From Choice to Change: An Analysis of the ‘choice’ Discourse in Canada's 2006 Federal Election

Richardson, Brooke; Langford, Rachel; Friendly, Martha; Rauhala, Ann

doi:10.2304/ciec.2013.14.2.155

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These two funding mechanisms are promoted by the government to facilitate parents ' choice for formal or informal childcare within the mixed market (Richardson et al . ). As discussed earlier, and suggested in the examples above, public funding for in‐home childcare does not necessarily indicate public responsibility or the formalization of services.…”

Section: The Intersection Of Ecec and Migration Policymentioning

confidence: 97%

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK, Canada and Australia

Adamson

Brennan

2016

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy focuses overwhelmingly on formal, centre‐based provision and, to a lesser extent, on family day care (or childminding) provided in the homes of registered carers. Comparatively little research addresses the policy treatment of care provided in the child's home by nannies and au pairs. This article examines the position of in‐home childcare in Australia, the UK and Canada, and the varied nature and extent of public funding and regulation. Introducing a new dimension into comparative studies of ECEC, it also explores how shifts in migration policy in each country have intersected with ECEC funding and regulation to reshape the recruitment and employment of in‐home child carers. Australia, the UK and Canada are all liberal, market‐oriented countries, but there is considerable diversity in the way governments support and regulate in‐home childcare, their rationales for so doing, and in the connections between childcare and migration. We argue that connecting the analysis of in‐home childcare to migration policies raises new questions about the classification and comparison of ECEC policies.

show abstract

Section: The Intersection Of Ecec and Migration Policymentioning

confidence: 97%

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK, Canada and Australia

Adamson

Brennan

2016

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, while ECEs obtained professionalization, their equal status as partners with OCTs in the classroom is fundamentally untrue. Although both the teaching and ECE professions are characterized by feminization, OCTs have been discursively characterized as educators, while ECEs have been framed as care workers within a neoliberal context that devalues care work (Langford, Powell, & Bezanson, 2020;Richardson et al, 2013).…”

Section: Race-ing Eces and Octsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privileging Power: Early Childhood Educators, Teachers, and Racial Socialization in Full-Day Kindergarten

Abawi

2021

J Child. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically unpacks the racialized and gendered hierarchies between the co-teaching model of early childhood educators (ECEs) and Ontario certified teachers (OCTs) in full-day kindergarten (FDK), and how such positionalities speak to racial socialization in early learning spaces. While young children and early learning spaces are often portrayed as raceless, ahistorical, and apolitical, extant literature suggests that children as young as two years of age are aware of visible and cultural differences between themselves and other groups. The paper employs a reconceptualist framework by drawing on critical race theory to explorehow racialized power relations between ECEs and teachers inform hierarchies of dominance and impact processes of racial socialization in FDK learning spaces. While both professions are predominantly feminized, the overwhelming majority of teachers in Ontario are white and middle class, whereas ECEs in FDK programs are more likely to be racialized and marginalized due to low wages and diminished professional status as care workers rather than educators. Although there has been great emphasis on the importance of diversifying the teacher workforce, there is minimal study on the impact of the hierarchies and racialized power relations between ECEs and OCTs and their impact on racial socialization in FDK programs. This conceptual paper seeks to address this gap.

show abstract

“…This major research paper identified the "choice" discourse, rooted in a conservative ideology favouring the stay-at-home-mom family model, as the dominant representation of childcare. Richardson, Langford, Friendly & Rauhala (2013) went on to problematize this narrow conceptualization and representation of childcare suggesting that emotionally laden ideologies overshadowed rational and critical policy debates in the media.…”

Section: Literature Review: Childcare Policy Representation In the Canadian Pressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical discourse for critical policy: examining the discursive construction of the childcare policy "problem" in Canadian newspapers between 2008 and 2015

Richardson¹

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides insight into the wide and chronic gaps between childcare research and policy in Canada. More specifically, connections are made between how childcare policy was discussed in newspapers between 2008 and 2015, power relationships in society and policy outcomes. The theoretical ideas and methodological tools of political scientist Carol Bacchi and Norman Fairclough inform a what-is-the-problem-represented-to-be (WPR) and critical discourse analysis (CDA) respectively. The data was broken up into two periods: Period A (Jan 2008-Oct 2014) when childcare policy was peripheral on the federal policy agenda and Period B (Oct 2014-Nov 2015) when childcare policy re-emerged on the agenda. Data from both periods was analysed using WPR while only Period B data were analyzed using CDA. The findings reveal low levels of coverage of childcare policy during Period A, though coverage that did exist included a variety of problematizations. In Period B, when the volume of coverage of childcare coverage notably increased, the diversity of problematizations was much more limited and polarized. Childcare was most frequently represented as a private/family problem, a free market problem and/or a public problem – though the CDA revealed that the latter problematization was often superficially treated. The CDA revealed ideological tensions through a tendency of authors to dichotomize parental and non-parental care of children (care as a barrier/support to parenting). Gendered differences to reporting on childcare policy were also observed whereby male reporters asserted stronger modal claims than female authors, although female authors appear to have made a more concerted effort to contextualize their muted claims. Overall it is concluded that representation of childcare policy problems was limited to ideological ideals that perpetuate gendered, hegemonic power relations in society. It is suggested that this has contributed to a continuation of the status quo – with no significant shift in childcare policy at the federal level. A closer analysis of selected texts published in the year leading up to the 2015 election revealed that several text and discourse processes allowed dominant discourses not in the interests of those most affected by childcare (i.e., women, children and families) to remain largely unchallenged.

show abstract

From Choice to Change: An Analysis of the ‘choice’ Discourse in Canada's 2006 Federal Election

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK, Canada and Australia

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK, Canada and Australia

Privileging Power: Early Childhood Educators, Teachers, and Racial Socialization in Full-Day Kindergarten

Critical discourse for critical policy: examining the discursive construction of the childcare policy "problem" in Canadian newspapers between 2008 and 2015

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About