are integrated. Therefore, it is not uncommon for different ministries to hold responsibility for different ages of children. In France for example, the Ministry of Education formulate standards for preschoolers (coles maternelles), while the Ministry of Health, Solidarity, and Social Protection formulate standards for infants and toddlers (crches collectives) (Gormley, 2000). A split system also operates in Ireland where, even though the school starting age is six, 50% of all four year olds and nearly all five year olds attend primary school (Department of Education and Science (DES) 2004). Those children attending school therefore are under the aegis of the DES, while children aged from birth to 4/5 years are the responsibility of the recently established Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA). Consequently, while preschool settings are inspected by the Health Services Executive (HSE) who report directly to the DCYA, the infant classes in primary school are inspected by the DES. In other jurisdictions; the United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and


New Zealand for instance, responsibility for all ECCE provision rests with the Ministry of Education. While a corpus of literature exists concerning the rationale for child care regulations, little research has been undertaken in relation to ECCE teachers perceptions and experiences of regulations and the impact on their work with children (Brown & Sumsion, 2007). Research seldom accounts for the perspectives of those who deal daily with the realities of implementing [regulations] (Duncan, 2004, p.171). Similarly, there is a paucity of research relating to the qualification levels of regulatory enforcers or their enforcement style. Following research into teachers perceptions of the regulatory environment in New South Wales, Brown & Sumsion (2003) argue that literally and metaphorically (p.32), teachers operate on the other side of the fence from policy makers and regulatory enforcers. This paper is concerned with inspectorate qualifications and background and the impact of the regulatory regime on ECCE teachers in Ireland. To contextualise the discussion, this paper provides an overview of the regulatory context in the UK, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. It explores the perspectives of ECCE managers and teachers who are tasked with regulatory compliance. It further examines the perceptions and experiences of support agencies working directly with the sector as well as the views of the inspectorate. By bringing these various perspectives together, this paper gives voice to the people who operate from the other side of the fence (Brown & Sumsion, 2003) enabling one to see a fuller picture (Duncan, 2004, p.171) of the regulatory environment and its impact upon the working lives of teachers and managers.


Administration and regulation of ECCE across countries While Ireland continues to perpetuate a split system of care and education; a number of countries (e.g. UK, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, Spain and Sweden) have developed integrated systems under unified administrative auspices (Neuman, 2005). Moreover, the UK, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand take a multi-faceted approach to quality that is not solely dependent upon regulations. Rather, staff qualifications, a statutory early childhood curriculum and regulations form the pillars on which quality is established and maintained. The correlation between such criteria and quality is underpinned by the Thematic Review of ECCE (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006). Commenting on this review, Bennett (2007) notes that active governance of the [ECCE] system leads consistently to improvements in access and quality (p.18). He points to the need for services to be part of a well-conceptualised state policy that devolves management powers and funding to local authorities while also ensuring a unified approach to regulation, staffing criteria, and quality assurance. Critically, Bennett stresses the need for independent monitoring and evaluation agencies [and] a corps of pedagogical advisors (coaches or inspectors) (p.19). The countries discussed in this paper (i.e., the UK, Finland, Denmark and New Zealand) were chosen for various reasons. Like Ireland, each has a unitary system of governance where ultimate government authority rests with the national/central government. The UK has much in common with Ireland; universal free pre-school provision, stringent regulation, and a diverse ECCE workforce. While Finland has achieved outstanding results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA, 2000 & 2009), it also has a


comprehensive ECCE infrastructure worthy of attention. Unlike the school readiness approach common to the UK and Ireland, Denmark has a social pedagogy tradition with a focus on holistic development and, finally, New Zealand which is renowned for its integrated ECCE system and an aspiration to be a teacher lead sector by 2012 is of interest. Although the UK comprises England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; this paper focuses upon England where, responsibility for all ECCE services rests with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The regulation of ECCE is enshrined within the broader remit of the Every Child Matters agenda (DfES, 2003). Furthermore, the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) was introduced in 2008 as a means of putting the Every Child Matters Agenda into practice. It is enacted through an Order and Regulations made under the Childcare Act 2006 which provides the context for the delivery of the EYFS (DfES, 2008, p.7). Adherence to regulations is nationally monitored by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted); an independent, non-ministerial government department, which is responsible for the inspection and regulation of ECCE. It reports directly to parliament. In a review of the EYFS, Tickell (2011a, 2011 b) found that teachers were concerned about inconsistencies across inspections, e.g., lack of a unified approach to inspection; some inspectors not fully understanding the nature of the setting they were inspecting. Consequently, teacher confidence in Ofsteds ability to make fair and balanced judgements is weakened (Tickell, 2011a). Ofsted must deal with these perceived inconsistencies and instil greater trust and knowledge of requirements among [teachers] (2011b, p. 47). In consideration of these perceived issues, Tickell recommends that Ofsted reviews the training,


capacity and capability of the current inspectoratewith a view to setting clear minimum requirements for all early years inspectors in terms of experience, skills and qualifications (2011b, p.48). On foot of Every Child Matters, the government set a target to staff all full day care nurseries with a lead practitioner with tertiary level education focussing on the early years by 2015 (Oberhuemer, Schreyer & Neuman, 2010, p. 454). To achieve this aim, a new professional award; the Early Years Professional Status was established in 2007. Although the EYPS is to be equivalent to Qualified Teacher Status (Oberhuemer et al, 2010, p. 454), those qualifying will not have pay parity with qualified teachers, and unlike teachers will continue to work in private, voluntary and independent settings (Oberhuemer et al, 2010). Currently in England, teachers working in nurseries and other full-day care settings (such as Sure Start Childrens centres) earn around half the national average hourly wage; 7.60 (8.87) per hour (Tickell 2011a). Those working in nursery schools and nursery and reception classes earn 14.10 (16.46) per hour; slightly less than the national average hourly wage for UK employees in 2009 of 14.43 (16.85) (Tickell 2011a), but less than the hourly wage of a newly qualified teacher, who starts on a minimum of 16.80 an hour (House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee 2010). ECCE provision for children aged from 6 months to 6 years is under the auspices of the social welfare system in Denmark (Oberhuemer et al, 2010, p.102), while in Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health holds responsibility. In both countries, the Ministry of Education is responsible for a pre-primary year. The legal provisions regarding nurseries and kindergartens in Denmark is laid down in the 2007 Day-Care Facilities Act.


The Law on Pedagogical Curriculum came into force in 2004 and applies to all child care centres for the 0- to 6-year-olds. ECCE settings are required to develop their own specific programme; with an overarching objective to strengthen the childs potential and their personal, social and cultural competences (Oberhuemer et al, 2010). Settings present this programme to its board, where parents are in the majority as well as to the local municipality as the supervisory authority. Thus, responsibility for the programme lies at local level. Danish day care professionals (pedagogues) undertake three and a half years of training and graduate as Bachelors; holding 60% of the positions in early childhood settings (Jensen, Brostrm & Hansen, 2010, p. 6). Average monthly salary for pedagogues is DKr 23 500 (3,157), or DKr 31 000 for managers (4,165) (www.bupl.dk.). In terms of regulatory enforcement; Oberhuemer et al. (2010) claim, that the state does not have a strong role in regulating the content of the early childhood progamme. On the contrary, ECCE teachers are trusted to get on with the job and, therefore enjoy a good deal of autonomy (Ofsted, 2003). However, the OECD (2006) alludes to certain pitfalls in this approach, noting that independence leads, at times, to some diversity in approach, provision and quality (p.162). It stresses the need for ministries to provide guidance in relation to the national objectives of ECCE, and how the achievement of these goals can be monitored in a systematic way (OECD, 2006). Finland also devolves power to the municipalities who are responsible for the organisation and implementation of the services in their own localities (H. Jauhola, personal correspondence, 11th November, 2011). A particular


strength of the Finnish system is its well-educated staff... [Who are] required to...Have at least a secondary-level degree in the field of social welfare and health care. One in three of the staff must have a higher education level degree (Bachelor of Education, Master of Education or Bachelor of Social Sciences). Pre-school teachers are required to have either a bachelor or masters degree in education, or a bachelor degree in social sciences with an additional pedagogical course (H. Jauhola, personal correspondence, 11th November, 2011).

Similar to Denmark, the curriculum guidelines published by the National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES) in 2003 takes a holistic approach to ECCE. Again, in common with Denmark, settings develop an individual plan for each child which is monitored and assessed regularly by the centre team and parents (Oberhuemer et al, 2010, p. 138). In fact, Finland does not have an inspectorate system (H. Jauhola, personal correspondence, 11th November, 2011) and so, as in Denmark, Finnish teachers because of their high educational attainment enjoy autonomy (OECD, 2011) with little State involvement in regulating quality. Nevertheless, quality may be an issue for, as commented by Oberhuemer et al. (2010, p.138) Finland is considering ways to create stronger coordination of local, regional and national systems of monitoring and assessment of service development. New Zealand has confronted the wicked issues (Moss, 2007, p.33) that beset the ECCE sector generally, including the development of an integrated national approach to funding, regulation, curriculum and qualifications (Moss, 2007). The Ministry of Education has a history of responsibility for ECCE dating back to 1986. It provides the overall policy framework for the early


childhood sector. NZ has a national early childhood education curriculum; Te Whariki (Ministry of Education, 1996), the strands of which were embedded in legislation in 2008 (Amendment to the Education Act, 2008). Moreover, Pathways to the Future (Ministry of Education, 2002) a ten year strategic plan, proposes that the ECCE sector be teacher-led by 2012. The benchmark qualification for qualified ECCE teachers is a Diploma of Teaching or a Bachelor Degree (Early Childhood Education) both of which require three years of full time study (Ministry of Education 2011). Kindergarten teachers have pay parity with primary teachers, but represent only 12% of the ECCE workforce (ECE Taskforce NZ 2010). In the most recent Kindergarten Teachers Collective Agreement, a teacher with a bachelor degree would earn $NZ44 348 (24, 974) in their first year of practice (Ministry of Education 2009). Meade & Podmore (2010) assert that the government has employed a multi-method strategy to lift process quality- the introduction of Te Whriki, professional development for teachers to enable them to implement it and the introduction of assessment approaches compatible with the curriculum. Notwithstanding this endorsement, Carroll-Lind & Angus (2011) argues that while there is extensive regulation; monitoring is relatively light in respect of licensing and service quality (p. xiv). Similarly, the ECE Taskforce NZ (2011) explains how the front-end of quality is the licensing process which occurs before a setting opens for operation. Licences are issued when the Ministry is satisfied that minimum standards are met in accordance with the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008. As licences are issued in perpetuity, in practice, no more checks are made unless the Ministry of Education; receives a


complaint about a setting (ECE Taskforce NZ, 2011, p. 140). Licensing is not the only quality checkpoint however, as quality is also assessed at three-yearly intervals by the Educational Review Office (ERO); the governments external evaluator (ECE Taskforce NZ, 2011). The ERO (2010) cites the need for a stronger accountability and compliance focus...for some services along with a wider range of interventions [including the need to strengthen the] capacity of services to review their own performance and improve practice (ERO, 2010, p. 12). Currently in NZ, there are few incentives (ECE Taskforce NZ, 2011, p. 135) for settings to exceed the minimum quality standards. In addition, there are tensions within the sector concerning the dual role of the ERO as both assessor and advisor (2011, p. 140). Thus far, this paper has highlighted a number of challenges associated with regulatory enforcement; inadequate inspectorate qualifications and perceived inconsistencies around inspections in the UK; diversity in approach, provision and quality in Denmark and Finland primarily associated with teacher qualifications and consequent independence. In NZ, greater accountability and compliance, weak self-evaluation, lack of incentives for teachers to exceed minimum standards, and tensions surrounding the dual assessment and advisory role of the ERO are of concern. As the remainder of this paper demonstrates; Ireland experiences similar challenges. Why child care regulations? Highlighting childrens vulnerability; Gormley (1995), states that because: Children cannot speak for themselves, parents represent them. But when parents lack the time and the expertise to represent children effectively, who will? The principal answer to that question...has been government


regulators. A key purpose of government regulation is to protect persons who cannot protect themselves (p.173). Endorsing this viewpoint, Wiggans Helburn & Bergmann (2002) see regulations as a form of consumer protection designed to reduce the risk of harm to children. Indeed, Sciarra, Dorsey & Lynch (2009) describe child care regulations as a basic and necessary component of governments responsibility for protecting all children in all programmes from the risk of harm and for promoting conditions that are essential for childrens healthy development and learning (p.96). This description moves the purpose of regulation beyond mere risk control to align it with the potential of ECCE to support and enhance childrens development and learning. That said, Fenech, Sumsion & Goodfellow (2005) suggest that regulation may in fact be a double-edged sword (p.6) where, on the one hand it contributes to the structural and process elements of quality, while on the other; it leads to excessive risk management (p.6). None the less, enforcement practices are at the heart of effective regulation (Wiggans Helburn & Bergmann, 2002, p.134). Researchers (Baldock, 2001; Dahlberg et al, 1999; Gormley, 1999) warn of the dangers of policing the inspection process. Thus, Gormley (1999) argues that regulation is subject to the twin dangers of insufficient rigour and excessive severity (p. 117), the latter, promotes quality at the expense of accessibility and affordability (Gormley, 1999). According to name deleted a didactic approach to regulation may lead to an adversarial relationship between childcare providers and inspectors. Inspectorate qualifications and training are necessary prerequisites for effective enforcement; equipping inspectors with the skills required to enforce regulations and monitor standards (name deleted).


Inspectorate background and qualifications Gormley (2000) and Wiggans Helburn et al. (2002) point to the complexity of the inspectors role which involves much more than checking off compliance and non-compliance: [Inspectors] make judgements about programme adequacy and apply the intent of the rules of the situations that exist in a given facility...[they] must know the law, decide if legal action is warranted...know how to create the factual base for legal action, and serve as a credible expert witness in a judicial setting. They also serve as consultants to providers helping them to solve non-compliance problems (Wiggans Helburn et al. 2002, p. 141).

There is considerable disagreement among public officials about the most appropriate professional back ground for inspectors (Gormley, 2000). At a minimum, inspectors should be adequately trained in childcare or a related field and have at least 24 hours of on-going training annually to remain abreast of relevant cases, procedures and child development research (Gormley, 2000; Wiggans Helburn et al.2009). Coupled with these requirements, Sciarra et al. (2009) stress the necessity for inspectors to be knowledgeable about programme administration, and regulatory enforcement (p.95). Yet again, Wiggans Helburn et al. (2009) adopt a firmer stance stating that ideally, inspectors should have experience as a licensed child care provider, specialised legal and policy training, a masters degree in either social work or early childhood development or education (p.141). As mentioned earlier, there is a dearth of research relating to the qualification levels of regulatory enforcers. In Finland, there is no inspection system and, given the laxity of enforcement in Denmark, it is not surprising that


information relating to inspectorate qualifications is not readily available. From September, 2010, childcare inspector recruitment and training in the UK has been outsourced. Despite a written inquiry to the organisations involved in recruiting inspectors; information was not forthcoming. In relation to NZ, while regulatory inspectors have no specific training (S. Farquhar, 2011, personal correspondence, 14th October, 2011), it appears that in general they tick the appropriate boxes in relation to experience in the field and knowledge/training in early child development and educationMost have an early childhood teaching qualification and may have some research or evaluation training as well. Most tend to be quite experienced practitioners e.g. 10 or more years working in the sector and have chosen to do some extra tertiary study and then decided they want to try something different and so apply to work at the Ministry of Education (S. Farquhar, 2011, personal correspondence, 14th October, 2011).

In Ireland, since the inception of the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 1996, inspectors come with a public health nursing background (DES, 1999; Schonfeld, 2006; name deleted) and thus, they are relatively untrained in early childhood methodology (Bennett, 2004, p.8). This is problematic in the context of enforcing child development regulations resulting in significant challenges for inspectors in terms of enforcement practices (name deleted). The regulatory environment in Ireland In accordance with the Childcare Act, 1991, the HSE is responsible for the welfare and care of children from birth to six years of age attending centre-based ECCE. The subsequent Child Care (pre-school services) regulations, 1996 legislated primarily for structural quality and provided for an annual inspection.


Schonfeld (2006) argues that the predominant focus on health and safety was reenforced by the fact that the inspection teams were almost exclusively comprised of personnel with public health nursing (PHN) and environmental health officer (EHO) back grounds. Following a review of the 1996 regulations, the current Childcare (preschool services) regulations, 2006 were introduced. As well as retaining a focus upon the structural aspects of ECCE; Article 5: Health, Welfare and Development of the Child calls upon teachers to be pro-active in ensuring that appropriate action is taken to address each childs needs in cooperation with his/her parents and following consultation, where appropriate, with other relevant services (Department of Health and Children, 2006, p. 36). This requirement demands a considerable level of critical engagement and decision making capacity from teachers. Moreover, it calls for appropriate academic qualifications and experience from teachers and inspectors. In 1999, the DES proposed that where a childcare provider offered an early education service that one inspector with expertise in both public health and education should carry out the inspection and provide a single report on all aspects of provision (p.120). To date, notwithstanding the introduction of an educational component through Article 5 of the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006; Ireland continues to operate a dual inspection system, that polarises the care and education sectors. In relation to ECCE, inspections are undertaken primarily by PHNs and EHOs. Regardless of a similar omission in relation to teacher qualifications in the 1996 regulations, the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations 2006 simply require that a sufficient number of suitable and competent adults are working


directly with the children in the pre-school setting at all times (DHC, 2006, p. 37). It is recommended, though not mandatory that, at least 50% of teachers would have a qualification appropriate to the care and development of children, and that qualified teachers should rotate between age groupings. As the only statutory policy governing the ECCE sector in Ireland, the failure of these regulations to address teacher qualifications sends the wrong message regarding the need for qualified staff, and can have a chilling effect on efforts to improve quality (Lombardi, 2004, p. 14). In reality, if the regulatory system is to be effective, other aspects of the ECCE services infrastructure must also be in place (Sciarra et al. (2009). See Table 1.

Table 1 Requirements of an ECCE infrastructure that underpin effective regulation Elements required Irish Government action A holistic approach to Establishment of the addressing the needs of children Department of Children and and families that stresses Youth Affairs (2011) collaborative planning and Appointment of a Minister for service integration across Children (2011) traditional boundaries of child Publication of Solta: the care, education, health, National Quality Framework employment and social services (2006) Publication of Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework (2009) An effective system of On-going work on the professional development that development of a workforce provides meaningful development plan opportunities for career advancement to ensure a stable, well-qualified workforce Equitable financing that ensures Introduction of various targeted access for all children and funding programmes for families to high-quality services disadvantaged families from 2000 2010 Introduction of a free preschool year in ECCE scheme (2010) to give children access


Active involvement of all stakeholders-providers, practitioners, parents, and community leaders from both public and private sectors in all aspects of programme planning and delivery (Sciarra et al.2009, p.97).

to a free pre-school year in the year before they start primary school Publication of Solta: the National Quality Framework Publication of Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework Introduction of the Childcare Regulations, 2006

The DES (2011) acknowledge that while ECCE teachers have not been required to attain similar qualifications to primary teachers; their role is no less critical to ensuring positive experiences and outcomes for childrens learning well-being and development (p. 27). This politically astute commentary masks the fact that there is no mandatory training requirement for ECCE teachers. There is one notable exception; the free pre-school year in ECCE scheme (2010) which requires minimum qualifications of Pre-school Leaders in ECCE settings. However, in the context of the factors outlined in table 1; Ireland is plagued by problematic legacies including the employment of underpaid and untrained personnel (Bennett & Neuman, 2004). The introduction of the free pre-school year in ECCE scheme is a vital first step towards raising the status of a sector that is universally recognised as the poor relation within the educational sphere. Researchers (Mahony & Hayes, 2006; name deleted, OECD, 2004 & 2006) state that the sector is characterised by a mix of trained, semi-trained and untrained teachers, low status, poor remuneration and staff attrition. Barry & Sherlock (2008) for example, found that remuneration of teachers in Ireland irrespective of training and qualifications ranged from 9.27 per hour for those with up to four years experience, to 10.03


for those with over ten years experience. It is against this back drop that the Childcare (preschool services) regulations, 2006 are enforced. Regulatory enforcement Dahlberg et al. (1999) suggest that the concept of quality is primarily about defining through the specification of criteria, a generalizable standard against which a product can be judged with certainty (p. 93). Accordingly, defining quality is an inherently exclusive didactic process, undertaken by a particular group whose power and claims to legitimacy enable them to determine what is to be understood as true or false (Dahlberg et al. 1999, p. 94). In Ireland, it could be argued that inspectors use their legitimacy as authorised officers (DHC, 2006, p.7) to determine what is true or false in terms of quality standards. They act as powerful agents [who have the capacity] to realise their will over the will of powerless people (Mills, 2003, p. 34-35). The legitimacy of the HSE is unmistakably evident in how it disregarded Solta: the National Quality Framework for ECCE (Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education, 2006). Underpinned by a series of quality principles and Standards; Solta was intended to contribute to the development of a modern regulatory and inspection environment (Schonfeld, 2006, p. 3). Following the publication of the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006, the then Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs established a Childcare Regulations Implementation Group. Its function was to provide a forum for key stakeholders in the sector during the initial period when the new regulatory requirements were being implemented (www.hse.ie). Clearly disregarding the Solta quality standards, the HSE requested that the development of National Quality Standards for Pre-School Services should be included within


the terms of reference of the regulations group. The resulting National Standards for pre-school services contains 20 standards that replicate those within Solta; thus reinforcing the legitimacy of the HSE as the authoritative voice on what constitutes quality in ECCE. Mills (2003) posits that power can be conceptualised as a possession that is held onto by those in power which those who are powerless try to take from their control. Foucault (1978) contradicts this notion of power as repressive hypothesis (p. 82) where it is constructed as being owned and imposed by the powerful [inspectors] onto the powerless [teachers] (Foucault, 1978, p.82). Rather, he views power as something which circulates or functions in the form of a chain [where it is] employed and exercised through a net like organisation (1980, p.98). Mills (2003) summarises this perspective; power is a system of relations spread throughout society, rather than simply a set of relations between the oppressed and the oppressor (p. 35) i.e., between the ECCE sector and the HSE. At the same time, individuals should not be seen simply as the recipients of power, but as the place where it is enacted and the place where it is resisted (p.35). In his analysis of disciplinary power, Foucault (1977) argues that power is exercised as a disciplinary technology; designed to observe, regulate and control individual behaviour where subjects (teachers) become docile bodies; obedient, transformed and useful (p.138). Similar concepts are found within Foucaults (1991) work on governmentality, where those who can govern; do so with minimum economy to achieve desired outcomes. In a regulatory context, inspectors seek sectoral compliance to achieve minimum quality standards. Conversely, in the words of Foucault; what makes power hold good; what makes it accepted is simply the fact that it doesnt only weigh on us as a


force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse... (1980, p. 119). Drawing upon Foucualtian notions of power, it is reasonable to assume that regulations can potentially empower the ECCE sector. For, when teachers are acknowledged for achieving quality standards and complying with regulations, they should experience a sense of gratification that empowers them to continue to strive for greater levels of achievement and compliance. In this way, power functions in the form of a chain. It is transferred to teachers, where both they and inspectors become vehicles of power and, thus reject power as repressive hypothesis (Foucault, 1978, p.82). The Study Using a qualitative methodology, this study sought to explore ECCE manager and teacher perspectives of the revised Childcare (pre-school services) Regulations, 2006. It further sought the perspectives of the City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs) and the National Voluntary Childcare Collaborative (NVCC); agencies that work directly with managers and teachers to enhance the quality of ECC provision. The views of the HSE inspectorate were also garnered. A total of 43 individual interviews were conducted (table 2) Table 2 Interview participants Interview ECCE teachers ECCE managers *City and County Childcare Committees *National Voluntary Childcare Collaborative HSE pre-school inspectors Number 15 10 10 4 4

*Denotes support agencies at local and national level that work with directly with ECCE settings to enhance quality.


Using a purposive sampling technique, participants were selected because they were information rich (Patton 2002 p. 46) offering useful information and insights into the regulatory environment. CCCs and NVCCs were contacted directly by the researcher and invited to participate. Prospective HSE participants were identified by the CCCS and following initial telephone contact, 4 inspectors located in various geographic locations agreed to participate. In accordance with the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006 ECCE providers are obliged to notify the HSE that they are operating a service. The sampling frame used for participating ECCE teachers/managers consisted of HSE notified listings of ECCE settings within a particular geographic location. Participants were located in both urban and rural areas and representative of community based and private provision. Data Analysis Data was analysed using grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2006; Charmaz and Bryant, 2007; Glaser and Strauss, 1967) where data analysis occurred alongside data collection. Using an iterative process, interview transcripts and analytical notes were read line by line, and preliminary codes were applied. Following initial general coding; more focussed coding enabled units of analysis of the data to be fully developed (Charmaz, 2006). Codes were clustered so that links between codes could be established. By reviewing these tentative links, additional categories were identified. Throughout this interactive process, data was continuously integrated and reduced leading to the development of provisional hypotheses. Findings Findings point to an unhealthy dissonance between the inspectorate and those working in the ECCE sector. This dissonance is rooted in a myriad of


factors including a perceived unhealthy obsession with health and safety; lack of appropriate inspector qualifications; and a didactic approach to inspection which is vested in the statutory power of the HSE. An Unhealthy Focus on Health and Safety All research participants welcomed the revised Childcare (pre-schools services) regulations, 2006. In particular, the increased emphasis on child development was lauded. Regardless of the broad welcome for the regulations; there was an overwhelming consensus; 89% of participants, (N=39; excluding inspectors), that the inspectorate continued to have an unhealthy obsession with health and safety (Angela: NVCC interview). Participants believed that this focus was inherited from the previous 1996 regulations. Hence, it was claimed that childcare regulations had sanitised the environment for children where teachers were afraid to let children climb, run, fall or get dirty or any of the normal things that children do when theyre playing (Nuala: CCC interview). It was further claimed that inspectors made ridiculous rules...I was asked to remove a vase of flowers from a window ledge [because it might be] a risk to children (Shona: Community based manager). Overall, 84.6% of managers/teachers (N=25) believed that the regulations had reduced their primary role to one of supervision; ensuring that children are safe at all times while theyre in our care (Mire: teacher: private setting). While there was an acute awareness of the need to develop and implement appropriate activities for children, a focus on structural characteristics was paramount. Acknowledging the dilemma for staff, Nuala argued that the focus on health and safety was creating protected environments for children that are far removed from real life (CCC interview). Support agencies recounted examples


of settings being required to cover the whole outdoor play area in multi-purpose matting, to prove that paint used by children is non toxic or to remove necklaces from the dressing up box for example. This unrealistic approach to childrens safety was associated with an overall absence of basic trust between the inspectorate and the sector (Sophia: CCC interview). At one level, the emphasis on health and safety was linked to an over zealous inspectorate (Fiona: community manager interview). Marina concurred; I know the building has to be up to standard but when youre pulled because theres a cobweb on the light, or the plug is missing from the sink; thats ridiculous (private manager). At another level, the focus on health and safety resulted from a societal focus where parents want to protect their children at all costs: There is a focus in terms of static control; what can you see and what can you measure...safety....ridiculous, to the point of cutting down a tree in case a child would climb up it, getting rid of sand in case the child would slip (Alana: NVCC interview). There is a societal focus ....that has become very conscious of safety and health in general...so you have this focus along with this huge investment in children in terms of fewer children, more time, effort, love; nothing is ever going to happen to my child...(Ruby: NVCC interview).

The sector is a victim of both societal values and regulatory regimes where teachers have the HSE coming down on them telling them this is not safe that is not safe; but they also have parents questioning practice (NVCC interview). Thus, the concept of accountability is to the fore front of practice. Within the current inspection system teachers never measure up because [inspectors] always find something no matter how small it is (Annie: community


setting teacher). Indeed, 95% of managers/teachers (N=25) suggested that the inspectorate keep moving the goal posts In the last inspectionit was all routinesnow theyre moving away from that and saying well we dont really want it to be routine based we want it to be freer. You dont know where you stand. Before they didnt want the very young children mixing with the older ones and now theyre encouraging that; so they do change their mind and youre getting a little bit frustrated that youre doing what they said the last time and now theyve changed it again (Justine, community setting teacher). In general, there was a sense of having to keep the HSE happy, a sentiment portrayed through comments such as: we dont rock the boat, I wouldnt draw them (HSE) on me, you just do whatever they ask... even if its a recommendation...do it...theyll make you anyway.

Inspectorate qualifications The inspectorate has a statutory duty to enforce the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006. Ultimately, it is the guardian of quality within the ECCE sector. The lack of appropriate inspectorate qualification was contentious. 97% (N=39) of participants expressed concern about the absence of childcare personnel on the inspection team which it was argued resulted in inconsistency across inspections. According to Eimear, inconsistency is a problem; inspectors are simply learning and interpreting as they go along. They see something in your setting; a policy, a toy or whatever that they like, then they look for it in the next place and if they dont have it, they tell them they have to get it (private manager).


Ruby claimed that because of their PHN back-ground; the inspectorate was uncertain about the dynamic aspects of quality; they concentrate on the area they know best.... measure the place to bits; probe it and measure it and test it and count whatever [they] can count (NVCC interview). Martina, a HSE inspector with a PHN back-ground confirmed this assertion, when the 1996 regulations were introduced, we got on fine we were able to measure rooms...I could do any part of it....I became an expert, the same will happen with Article 5 (HSE interview). In order to redress the imbalance associated with the perceived lack of inspectorate qualifications; 90% of participants (N=39) recommended a strengthening of the inspection system. A dual inspection system was proposed; where the static elements such as health and safety and the environmental aspects remain with the HSE while responsibility for curriculum and the more dynamic aspects of quality would be transferred to the DES (Ruby NVCC interview). Irrespective of a desire to broaden the composition of the inspectorate, there was consensus that any additional personnel appointed to the inspectorate should have a qualification in the early years specifically (Sophia: CCC interview). HSE inspectors were not adverse to the idea of expanding the composition of inspection teams. Magdalene (HSE interview) acknowledged that the inspectorate role was not solely the remit of PHNs. Indicating an awareness of the challenges associated with inspectorate qualifications, she explained that the inclusion of ECCE graduates or experienced teachers on the team would enable the inspectorate to be more credible and supportive to providers who are asking where they go next and how they can improve. Highlighting further the


deficiencies in the inspection process, Magdalene explained that in order to support the sector to enhance and implement best practice; inspectors need to understand what it is they are talking about (HSE interview). HSE perspective on inspector qualifications There was little doubt that inspectors were aware of criticisms regarding their qualifications. They explained that when the initial regulations were introduced in 1996 that the natural home for them was with the HSE (Magdalene: HSE interview). Accordingly, the role of inspectorate was given to PHNs around the country. Pointing to her poor perception of ECCE teachers, Christine justified the appointment of PHNs claiming that they have the maturity of understanding the seriousness of the situation that, children are in, [whereas] people in child care wouldnt have that level of maturity (HSE interview). Magdalene disagreed. She was critical of PHN qualifications, stating that PHN understanding of child development was utterly different from group care; it took no account of how to support childrens learning and development in a group situation. Consequently, PHNs are looking at learning and development but they just dont get it. Thus, Article 5 of the revised Childcare (pre- school services) regulations, 2006 was a real challenge for the inspection teams (Magdalene, HSE interview). Despite these misgivings Magdalene was adamant that inspectors are actually functional authorised officers of the HSE which has got the legal responsibility for looking at Article 5. Driving standards down Both the NVCCs and the CCCs were concerned that providers dont realise that the preschool regulations are only minimum quality requirements (Ruby: NVCC interview). As such, fears were expressed that regulations do little


to further the quest for quality. Because daily practice is all about complying with the regulations (Alana: NVCC interview), the sector is more concerned with looking at what has to be done as opposed to what could be done (Patsy: NVCC interview). Whereas the over arching objective is to improve quality, the regulations may in fact drive standards down (Patsy: NVCC interview). These concerns were shared by CCC participants who spoke of an over emphasis on minimum basic standards and the top down heavy handedness of the HSE (Jacinta: CCC interview). This approach instils fear rather than building capacity. In turn, the sector attempts to achieve minimum standards as set out in the regulations rather than seeking to maximise quality. Ultimate possession of power and authority Signifying feelings of helplessness, teachers/managers identified their single biggest issue as the level of power given to the HSE over us (Tara: private setting teacher). Congruent with CCC perspectives, 90% (N=25) stated that the inspectorate used a heavy handed approach (Nicola: community manager) in terms of regulatory enforcement. Highlighting a stark diversity of opinion between the inspectorate and teachers/managers, Magdalene was concerned that the inspectorate was not robust enough about challenging peoples practice (HSE interview). All four inspectors were unequivocal that the regulations are the law, are the law are the law, they were willing to take whatever measures necessary including court to make sure that the sector is compliant....it doesnt bother us (Magdalene: HSE interview). Ultimately, the regulations are binding, providers are legally obliged to comply and our job is to make sure that it happens. Discussion


Earlier in this paper, regulations were described as a vital aspect of governments responsibility for protecting children from the risk of harm and for promoting their healthy development and learning (Sciarra et al, 2009, p.96) while attending ECCE settings. Few could argue with this premise. Likewise, if the purpose of regulating the ECCE sector is to ensure minimum quality standards; enforcement practices must be upheld (Wiggans Helburn et al. 2002). This study provides insight into an enormous sense of frustration and helplessness experienced by ECCE teachers/managers in terms of regulatory enforcement. These feelings were not related to the childcare regulations, per se; rather they were directly related to the arbitrary nature of regulatory enforcement. Findings are consistent with Tickells review of the EYFS (2011a) concerning the tensions experienced by teachers/managers in Ireland regarding the lack of inspectorate qualifications and knowledge, inconsistencies across inspection and, the perceived power of the inspectorate. Findings suggest that teachers/managers were frustrated by these issues and, consistent with Tickells (2011a) findings; did not trust the inspectorate to make fair and balanced judgements. There is broad consensus on the need for inspectors to have training in childcare or a related field (Gormley, 2000; Sciarra et al. 2009; Wiggans Helburn et al.2009). This study indicates that a PHN or EHO background limits inspectorate ability to assess certain aspects of the regulations; notably, child development. In 1999, the DES stressed the need for a single inspectorate with expertise in public health and education. Much has changed since 1999 in terms of regulating the ECCE sector in Ireland, i.e., Article 5: Health, Welfare and Development of the Child of the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006. The combination of PHN/EHO leaves the inspectorate lacking in curricular


or pedagogical knowledge (Bennett, 2004). This is problematic. On their own admission, PHN understanding of child development is utterly different from group care... [PHNs are] looking at learning and development but they just dont get it (Magdalene: HSE interview). This finding raises serious questions about the ability of the inspectorate to assess the early education aspect of the childcare regulations. If inspectors do not understand the basic principles of early education; how can they inspect this aspect of ECCE provision? There is a direct correlation between inspectorate qualifications and an unhealthy focus on health and safety. Rubys (NVCC interview) synopsis is particularly relevant. She argues that because the inspectorate is uncertain about the dynamic aspects of quality, they concentrate on what they know best; measuring, probing, testing. Hence, while regulation contributes to the structural and process elements of quality, it can lead to excessive risk management (Fenech et al. 2005, p.6). Findings in this study endorse this view. In fact, findings indicate that because of regulation; ECCE environments have become sanitised. Teachers in this study were afraid to let children climb, run, fall or get dirty. While the purpose of regulation may well be to reduce the risk of harm to children when attending ECCE settings, teachers also have a responsibility to enhance childrens development and learning. Yet, this study indicates that teachers are restricted in the types of experiences they are permitted to offer children. Requests to remove a vase of flowers or necklaces from a dressing up box or, to cover the outdoor play area in multi- purpose matting appear misguided and surely deprive children of valuable educational experiences. As discussed, the fact that daily practice is all about complying with


the regulations with an associated emphasis on risk management; fuels claims that regulations do little to further the quest for quality within the sector. Consistent with the notion of policing the inspection process and controlling the environment (Baldock, 2001; Dahlberg et al, 1999; Gormley, 1999), ECCE teachers/managers concurred on the need to keep the HSE happy. This is a difficult task, not least because the inspectorate continually moves the goal posts so that teachers never know what inspectors are looking for. Such inconsistencies are also of concern in the UK (Tickell, 2011a). Equally disconcerting in this study is the suggestion that regulatory compliance is linked to fear. Unlike Denmark, Finland and NZ, teachers are not permitted to be autonomous; rather their practice is rigidly policed. Teachers/managers simply do not want to draw [the HSE] on us. This sense of helplessness may well be related to the weak professional status of the sector, poor training levels and appalling remuneration (Hayes, 2006; Mahony & Hayes, 2006; name deleted; OECD, 2004 and 2006) which undermine sectoral confidence and belief in the value of their work. In common with NZ, there are few incentives for teachers in Ireland to exceed minimum quality standards. In this respect, Sciarra et al. (2009) note that if the regulatory system is to be effective, other aspects of the ECCE services infrastructure must also be in place including; an effective system of professional development and appropriate remuneration (name deleted). The DES (2011) describes the role of the ECCE teacher as being no less critical to ensuring positive experiences and outcomes for childrens learning well-being and development (p. 27). This statement points to the contradictory nature of ECCE. On the one hand, teachers work is critical to young childrens development; on the other, in the absence of a mandatory training requirement,


teachers are legally obliged to meet regulatory requirements. This situation lies in stark contrast to that which pertains in other countries, e.g. Danish pedagogues undertake three and a half years of training and graduate as Bachelors and, in NZ, the benchmark qualification for qualified teachers is a Diploma of Teaching or a Bachelor Degree (Early Childhood Education) both of which require three years of full time study. Although this paper highlights certain anomalies with monitoring and assessment of quality in these countries, it is evident that regulation alone does not result in quality. Appropriate support mechanisms of which the training, qualifications and remuneration of ECCE teachers is paramount. Findings indicate that in Ireland at least, defining quality is an inherently exclusive didactic process (Dahlberg et al.1999, p.94), undertaken by the HSE whose power and claims to legitimacy enable them to determine what is to be understood as true or false (Dahlberg et al, 1999, p. 94). Inspectors use their power as functional authorised officers of the HSE (Magdalene: HSE interview) to determine what is true or false in terms of quality. Within the regulatory environment, the HSE act as powerful agents who have the capacity to realise their will over the will of powerless people (Mills, 2003, p. 34 -35). The legitimacy of the HSE is evident through its disregard for Solta: the National Quality Framework for ECCE (CECDE, 2006) which was intended to contribute to the development of a modern regulatory and inspection environment (Schonfeld, 2006, p. 3) in favour of developing its own quality standards. Its legitimacy is equally apparent by the manner in which it overlooks its inability to adequately inspect Article 5 of the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006. Foucault (1980) would have us envisage power as something that


circulates or functions in the form of a chain (p.98) where it is employed and exercised through a net like organisation (p.98). Conversely, in this study, power is indeed a repressive hypothesis (Foucault, p. 82) that is unquestionably owned and imposed by the powerful inspectorate onto the powerless ECCE sector. Therefore, ECCE teachers/managers are simply the recipients of power (Mills, 2003, p.35); they are disenfranchised by the didactic regulatory enforcement style evident in this study. The inspectorate leaves little room for doubt; the regulations are the law, are the law are the law...providers are legally obliged to comply and [the inspectors] job is to make sure that it happens. Little wonder, that teachers/managers have become docile bodies (Foucault, 1977, p. 138); obedient, transformed and useful. Conclusion The overarching objective of this paper was to provide a fuller picture (Duncan, 2004, p.171) of the regulatory environment and its impact upon the working lives of ECCE teachers and managers. In contrast to Finland, Denmark and NZ, the approach to ensuring quality in Ireland is typified by a top down macro approach at the centre of which is the power and legitimacy of the HSE. Accordingly, the ECCE sector is disenfranchised and operates within a culture of fear; where teachers/managers believe that the inspection system is predisposed towards health and safety. Hence, the sector has a fundamental mistrust of the HSE believing that it applies a narrow set of criteria subject to the whim of individual inspectors. Worryingly, rather than enhance quality; regulations may drive standards down as the sector puts all its energy into meeting rather than exceeding minimum standards.


Undoubtedly, teachers/managers adopt a docile demeanour and lack the capacity to engage with the inspectorate in a meaningful way. Their inability to do so is hindered by their poor training levels and feelings of helplessness when confronted by didactic inspectorate practice. They therefore accept inspectorate dictates without question. Teachers must be supported to develop the capacity to explain their practice; to convey why it is necessary for children to engage in risk taking, to explore the benefits of the dressing up box and so on. Only in this way, can power become something other than a repressive hypothesis (Foucault, 1980, p. 82); that does not weigh on the ECCE sector as a force that says no (Foucault, 1980). Regardless of their lack of capacity to inspect Article 5 of the Childcare (pre-school services) Regulations, 2006, the HSE operate from the other side of the fence (Brown & Sumsion, 2007); effectively, from a position of governmentality (Foucault, 1991). Thus, as functional authorised officers of the HSE they must ensure that the ECCE sector complies with the regulations. This involves going to court. In this construct, the HSE use their statutory authority to enforce aspects of the childcare regulations that they themselves do not comprehend. Given that the inspectorate is the ultimate guardian of quality within the ECCE sector, it is inconceivable that the government unquestionably accepts this level of ineptitude and dysfunction from those responsible for ensuring that the sector complies with basic minimum requirements. This is indicative of an abject failure by government to adequately address the issues endemic within the sector; inspectorate training and background, teacher training levels, support, resources and appropriate remuneration. If government is serious about improving quality


standards, then it must mimic the multi-method approach to quality evident in Denmark, Finland and NZ. Essentially, Ireland must confront the wicked issues (Moss, 2007, p.33) that undermine quality; an integrated national approach to funding, regulation, curriculum and qualifications (Moss, 2007). It is imperative that the government does not let the inspectorate hide behind its legal status and that it ensures it is fit for purpose. An immediate skills audit followed by a comprehensive training programme for inspectors or the inclusion of personnel with early childhood expertise are essential steps towards addressing the issues highlighted in this paper.

References Baldock, P. (2001). Regulating Early Years Services. London: David Fulton. Barry, U., & Sherlock, L. (2008). Provision of childcare services in Ireland. UCD School of Justice Working Papers; 8(1): 1 -31. University College Dublin. School of Social Justice.

Bennett, J. (2004). Curriculum Issues in National Policy-Making. Paris, OECD// Malta, EECERA.


Bennett, J. (2007). New Policy Conclusions from Starting Strong 11 - An Update on the OECD Early Childhood Policy Reviews. CECDE Conference, Dublin Castle, Dublin, March, 2007.

Bennett, J., & Neuman, M. J. (2004). Schooling for Early Childhood? Early Childhood, Major Challenges: A review of Early Childhood Education and Care practices in OECD Countries, Organisation for Economic CoOperation and Development, Paris: OECD.

Brown, K and Sumsion, J. 2003. Voices from the other side of the fence: early childhood teachers experiences with mandatory regulatory requirements. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) p 30 -49.

Carroll-Lind, J., & Angus, J. (2011). Through their lens: An inquiry into nonparental education and care of infants and toddlers. Wellington; New Zealand, Office of the Childrens Commissioner. Retrieved from: http://www.occ.org.nz/_data/assets/pdf_file/... 15th November, 2011.

Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2006): Solta. The National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. CECDE, Dublin. Retrieved from: http://www.cecde.ie 30th October, 2011.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Charmaz, K., & Bryant, C. (2007). The sage handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

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

Department of Education and Science. 1999. Ready to Learn - A White Paper on Early Childhood Education. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science (2004): A brief description of the Irish Education system. Dublin: Ireland: Government Stationery Office.


Department of Education and Skills (DES). 2011. Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life: The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People 2011-2020. Retrieved from: www.education.ie/admin/servlet/blobservlet/lit_num_strat.pdf?...EN 11th July, 2011.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2003). Full Day Care: National Standards for Under 8s day care and childminding. Nottingham: DfES Publications Centre.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2008). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from birth to five. Retrieved from: http://www.primaryict.org.uk/.../Statutory_framework_for_the_early_year s 10th November, 2011.

Department of Health and Children (DHC) 2006. Childcare (Pre-school services) (Amendments No 2) Regulations, 2006 and Explanatory Guide to Requirements and Procedures for Notification and Inspection. Dublin, Stationery Office.

Duncan, J. 2004. Misplacing the Teacher? New Zealand Early Childhood Teachers and Early Childhood Education Policy Reforms, 1984-96, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(2), pp. 160-177.

ECE Taskforce NZ 2010. Third Update from the ECE taskforce. Retrieved from: http://www.taskforce.ece.govt.nz/third-update-from-the-ece-taskforce/ 10th November, 2011.

ECE Taskforce NZ 2011. An agenda for amazing children: Final Report of the ECE taskforce. Retrieved from: http://www.taskforce.ece.govt.nz/.../2011/.../Final_Report_ECE_Taskforc e... 9th November, 2011.

Education Review Office. 2010. Quality in Early Childhood Education Services, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.ero.govt.nz/Natioal-Reports/Quality-inEarly-Childhood-Services-August-2010 10th November, 2011.


Fenech, M., Sumsion, J., & Goodfellow, J. 2006. The Regulatory Environment in Long Day Care: a double edged sword for early childhood professional practice, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), pp. 49-58.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison, trans. A. Sheridan. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, trans. R. Hurley. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1980. Truth and Power, in C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, pp. 109-133. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. 1991. Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds) The Foucault Effect: studies in governmentality, pp. 87-104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: IL: Aldine.

Gormley, Jr., W. T. 1995. Everybody's children: Childcare as a public problem. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Gormley, Jr., W. T. 1999. Regulating child care quality. Anals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563(1), 116-129.

Gormley, Jr., W. T 2000: Early childhood education and care regulation: a comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational Research 33, pp 55-74. House of Commons, Children, School and Families Committee. (2010). Sure Start Childrens Centres: fifth report of session 2009 10 (Vol, 11, HC 130 11). Retrieved from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/.../120ii.pd f 18th November, 2011.


Jensen, A. S., Brostrm. S., & O. H. Hansen. 2010. Critical Perspectives on Danish Early Childhood Education and Care Between the Technical And The Political. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2010.506599 10th October, 2011.

Lombardi, J. 2003. Time to Care: redesigning child care to promote education, support families, and build communities. USA: Temple University Press.

Mahony, K., & Hayes, N. 2006. In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives. Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin Institute of Technology. Dublin: Ireland, Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education.

Meade, A., & Podmore, V.N. 2010. Caring and Learning Together: A Case Study of New Zealand. Early Childhood and Family Policy Series N 16 2010. UNESCO Education Sector. Retrieved from: http://www.unescodoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001872/187234e.pdf 10th November, 2011.

Mills, S. 2003. Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.

Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2002). Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki. Retrieved from: http://www.minedo.govt.nz/.../pathways to the Future 15th November, 2011.

Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2009). Kindergarten Teachers Collective Agreement. Retrieved from: www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/.../... 10th November, 2011.

Moss, P. (2007) Leading the wave. New Zealand in an international context. Travelling pathways to the future - Ng huarahi arataki. Early childhood education symposium proceedings 2-3 May 27, (27-36). Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Neuman, M. J. 2005. Governance of early childhood education and care: recent developments in OECD countries. Early Years, Vol. 25, No 2, pp.129-


141. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10/1080/09575140500130992 3rd November, 2011.

Oberhuemer, P., Schreyer, I., & Neuman, I. 2010. Professionals in Early Childhood Education and Care Systems: European Profiles. Germany: Barbara Budrich publishers. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) 2003. The education of six year olds in England, Denmark and Finland: An international comparative study. Retrieved FROM: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/.../education-of-sixyear-olds-england-denmark-...15th November, 2011. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2004. Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Ireland. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2006. Starting Strong 11: Early Childhood Care and Education. OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2011. Lessons From PISA For The United States, Strong Performers And Successful Reformers In Education. Retrieved from: Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1787/9789264096660-En 10th November 2011.

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sciarra, D., Dorsey, D.J., & Lynch, E. 2009. Developing and Administering a Child care and Education program. 7th Edition. USA: Cengage Learning.

Schonfeld, H. 2006. Ensuring Good Practice? Regulating services for our youngest children. Irish Examiner article 17th August 2006.

Tickell, C. 2011 a. The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning. An independent Report on the Early Years Foundation Stage to Her Majestys Government. Retrieved from http://outdoormatters.co.uk/...2011/.../The-Early-Years-Foundations-forli...10th November, 2011.


Tickell, C. 2011 b. The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Review: Report on the Evidence. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview 15th November, 2011.

Wiggans Helburn, S., & Bergman, R. 2002. Americas Child Care Problem: the Way Out. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

Documents

Revised ECEJ 18th November