Pursuing a Social Justice Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care: Interrogating Marketisation Hegemony in the Academy

  • Marianne FenechEmail author


This chapter critiques the marketised provisioning of early childhood education and care that is entrenched in Australia and many Western countries. Focusing on neoliberal, market-individualism approaches to ECEC in Australia, and drawing on Fraser’s (Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009) conceptualisation of social justice, inequitable outcomes for families on low incomes are highlighted, despite key ECEC policies over the past decade having been premised on explicit social justice principles. Given that these approaches are now hegemonic in education in Australia it may seem a futile exercise to promote alternatives that more authentically uphold social justice. This chapter argues that taking up such a challenge in the academy is imperative and draws on Sumsion’s (Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31, 1–9, 2006) conceptual framework for political activism to proffer transformative ways forward.


  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2017). 4240.0 – Preschool education, Australia, 2017. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from
  2. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2017). Guide to the national quality framework. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from
  3. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2018). NQF snapshot: Q1 2018. Retrieved May 23, 2018, from
  4. Australian Government. (2017). Child care reforms pass parliament. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from
  5. Ball, S. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beutler, D., & Fenech, M. (2018). An analysis of the Australian government’s jobs for families child care package: The utility of Bacchi’s WPR methodology to identify potential influences on parents’ childcare choices. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(1), 16–24. Scholar
  7. Bown, K. (2013). The New South Wales campaign for improved staff ratios for babies in Centre-based ECEC (2002–2009): Influences on politicians’ decisions. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(3), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan, D. (1998). The politics of Australian child care: Philanthropy to feminism and beyond (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brennan, D. (2014). The business of care: Australia’s experiment with the marketisation of childcare. In C. Miller & L. Orchard (Eds.), Australian public policy: Progressive ideas in the neoliberal ascendency (pp. 151–168). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cleveland, G., Forer, B., Hyatt, D., Japel, C., & Krashinsky, M. (2007). An economic perspective on the current and future role of nonprofit provision of early learning and child care services in Canada. Retrieved from
  11. Cloney, D., Cleveland, G., Hattie, J., & Tayler, C. (2016). Variations in the availability and quality of early childhood education and care by socioeconomic status of neighborhoods. Early Education and Development, 27(3), 384–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connell, R. (2013). Why do market ‘reforms’ persistently increase inequality? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2), 279–285. Scholar
  13. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2009a). Investing in the early years: A national childhood development strategy. Retrieved June 01, 2017, from
  14. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2009b). National partnership agreement on early childhood education. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from
  15. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2009c). National partnership agreement on the national quality agenda for early childhood education and care. Retrieved October 29, 2017, from
  16. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2018a). Universal access to early childhood education. Retrieved August 26, 2018, from
  17. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2018b). New child care package overview. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from
  18. Fenech, M., & Lotz, M. (2018). Systems advocacy in the professional practice of early childhood teachers: From the antithetical to the ethical. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 38(1), 19–34. Scholar
  19. Fenech, M., & Wilkins, D. (2018). The representation of the national quality framework in the Australian print media: Silences and slants in the mediatisation of early childhood policy. Journal of Education Policy. Advance online publication. Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1981). So is it important to think? In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), (1994). Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (R. Hurley & Others, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  23. Giroux, H. (2004). Terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Kam, P. K. (2012). Back to the ‘social’ of social work: Reviving the social work profession’s contribution to the promotion of social justice. International Social Work, 1–25. Scholar
  25. Lloyd, E., & Penn, H. (2014). Childcare markets in an age of austerity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), 386–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacDonald-Vemic, A., & Portelli, J. (2018). Performance power: The impact of neoliberalism on social justice educators’ ways of speaking about their educational practice. Critical Studies in Education (online first).
  27. Mills, M. (2012). The work of Nancy Fraser and a socially just education system. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 1011–1018). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Moss, P. (2009). There are alternatives! Markets and democratic experimentalism in early childhood education and care (Working Paper No. 53). The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation and Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pascoe, S., & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our game: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools through early childhood interventions. Retrieved February 02, 2018, from—data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1159357/Lifting-Our-Game-Final-Report.pdf
  31. Penn, H. (2011). Gambling on the market: The role of for-profit provision in early childhood education and care. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), 150–161. Scholar
  32. Productivity Commission. (2014). Childcare and early childhood learning (Inquiry Report No. 73, Vol. 2). Retrieved April 07, 2018, from
  33. Productivity Commission. (2018). Report on Government Services 2018. Chapter 3: Early childhood education and care. Retrieved June 02, 2018, from
  34. Purcal, C., & Fisher, K. (2003). Review of the early childhood teachers shortage interim policy: Final report. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from
  35. Rizvi, F. (2013). Equity and marketisation: A brief commentary. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2), 274–278. Scholar
  36. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SNAICC. (2016). Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016: Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. Retrieved February 17, 2017, from
  39. Sumsion, J. (2006). From Whitlam to economic rationalism and beyond: A conceptual framework for political activism in children’s services. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woodrow, C., & Press, F. (2018). The privatisation/marketisation of ECEC debate: Social versus neoliberal models. In L. Miller, C. Cameron, C. Dalli, & N. Barbiur (Eds.), The Sage handbook of early childhood policy (pp. 537–550). Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations