Commodification, corporatisation and children's spaces.

For increasing numbers of Australian children, childcare is part of their everyday experiences. The marketisation and corporatisation of education have been under discussion for some time, particularly in relation to schooling. There has been comparatively little public scrutiny of how this trend might impact on, and shape Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). This article explores the existing and potential impacts of privatisation and corporatisation of ECEC in terms of how these constrain and are reshaping the vision and the practice of what is done for children in the prior-to-school sector.

**********

Little public recognition is given to either the limits that democracies must place on market power or how corporate culture and its narrow definition of freedom as a private good, actually may threaten the wellbeing of children and democracy itself. In short, the conflation of democracy with the market cancels the tension between market moralities and those values of civil society that cannot be measured in strictly commercial terms but that are critical to democratic public life. I'm referring specifically to values such as justice, respect for children and the rights of citizens. (Giroux, 2000, p. 2)

Between 1993 and 2002, the numbers of children in formal childcare settings increased by 39 per cent (Moyle, Kelly, Aydinli, & Middleton, 2003), and with the increasing government emphasis on workforce participation, this trend is likely to continue. Accompanying this increase has been a significant shift in the nature of childcare provision away from the community-based sector, with the private, for-profit sector now providing most long day care places throughout Australia. More recently, the corporate sector has become a major player, with one publicly listed company now owning 17 per cent of childcare centres. Regularly featuring in the finance sections of Australian newspapers, corporatisation is placing the provision of childcare in a different and unexpected commercial mainstream. However, in the provision of children's services, there is far more at stake for a community than business potential. Key issues, including the purposes of early childhood services, the importance of quality provision and the conditions of those working in the sector are rarely, if ever, rehearsed in such contexts.

The confluence of growing corporatisation, increasing participation in formal early childhood services and international public policy attention to the relationship between ECEC and children's learning and development (for instance, the OECD Thematic Review of ECEC) drives us to consider whether childcare has become big business in a way that reframes the potentialities of social and educational policy for young children. This analysis comes at a point when corporate providers active in childcare are growing and expressing interest in the school sector.

For many children, the experience of childcare is one which they have from infancy until commencement of schooling. Children who enter full-time childcare when they are babies and stay until they enter school, spend almost the same number of hours in an early childhood setting as they will for the whole of their schooling (National Childcare Accreditation Council, 2004). These trends are occurring against a steadily accumulating bank of research which points to the efficacy of good quality early years programs in enhancing and improving children's outcomes at school and over their life course; and conversely points to the adverse impact of poor quality on children's concurrent and ongoing development (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2000).

The aim of this article is to provoke debate on the impact of privatisation and corporatisation in ECEC in constraining and reshaping the vision and the practice of what we do for children. We begin by describing the current policy and arrangements for provision. The article then identifies key issues, including questions around the 'consumption' of childcare, and issues of consumer choice and how these play out in a marketised context. Emerging tensions between children's wellbeing, regulation and the market are then explored. Alternative imaginings of the place and purposes of early childhood services are then considered in terms of constructions of the child as citizen. This suggests a broader social vision for early childhood in the fabric of the Australian community. The article concludes by identifying areas in which further work is required to provide a more fully informed understanding of what is occurring and possible directions for early childhood service provision.

Current arrangements and context

The incursion of corporatisation and privatisation is most evident in centre-based long day care. However, early childhood education is a complex and fragmented policy area in which numerous ambiguities, tensions and contradictions co-exist. Arguably, these ambiguities and tensions have contributed significantly to the rise of corporate childcare.

Evident in the policies which have shaped the provision of early childhood education are competing views about the role and desirability of education and care services for young children. Ailwood (2004, p. 19) found that 'the education of young children is deeply embedded in a range of complex and contradictory 'adult' discourses and knowledges, including those of motherhood, politics, worker, citizen and the economy'. This has contributed to an ambiguity of purpose.

The Australian standards and policies established for ECEC provide an example of contested space, where conflicting views about their purpose are played out. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and in some jurisdictions, local government all play a role in ECEC. Childcare provision is reliant upon a mix of government, non-profit and for-profit providers. In some jurisdictions, preschool is government-provided and universal, in others it is not. Some jurisdictions divide the education and care of children between the portfolios of community services and education, others do not. NSW requires the employment of early childhood teachers in both long day care and preschool, but many other jurisdictions require teachers only in preschool. Although early childhood curricula exist in most states and territories, there are substantial variations in philosophical approach, content, and the age range, services and staff to which they apply. Such fragmentation emanates from the lack of a shared philosophical underpinning which the OECD Country Note (2001, p. 46) observed left ECEC in Australia 'open to influences from all sides'.

Three constructions of ECEC dominate the Australian policy landscape. The first construction limits conceptual understandings of care to physical safety and well-being provided by a parental (read 'mother') substitute. The subsidisation of childcare fees by government ties such provision to economic goals and labour force participation, with the primary objective of the Commonwealth Childcare Program 'helping families to participate in the social and economic life of the community through the provision of support for childcare services' (Family and Community Services [FaCS], 2003b). Funded policy initiatives within the federal government's Stronger Families and Communities Strategy construct early childhood as the site of remediation of the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, offering potential for social integration. This construction provides an expanded view of early childhood as a social institution. It also constructs ECEC as a 'technology for social stability and economic progress, the young child as a redemptive vehicle to be programmed to become a solution to certain problems ... instrumental in rationality, universalist in ethics, technical in its approach' (Moss, 2001, p. 13). A third view links early childhood to schooling and hence focused on 'preparation' for school.

These policy ambiguities have facilitated the rise of corporate provision. The administrative complexity and multiple accountability requirements accumulating from various tiers of government have undermined the capacity of voluntary community- and parent-based committees to run services efficiently. Changes in patterns of parental workforce participation mean that the typical arrangements of preschool do not accommodate the needs of many families and the absence of a universal preschool sector has left a policy gap. However, the heavy reliance on the private sector for the provision of long day care is primarily the result of deliberate policy interventions on the part of the federal government.

Today, the private sector provides most long day care centres in Australia (67 per cent in June 2001) with the non-profit community-based sector dominating the provision of other types of funded services, predominantly family day care and outside school hours care (96 per cent) (Moyle et al., 2003). Preschool is predominantly the province of state and territory education departments.

At the end of 2004, the Australian Competition and Consumers Council (ACCC) approved the merger of two of Australia's largest corporate childcare providers, ABC Learning and Peppercorn. The merger has resulted in approximately 17 per cent of long day care centres in Australia being owned by the one corporation which is also interested in establishing 'for-profit' schools (Novak, 2005).

Policy questions

Corporatisation may be regarded as a consolidation of privatisation and private sector power. Both the privatisation and corporatisation of children's services are expressions of a global/local economic agenda where the citizen has been replaced by the consumer (Giroux, 2000), and the notion of publicly supported infrastructure has been replaced by dependence on the market. Here, democracy is no longer a political concept, rather a wholly economic concept (Apple, 2005). As democracy struggles to retain its value as a political virtue concerned with the collective good of the public, the notion of democratic participation is replaced by a concept of consumer choice. Thus we need to ask, what is happening to early childhood in the age of the consumer? How is it 'sold' in an era of increasing corporatisation? What images and understandings of children are being constructed? What is being lost and gained?

The marketisation vis-a-vis schooling has given rise to the increasing role for the corporate sector in relation to the following: advice and policy direction, connections between education and the labour market; promotion of school-industry links; advertising sponsorship and philanthropy; curriculum development; and models of business management (Epstein & Kenway, 1996). What is distinctive about the childcare sector is the issue of corporate provision. While marketisation has played out differently in the early childhood sector, particularly through corporate provision, this experience signals potential trends for the future of schooling.

Issues of consumer 'choice'

Who is the consumer of childcare? In line with the dominant discourse, the immediate common response is 'the parents'. Parents are the 'buyers' of the childcare place, albeit subsidised by the government. Although parental demand may have enabled governments to legitimise the creation of the market, children 'consume' the daily experience of childcare. This raises questions of whose choice, what choice and how might choices be manipulated. The exercise of market choice is applied without regard for children's experiences as the ultimate consumers of childcare. In the frame of citizenship, child as citizen may have an entitlement to responsive and engaging education and care. However, the reconstruction of citizen as consumer reconstructs the purposes of early childhood education and care in problematic ways, as the equation of democracy with consumer choice erodes notions of a collective responsibility for public good through a privatised and individualised protection of self-interest. In the theory of the market, competition enhances choices. Thus in the market of ECEC, parents will exercise their democratic right to choose a childcare place which meets their desires. This simplistic understanding fails to recognise the tangible limits to exercising choice because of the complex interplay of factors associated with availability, affordability, quality and the imperfect information upon which parents base their decisions.

Both affordability and availability limit choices. For many parents (predominantly women) returning to work after the birth of a child, choice may be nonexistent. There is an acknowledged shortage of childcare places for infants and toddlers and some women report being placed in the unenviable position of having to take the only place available, or affordable, in order to resume paid work. At the other end of the spectrum, centres may be competing for enrolments for children age over three. An oversupply of places for this age group exists in some areas because of the lower cost of provision and higher profitability. Additionally, some, government supported preschools provide an alternative for those families with older children who do not require full day care.

There are further complexities regulating the exercise of market choice, when it is available. Several studies have found that parents tend to overestimate the quality of childcare they purchase relative to assessments of objective measures of quality (Cryer & Burchinal, 1997; Helburn, 1995; Mocan, 2001). Reasons for this overestimation of quality include parents lack of knowledge about what to look for, imperfect information about what they are purchasing, or an emotional need to view the childcare as better than it is. As researchers observed:

   Many parents have never purchased childcare before ... working
   parents have little time to seek out and evaluate childcare, even if
   they knew entirely what they were looking for, and the direct
   consumer of childcare, the child cannot easily communicate with the
   parent about what kind of care is being delivered ... and the effect
   of good or bad childcare is seldom immediately apparent.
   (Cleveland & Krashinsky, 2002, p. 39)

These research findings about the limits of parents' capacity for making informed choices suggest that it is unlikely that these consumers exert an upward pressure on the market to improve or deliver quality in ECEC.

Implications of a marketised context

These findings lead to the question of how childcare is marketed to parents. In a historical analysis of marketing to children in the United States, Cross (2002, p. 442) refers to 'child rearing in an age of consumption'. Although he examines the world of advertising, not childcare, his analysis provides a useful frame through which we can view its marketing. He argues that advertising in the consumer age has constructed children as 'valves of adult (consumer) desire' and as such 'adults expression of love for children has justified and encouraged more consumption' (Cross, 2002, p. 442).

If childcare is a site of consumer desire, it is worthwhile to consider the images of children that are generated through marketisation. This is not an issue confined to the private or corporate sector. Both not-for-profit and for-profit services vie for clientele because of the reliance on the market to address supply and demand issues. We examined seven websites advertising childcare services: two corporate, two large not-for-profit providers, two local government providers, and one not-for-profit multi-site provider. Images of children depicted were largely Anglo-Saxon-Celtic (white male, and blond female). Kenway and Bullen (2005) found that these images also dominate popular media culture directed at youthful consumers. Only one website offered images of children that were not recognisable as 'Anglo'. Only one website depicted images of adults in the early childhood setting itself (as distinct from photos of executive officers and directors). In this instance, both were young, blonde, professional women, one representing a staff member, and one a mother).

Websites from both sectors used the language of development and learning. The language and images of the corporate websites emphasised laughter, happiness and safety. Some of the images offered idealised fun-filled childhoods. The language offered reassurance. Parents need not feel guilty taking their children there because the kids themselves want to go (a challenge to the still-heard claims that children should be home with their mothers). The not-for-profit providers tended to give more information about staff qualifications, centre programs and information about their particular philosophy and mission.

In positioning consumption as a means of adults expressing their love for their children, the marketing of childcare suggests a way for parents to buy their children days filled with happiness. This is an appealing image for many parents. However, this message, along with the homogenised cultural views of children and families, does not encourage deep reflection about the possibilities of ECEC as a 'community institution of social solidarity' (Moss, 2001).

A key outcome of policy changes over the last 15 years is that Australian families and the Australian Government now depend on the market for the provision of early childhood services. This trend is a response to and expression of the neo-liberal ideological project. It encapsulates the belief in the capacity of state-regulated market mechanisms to respond appropriately to community needs for infrastructure and services. Privatisation and the dependency upon the private sector exert additional policy influences requiring closer examination.

Privatisation has reconstructed services within the non-profit sector as enterprises which must operate on business principles, competing for the clientele by marketing themselves to the community. This carries a superficial appeal, through promising economic efficiencies, lower costs and competition enhancing choice. Absent from such a construction is a consideration of fundamental questions concerning what values should guide the development of infrastructure for children.

The replacement of a commitment to community service with the rhetoric of business and business management was evident following the removal of operational subsidy to long day care. Non-profit services were urged to and received training in operating as small businesses. Challenged with balancing their finances after substantial funding cuts, many lost the capacity to respond to particular community needs and to provide the environments they desired for their children (Families at Work, 1997; Leppert, 2000; Penrith City Council, 1998).

Privatisation has influenced the nature of policy debates. Policy discussions surrounding early childhood education and care have revealed that issues of business viability and community service lay claim to competing values. Private sector domination of long day care has tended to shift policy deliberations away from children's needs to issues of profitability. Some elements of the private sector have lobbied against policy mechanisms aimed at improving quality in ECEC, because of financial costs. For example, in the review of children's services regulations in NSW, the lowering of staff-to-child ratios for children under two years of age was opposed by some private sector lobby groups (Cox, 2003, pp. 18-19; Wood, 2003). This was despite research evidence supporting the benefits to children of having qualified staff working with smaller numbers of children (Lally, Tortes, & Phelps, 1994). Similarly, some in this sector are now seeking to redefine 'teacher' to enable the recognition of less qualified staff to occupy positions for which the current state regulations require the employment of professional, tertiary educated teachers.

A further impact of private sector dependency is that of residualisation. In the schooling and university sectors, residualisation has emerged as a significant effect of marketisation (Epstein & Kenway, 1996; Wilkinson, 1996). Residualisation arises when the private sector 'creams off' the low cost, higher return components of the provision. This is evident in the tight supply of places for children under two, where the cost of provision is highest. This leaves the community or 'public' sector to provide for these children and families with more complex requirements. The public is left to bear the burden of the higher cost while effectively subsidising profit-taking elsewhere in the sector. Under the market regime, service providers have to make difficult choices about how much 'inclusion' can be afforded. When financial viability and/or profitability are overarching concerns, the additional costs associated with catering for children with distinctive needs becomes an unaffordable choice for some. In an early childhood system based upon values of inclusion, diversity and participation, such invidious choices would not have to be made.

Residualisation may also be a consequence of government policy inciting parental choice. Where parents are interested only in the private, individual benefits accruing for their own children in ECEC, they will tend to exercise market choice in an individualistic manner, rather than with regard to values of social inclusion and equity (Cleveland & Krashinsky, 2002). The social effects of such market choices are likely to work against the interests of diversity and for the re-inscription of existing social order.

Tensions between the market, regulation and children's well-being

At play in the politics of childcare is a tension between affordability, cost and quality. Childcare is expensive to buy, even with government subsidies, and the utilisation of childcare is price sensitive (Cassells, McNamara, Lloyd, & Harding, 2005). Any policy changes that increase or decrease the cost of care for parents have a noticeable impact on whether or not, and how, families use formal childcare services (Families at Work, 1997; Penrith City Council, 1998). Much of the expense of childcare provision comes from the cost of staffing. The cost of staffing is directly influenced by government regulations that determine staff qualifications (more highly qualified staff cost more) and ratios of staff to children (higher number of staff to children costs more). Yet it is precisely numbers and qualifications of staff that research establishes have a profound impact on the quality of service delivery (Smith 1996; Wylie, Thompson, & Kerslake Hendricks, 1996).

While the research evidence linking children's developmental outcomes with their experiences in early childhood settings clearly connects positive outcomes (both concurrent and over time) with good quality settings, and adverse outcomes with poor quality settings (Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer, 1997), competition primarily occurs over cost, not quality. This raises the question as to the extent to which governments expect business to fulfill social policy objectives. In Canada, measurements of quality in childcare centres have found that public centres are superior to private centres (Krashinsky, 1999) dispelling the argument that market forces and competition will take care of quality issues.

Within a business model of ECEC, one way of keeping costs down, is to keep staffing costs low. While economies of scale, particularly in relation to administration, have some cost-reducing impact, the pressure is to contain the wages and conditions of staff, and limit service provision to the minimum regulatory standards. Contrast the budgeted staffing costs of one major corporation--56 per cent of fee income (Groves, Purdie, & Loveday, 2005) with that estimated for a break-even budget in the not-for-profit sector of 80 per cent (Goodfellow cited in Garrett, 2004). A former early childhood advisor to a corporate board captures the dilemma of pursuing profits versus providing services:

   I found the hardest part to be constantly reviewing the status
   of the children's services workforce within each child care centre
   ... constantly reviewing for profit, not for the service provision.
   In many cases, it was a financial decision rather than the program
   which needed so badly to have extra hours for staff. (Fewing cited
   in Garrett, 2004)

A recent New Zealand study found that community-owned centres employed significantly higher percentages of staff with teaching qualifications, and significantly lower proportions of staff with no early childhood qualifications (Mitchell, 2002). Private centres employed the lowest percentage of teachers overall. The New Zealand government has recently addressed these concerns about quality through stronger mandating of teacher ratios in the regulatory framework. In NSW, an assessment of the cost impact of proposed changes to children's services regulations revealed that most centres that operated with higher than minimum staff to child ratios for children under two, operated in the community sector (Fisher & Patulny, 2004). Another study found that privately operated services were over-represented as holders of interim approvals from the regulator to employ lesser qualified staff instead of teachers, and one corporate provider held a percentage of interim approvals that was disproportionately high compared to the number of centres they ran (Purcal & Fisher, 2004). Such findings indicate an urgent need to gather detailed, comparable national data on staffing profiles within the long day care sector especially given the critical shortage of qualified early childhood staff throughout Australia (FaCS, 2003a; Warrilow et al., 2002).

Staffing of early childhood programs in the preschool sector is intensely problematic. Low pay and poor conditions arise from a complex interplay of factors. These include the highly feminised nature of the profession and its concomitant associations with motherhood, as well as the philanthropic and social reform mindsets that characterise the early history of early childhood in Australia (Petrie, 1992; Scutt, 1992). A major report of the Commonwealth Childcare Advisory Council (CCCAC) Childcare: Beyond 2001 raised significant concerns about the status and standing of workers in the sector along with concerns about retaining and attracting people in the context of conditions that fuelled very high staff turnover. Many community-based and for-profit early childhood centres are staffed below the regulatory standards through a 'temporary' approval policy. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the market, lack of supply has not resulted in improved wages and conditions. In fact, quite the opposite seems to occur as issues of quality and qualifications collide with issues of profitability and viability.

In the midst of struggles over qualifications, status, pay and conditions are issues of professional identity. Sachs (1999, 2001) notes the effects of corporate managerialism in eroding strong professional identity in the schooling sector. In particular, school teachers are experiencing reduced professional autonomy as curriculum, pedagogical and assessment controls become increasingly regulated and micro-managed by governments. This changed environment has engendered a 'managerial professionalism' or 'entrepreneurial' identity among teachers who have become more individualistic, compliant and technical in their professional orientation which is based on principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Issues of compliance, autonomy and control are playing out differently in the marketised context of early childhood provision. In a study of ethics in early childhood leadership in the prior-to-school sector, centre directors shared experiences of how their tentative attempts at implementing an inclusive curriculum were challenged by a few staff and parents (Woodrow, 2002). In a context of oversupply of places for 3-5 years, and concerns about financial viability, they withdrew their socially progressive agenda. In effect, their attempts at implementing a socially inclusive vision were disciplined by selected market forces. Conflict emerged around definitions of teacher identity as a new state-developed curriculum became a commodity in the ECEC marketplace (Woodrow & Brennan, 1999). This research highlights the complexity of relationships in early childhood settings, competing ideals and purposes of ECEC and the powerful regulatory effects on curriculum and professional identity of market forces.

Re-envisioning early childhood

An alternative expanded vision for the early childhood environment is emerging from re-imaginings of the types of spaces created for and with children. Within this broader vision, early childhood is a site for the practice of democracy in which 'minor politics', becomes the vehicle for social engagement and transformation.

   [This raises the] possibility of understanding the early childhood
   institution as a forum in civil society where children and adults
   meet and participate together in projects of cultural, social,
   political and economic significance ... to be a community
   institution of social solidarity bearing cultural and symbolic
   significance. (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999, p. 7)

The re-imagined early childhood environment is a physical and discursive space that provides opportunities for many possible projects, including economic and social regeneration of local communities, a place for children's culture and relationships to be networked and a site for the practice of ethics (Moss, 2001).

Within the early childhood community, teachers, practitioners, policy advocates, parents and children are already engaged in such projects. By facilitating children's active decision making and engagement in their communities, these early childhood environments become sites for acknowledging and celebrating children's competence as much as their creative capacities and potential. Taking the work and perspectives of children seriously opens up possibilities for repositioning children's status in the world. For instance, the early childhood programs established in Northern Italy have become international beacons of inspiration for the possibilities of early childhood as a site for the practice of democracy (Dahlberg et al., 1999; Moss & Petrie, 2002). Within Australia, innovative and adventurous policy makers, committed to hearing the voices of children and facilitating children's agency, are showing that consultation with young children is not only possible but enlightening. The consultations informing the development of the ACT Children's Plan is a particular significant instance in this regard. Children themselves are, in this way, exposed to habits of mind which engender an active and informed citizenship essential to the practice of robust democracy.

Unfortunately, such approaches are not the common face of early childhood care and education. A policy context which privileges the expansion of privatised interests restricts these possibilities and limits the kinds of projects that a community might imagine for children and families in community. Equating democracy with consumers' market choices erodes notions of a collective responsibility for public goods, replacing it with an emphasis on private, individual protection of self-interest. Framing early childhood in terms of the education and care of democracy, where children are citizens, recognises their entitlements to engaging and responsive services.

Where to from here?

As academics in the field of early childhood, we have met many bright and committed students who intend to run their own childcare centres. There are also poor and good quality services across both for-profit and non-profit sectors. Many centres struggling with complex administrative and financial arrangements have welcomed the efficiencies and support offered by the corporations. We urge caution in using this analysis to dichotomise all not-for-profit services as 'good' and all private services as 'bad', or to equate privatisation with corporatisation (though both may be a continuation of the other), or to imply that the private sector speaks with one voice.

Nevertheless, the issues that have been identified in this paper raise concerns about how the current and emerging trends in prior-to-school provision are limiting the vision of the potentialities of early childhood education and care in Australia. Current provision represents a philosophical shift from collective to individual responsibility, reshaping notions of civil society. This shift reflects competing understandings of the place of early childhood in Australian society and conflicting policy directions in state intervention. On the one hand, the state is cast as the residual provider of services, and on the other, directly intervening through regulation. As market forces gather momentum, ECEC seems headed on a path that continues to re-inscribe children as objects of social policy and their care and education as a private, individual, profit-making concern. There are mounting obstacles to a more robust and enhanced professional identity for those working in early childhood centres. They need appropriate remuneration and support in the project of forming and informing Australia's citizenry and, deepening and extending the fabric of its citizenry. Internationally, and nationally in localised pockets of provision, established and emerging programs are reconceptualising the place of children by engaging them as active social agents. However, there is diminishing space for reflection on the purposes of early childhood and the character of relationships between parents, children and society.

The need to engage in a project of reconceptualisation of the space of education and care remains. The need to counter the limiting of vision with a deeper expanded vision remains. The need to move imaginings and constructions of early childhood away from the connotations of provider and purchaser, giver and taker, producer and consumer remains.

In this article, we have tried to extend knowledge of the complex interplay of factors at work in ECEC. There is more that requires investigation. Of central importance is the examination of intersection of macro and micro politics in the day-to-day realities of children's experiences. This invites 'fine-grained', evidence-rich research at both local and national levels. The research will be beneficial if it includes the development of a detailed national staffing profile and professionally based assessments of quality using validated research tools to provide an accurate picture of the quality of education and care in Australia. Children's agency should be positioned as a central project of ECEC, and as such this research should involve discussions with children about their experiences, fears and desires.

Key words

child advocacy 

privatisation

child care centres

public policy

early childhood education

private education

References

Ailwood, J. (2004). Genealogies of Governmentality: Producing and managing young children and their education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(3), 19-34.

Apple, M. (2005). Are markets in education democratic? In M. Apple, J. Kenway & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies and politics. New York: Peter Lang.

Cassells, R., McNamara, J., Lloyd, R., & Harding, A. S. (2005, February 10). Perceptions of child care affordability and availability in Australia: What the HILDA survey tells us. Melbourne: AIFS Conference.

Cleveland, G., & Krashinsky, M. (2002). Financing ECEC services in OECD countries. OECD Occasional Papers. Paris: OECD.

Cox, K. (2003, March 16). Planning pregnancies around care places. Sun-Herald, pp. 18-19.

Cross, G. (2002). Valves of desire: A historian's perspectives on parents, children, and marketing. Journal of Consumer Research. 29(3), 441-47.

Cryer, D., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Parents as child care consumers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(1), 35-58.

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

Epstein, D., & Kenway, J. (1996) Marketisation of school education: Feminist studies and perspectives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17(3), 301-314.

Family and Community Services (FaCS) (2003a). Australian Government Report on the April 2003 Childcare Workforce Think Tank. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www. facs'gov'au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/think-tank/$file/think-tank.pdf

Family and Community Services (FaCS). (2003b). Family and Community Services Child Care Information Website. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.facs.gov.au/ internet/facsinternet.nsf/childcare/nav.htm

Families at Work. (1997). Report on the impact of changes in Commonwealth childcare policy and funding on families in NSW. Sydney: Author.

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

Garrett, K. (Executive Producer). (2004, October 3). Child care profits. Background Briefing, Radio National. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/ s1214400.htm

Giroux, H. (2000). Stealing innocence: Corporate culture's war on children. New York: Palgrave.

Groves, E., Purdie, J. & Loveday, M. (February, 2005). ABC Learning Centres Ltd: So much more than childcare! Presentation. Available: http://www.childcare.com.au/images/ 2005%20documents/ABC%20Half%20Yr%20Res_Pres.pdf

Helburn, S. (1995). Cost, quality and outcomes in childcare centers: Technical report. Denver, CO: University of Colorado, Centre for Research in Economic and Social Policy.

Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2005). Globalising the young in the age of desire: Some educational policy issues. In M. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalising education: Policies, pedagogies, and politics. New York: Peter Lang.

Krashinsky, M. (1999). Does auspice matter?: The case of day care in Canada. In W. Powell, & E. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 114-123). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lally, R., Tortes, Y., & Phelps, P. (1994). Caring for infants and toddlers in groups: Necessary considerations for emotional, social, and cognitive development. Zero to Three, 14(5), 1-8.

Leppert, S. (2000, July 25). Child care at a cross roads: Impact of Federal Government funding cuts on community based child care. Family Futures: Issues in Research and Policy. Sydney: AIFS Conference.

Mitchell, L. (2002). Differences between community owned and privately owned early childhood education and care services: A review of evidence. NZCER Occasional Paper 2002/2. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/11743.pdf

Mocan, H. (2001). Can consumers detect lemons? Information asymmetry in the market for child care. National Bureau of Economic Research, WP 8291. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Moss, P. (2001, June 13-15). Beyond early childhood education and care. Paper presented to OECD conference Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care, Stockholm. Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children's services to children's spaces. London: Routledge Falmer.

Moyle, H., Kelly, S., Aydinli, S., & Middleton, S. (2003). Children's and family services. In Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Ed.), Australia's Welfare 2003. Canberra: Author.

National Childcare Accreditation Council. (2004). About quality improvement and assurance in children's services. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://www.ncac.gov.au

Novak, J. (2005). Profit no longer a dirty word in education. On Line Opinion. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3285

OECD. (2001). Early childhood education and care policy in Australia: Country note. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/oecd_ thematicreview/$File/oecd_countrynote_1202.pdf

Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Kagan, S., Yaelin, N., Byler, P., Rustici, J., & Zelazo, J. (2000). The children of the cost, quality and outcomes study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Development Centre.

Penrith City Council. (1998). Submission to the Senate Community Affairs: Reference Committee Inquiry into Child Care Funding. Penrith, NSW: Author.

Petrie, A. (1992). Chasing ideologies in early childhood: The past is still before us. In B. Lambert (Ed.), Changing faces: The early childhood profession in Australia. Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

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

Purcal, C., & Fisher, K. (2004). Review of the Early Childhood Teachers Shortage Interim Policy. Report prepared for the NSW Department of Community Services, Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC). Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Sachs, J. (1999, November). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Paper presented at AARE Annual Conference.

Sachs, J. (2001, November). Curriculum control: The cost to teacher professionalism. Paper presented to AARE Annual Conference.

Scutt, J. (1992). Practice and professionalism: A positive ethos for early childhood. In B. Lambert (Ed.), Changing faces: The early childhood profession in Australia (pp. 31-45). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Smith, A. (1996). The quality of childcare centers for infants in NZ. 'State of the Art' Monograph No 4. Auckland, NZ: Massey University, Association for Research in Education.

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

Wilkinson, H. (1996). Mothers marketing work: The experiences of mothers making choices for children with special needs. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17(3), 315-324.

Wood, M. (2003, March 2). Child care places to fall while fees rise $10 a day. Sun Herald.

Woodrow, C. (2002). Living ethics in early childhood contexts: A critical study. Unpublished PhD thesis. Rockhampton, Queensland: Central Queensland University.

Woodrow, C., & Brennan, M. (1999). Marketised positioning of early childhood: New contexts for curriculum and professional development in Queensland, Australia. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 78-94.

Wylie, C., Thompson, J., & Kerslake Hendricks, A. (1996). Competent children at 5: Families and early education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Frances Press is a Senior Lecturer in Education, School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University, Panorama Ave, Bathurst NSW 2795.

E-mail: [e-mail]

Associate Professor Christine Woodrow is the Head of Early Childhood Teacher Education, in the School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC NSW 1797.

E-mail: [e-mail]