Regulation and risk: early childhood education and care services as sites where the ‘laugh of Foucault’ resounds

Abstract

This article problematises the construction of regulation as an effective manager of risks to children in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. Adopting a Foucaldian, governmentalist approach to regulation and risk, the authors suggest that governments in Australia have 'risk colonised' regulation to meet their own interests rather than make effective use of regulation as a mechanism for quality assurance. They propose that the risk colonising of regulation has not effectively addressed societal risks to children in ECEC services, and has generated its own risks to quality standards through a preoccupation with institutional risk. In these ways, 'the laugh of Foucault' resounds in the regulation of ECEC services.

Moral Functioning: Navigating the Messy Landscape of Values in Finnish Preschools

“…In our study, the educators were more used to discussing their work in terms of pedagogy rather than in terms of values and morals, though these perspectives are not exclusive of one another. This does not mean, however, that the educators' daily actions were in any way unethical; they showed commitment to values often highlighted in preschool contexts, such as caring, democracy, non-discrimination, and safety (e.g., Broström, 2006;Emilson & Johansson, 2009;Estola, 2003;Fenech et al, 2008;Taggart, 2011;Ylitapio-Mäntylä, 2013). This finding resonates with holistic perspectives that criticize the predominant view of morality as a fundamentally psychological phenomenon (see Tappan, 2006).…”

“…Some previous studies argue that governing educational practices by rules and regulations depicts an instrumental, technical, and de-contextualized perspective on morality (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005;Fenech et al, 2008;Osgood, 2006). At worst, reducing morality to a set of rules may undermine the professional wisdom and autonomy of educators (Fenech et al, 2008). In our study, however, the educators did not narrate themselves as passive, obedient subjects with blind faith in rules, but as active participants in the process of negotiating, reproducing, and transforming rules.…”

“…For instance, values like caring, safety, democracy, human flourishing, and non-discrimination have been identified in early childhood contexts (Broström, 2006;Emilson & Johansson, 2009;Estola, 2003;Estola, Farquhar, & Puroila, 2014;Fenech, Sumsion, & Goodfellow, 2008;Hovdelien, 2013;Taggart, 2011;Ylitapio-Mäntylä, 2013). In our study, we are interested in the realization of values in the daily lives of educators at a grass-root level rather than as abstract or formalized ethical codes prompted by curricula or other official statements.…”

“…Yet, the idea of "what the rules say" as a frame for moral functioning raises critical questions. Some previous studies argue that governing educational practices by rules and regulations depicts an instrumental, technical, and de-contextualized perspective on morality (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005;Fenech et al, 2008;Osgood, 2006). At worst, reducing morality to a set of rules may undermine the professional wisdom and autonomy of educators (Fenech et al, 2008).…”

“…Being a professional meant adhering to general ethical codes articulated in legislation, policy documents, and curricula (see Fenech et al, 2008;Thomas, 2012). In Group 2, we were told about situations in which the rules provided the educators with much-needed support for their decisions:…”