From universalism to selectivity? The background, discourses and ideas of recent early childhood education and care reforms in Finland

Discarding social investment and redistribution in the name of austerity? The case of Finnish family policy reforms 2007—2015

“…The reform meant that the right to full-day childcare for children without both parents in full-time work, education, or on family leave was restricted to 20 h per week. Not only was this restriction controversial but it also undermined ideas emphasising on children's development, early learning, social mobility and wellbeing to an economic rationale that favoured mothers' labour market participation and fiscal austerity (Lundkvist et al, 2017). The main narrative framing this cut was economic.…”

Transforming education through solidarity and collective representation

“…However, successive governments have trended away from any notion of social justice and social inclusion, preferring to rely on free-market, private sector approaches which start with the premise of a level playing field policy (Marston et al, 2014). Legitimacy is established through reference to limited state finances or revenue and made visible in the arguments espousing “no viable alternative to the current system” and “reigning in finances” and austerity as an “economic necessity” (Lundkvist et al, 2017; Piketty, 2014). These discourses conflict with the lived reality of vulnerable groups accessing publicly funded organizations with a childcare center.…”

Global to local perspectives of early childhood education and care

“…However, our conception of the local was less clear and so we were interested to discover how others interpreted the relationship between the global and the local. Whilst there was evidence that the global discourses could be constraining (Millei & Gallagher, 2017); generate mixed feelings between welcomed intervention and compromised pedagogical ideals (Kinkead-Clark, 2017); instrumentalizing childhood and children (Babić, 2017) or creating confused messages as to the social welfare function of ECEC (Lundkvist, Nyby, Autto, & Nygård, 2017), we also observed that the discourses could offer the chance to convince governments of the need to invest in ECEC (Pisani, Dyenka, Sharma, Chhetri, Dang, Gayleg,& Wangdi, 2017) or raise questions as to how those working in ECEC are prepared to fulfil the everincreasing expectations of them (Dubovicki & Jukić, 2017;Visković & Višnjić Jevtić, 2017;Vujičić & Čamber Tambolaš, 2017). We begin our discussion by presenting an overview of the globalization of ECEC, whilst offering a note to readers about 'otherness' and how reading about another context can reaffirm, challenge or extend our own thinking.…”

“…The contrasts in the perspectives on data illustrate how global ideas on ECEC are incorporated into national contexts in different ways, drawing on the discursive formation of ECEC in variable ways in order to support national and local needs. Lundkvist et al (2017), writing from the Finnish context, acknowledge the international reputation of Finland's education model, but also offer an insight into the reading of global discourses on ECEC and how they relate to local interpretations. As such, Lundkvist et al trace the dual strands of ECEC as a social investment strategy in regard to supporting parental employment and investing in children's lifelong learning, but they also recognize how national challenges, such as the requirement for austerity measures (something that is not unique to Finland), will impact on how global discourses are implemented in national policy.…”

“…Outlining different normative ways of thinking about ECEC, they analyse how the context of a country impacts on the implementation of the normative ways of thinking. Lundkvist et al (2017) draw attention to how there is something of a Finnish reading of supporting children's lifelong learning, whereby the welfare of the children and their well-being is emphasized as opposed to an economic rational of investing in their lifelong learning. However, in austere times, such readings can be lost or compromised in the national interest of balancing the books.…”