“We are not labors;we are teachers”: Indonesian early childhood teachers’ organizations as a form of a panopticon

Abstract

This paper aims to unpack the discourses of teachers’ professionalism and teachers’ organizations in the early childhood education settings in Indonesia. Using Foucault's notions of discourse and power, we are interested in exploring how both discourses have silenced the teachers. This paper adopts qualitative research conducted with nine teachers, all active members, and boards of ECE teachers’ organizations. The data were collected mainly through semi-formal interviews and focus group discussions. The data were analyzed using a thematic approach. The findings suggest how the teachers’ organization has acted as a form of panopticon that sustains the hegemonic definition of teachers’ professionalism. The findings also suggest that the teachers’ understanding of professionalism is also highly influenced by the local/Javanese values of halus, where teaching is seen as a noble and refined profession. Hence, teachers continue to create the binary between teaching and working. At the same time, the penetration of religious discourse has also situated them to accept their situation. This paper, therefore, serves as an invitation to rethink and reimagine the kind of policies and educational reform needed so that the teachers can have a space to voice their struggle.

Keywords

Teachers early childhood education preschool panopticon professionalism teacher organization

Introduction

The article explores how the discourse of teachers’ professionalism has continuously silenced the voices and struggles of early childhood education (ECE) teachers in Indonesia. Like in other parts of the globe, teachers’ welfare has always been an issue (Chang et al., 2014). Everywhere, ECE teachers occupy one of the lowest positions in the job rank (Barnett, 2003; Davison, 2015).

The notion of teachers’ professionalism is complex and multifaceted. Critiques from reconceptualized scholars such as Fenech et al. (2010), Gibson et al. (2017), and Osgood (2006) have argued how the discourse of professionalism has served as a form of governmentality that controls teachers' conduct. The government often defines teachers’ professionalism and does not consider sociological factors that shape teachers’ professionalism (Hakim and Dalli, 2018).

In Indonesia, the discourse of professionalism is linked with the discourse of competencies (Adriany, 2022). The government highly regulates both. As stated in The Republic of Indonesia Law of Teachers and Lecture on Teachers and Lecturers, it was stated that four competencies need to be possessed by teachers (Undang-undang Republik Indonesia, 2005). The competencies are (1) pedagogical competencies that focus on how teachers must equip themselves with knowledge on children’s development and teaching and learning, including assessment; (2) personality competencies that include teachers’ personality to act following societal and religious norms. Part of these competencies are teachers’ ability to uphold their dignity and authority as a teacher; (3) professional competencies that emphasize having adequate educational background and willingness to continue learning; and (4) social competencies that accentuate teachers’ social skills. Here lies the complexity where the definition of teachers’ professionalism in Indonesia, on the one hand, illustrates the influence of social-cultural factors such as religion while at the same time remaining focusing on teachers’ individuality as a critical factor of teachers’ professionalism.

This article contributes to the existing debates and literature on ECE teachers’ professionalism in at least two ways. First, previous research on teachers’ professionalism mainly focuses on the experiences of individual teachers (Boyd, 2013; Dahlberg et al., 2007; Fenech and Sumsion, 2007; Fenech et al., 2010; Gibson et al., 2017; Osgood, 2006). Even though there have been studies on teachers’ unions, such as the one conducted by Bascia (1997) and Mausethagen and Granlund (2012), none discuss teachers’ unions within the ECE setting. At the same time, unlike many teachers’ unions or organizations in other parts of the world who often fight for the better welfare of their members (Bascia, 1997; Lipman, 2013; Mausethagen and Granlund, 2012), the teachers’ organizations in Indonesia often works closely with the government, and hence, they might become a vehicle to protect the government’s interest. Hence, we are interested in unpacking the discursive meaning of teachers’ professionalism understood by the two most prominent ECE teachers’ organizations that prevent them from providing a space for the voices of the teachers in the country to be heard. Focusing on the teachers’ organization will also allow us to see how power travels and is sustained by the teachers.

Second, this article will add to the studies and research on teachers’ professionalism by focusing on how teachers in the Global South countries like Indonesia negotiate the notion. Most research on teachers’ professionalism is still centered in the Global North countries (Boyd, 2013; Dalli, 2008; Fenech and Sumsion, 2007; Fenech et al., 2010; Gibson et al., 2017; Mausethagen and Granlund, 2012; Osgood, 2006), and even among those, none of them explore how teachers’ union understands the meaning in the early years setting. At the same time, published works on teachers’ professionalism in Indonesia at the international level are still minimal such as the one conducted by Hakim and Dalli (2018). Other studies are published at the national level. They often adopt deficient models of teachers in which these studies see ECE E teachers in Indonesia lack professionalism, and hence they require particular training or intervention to improve their professionalism (Eliza et al., 2022; Fahruddin and Astini, 2018; Maghfiroh and Eliza, 2021; Roza et al., 2019)Therefore, this study expected to fill in the gap in the existing literature by presenting Indonesia social-cultural context that might shape the notion of teachers’ professionalism.

Disrupting the discourse of teachers’ professionalism

This paper will adopt Foucaldian’s lens in unpacking the concept of teachers’ professionalism as understood by the teachers’ organizations in Indonesia. This paper is informed by discourse, power, and docile body (Foucault, 1980b). Discourse, as Weedon articulates, is

Ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity, and power relations, exist in such knowledge and relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the ‘nature’ of the body, unconscious and conscious mind, and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern (Weedon, 1987: 108)

Here, the notion of discourse is connected with power. Power in the Foucaldian lens is not always repressive. Power can be productive because it produces a particular subject resulting from power-knowledge relations. People are participating and celebrating in the circulation of power (Foucault, 1980b). One particular discourse is privileged because it carries more power, while others will be marginalized and silenced because it does not have a power-knowledge relations axis. A dominant discourse will be treated as truth not because it is more correct but because it is considered more legitimate (MacNaughton, 2005).

A discourse of teachers’ professionalism is one of the regimes of truth in early childhood education settings. As mentioned before, Osgood (2006) argues that the discourse of professionalism often serves as a form of control that continues to regulate teachers. With the increased penetration of neoliberalism in the field of ECE, teachers’ professionalism is often translated by making sets of standards (Dahlberg et al., 2007). In general, the discourse of teachers’ professionalism defines what it means to be a teacher in the early years setting (Urban et al., 2012).

The distinction between formal and non-formal settings marks ECE in Indonesia. The division between the two is messy and complex. The division between these two settings illuminates how neoliberalism influences ECE provision in the country. Kemendikbud (2020) data indicates that only around 2% of ECE in Indonesia are state kindergartens. These kindergartens do not have free tuition fees, but they receive support from the government for the teachers’ salaries and the schools’ buildings. The remaining 98% of ECE is either run by private organizations or people’s volunteerism. It is difficult to get an exact number of teachers in non-formal ECE. However, according to Indonesian Non-formal ECE Association (cited in Ansori, 2020), approximately 43.8% of teachers teach in the non-formal ECE.

In general, formal ECE is dedicated to children ages four to 6 years old. Their provision is more regulated in the law. All the regulations we have discussed only apply to formal ECE. In order to become a teacher in the formal ECE, one must possess a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or psychology. However, the existence of formal ECE fails to push for children’s access and participation, partly because ECE is not part of free and compulsory education in the country. Hence, to increase the children’s gross enrollment rates in ECE, the government works with international donor agencies such as the World Bank to develop non-formal ECE (Adriany and Saefullah, 2015). Establishing a non-formal ECE is less complicated than a formal ECE. A community can organize non-formal ECE without any bounding standard. Many of the non-formal ECE are run through people’s volunteerism. As a result, the number of non-formal ECE is increasing more rapidly than formal ECE. Teachers who teach in non-formal ECE do not need specific qualifications (Pangastuti, 2020). Many teachers in the non-formal ECE only graduated from high school or even primary school. Homemakers in the village are encouraged to become ECE teachers because it is seen as an extension of motherhood, and thus, this discourse justifies their low payment and feminization of ECE (Newberry, 2012; Newberry and Marpinjun, 2018). The interview with our participants indicates that many non-formal ECE teachers still receive a salary of USD 11 per month. Newberry and Marpinjun (2018) even claim that some non-formal ECE teachers are unpaid.

In 2005, the Indonesian government introduced the Law of Teacher and Lecturer no 14 2005 (2005). This law defines teachers as only those who teach in formal education services (The Republic of Indonesia, 2005). Hence, a professional teacher in Indonesia is equated with being a formal teacher. Another two laws then followed this law. In 2007, the government developed the Minister for National Education’s regulation number 16 about the standard of teacher qualifications and competencies. Then, in 2008, the government established another regulation, 78, about teachers. All these regulations act as a “regulatory gaze” (Osgood, 2006) that governs teachers’ qualifications, competencies, and in-service training. At the same time, the existence of these laws signifies the legacy of neoliberalism in the ECE setting in Indonesia. As Yulindrasari and Ujianti claim, “reforming education and teachers to fix student performance in global competitions is a clue to the neo-liberal discourses embedded in the policy” (Yulindrasari and Ujianti, 2018: 68).

The reform in education and teachers is argued that, in addition to improving the quality of ECE in the country, it is also an attempt to increase teachers’ welfare. Government Law No 14, 2005, stated that to be qualified as a professional teacher, one must undergo in-service training, followed by an assessment to evaluate whether or not they pass the test. The assessment, without any doubt, is a form of high-stakes testing. If they pass the test, they will be given a certificate from a professional teacher, which will also lead to the consequence of receiving an additional monthly allowance (Chang et al., 2014). The testing to become a professional teacher is conducted online. Yulindrasari and Ujianti (2018) have argued how this form of evaluation has overlooked the caring aspect of ECE teachers.

Only teachers in formal ECE settings can access the teachers’ professional development program. Upon graduating from this program, the teachers will receive an additional salary through certification money. Consequently, non-formal teachers are excluded from the government’s teacher professionalization program because they are not teachers according to the law. Despite the problematic implementation of the program, teachers in the formal setting see the certification program as a hope and a right to improve their economic conditions (Chang et al., 2014; De Ree et al., 2018; Rosser and Fahmi, 2018; Yulindrasari and Ujianti, 2018). This is quite a discrepancy since after the certification, the formal ECE teachers can take home at least USD 357 per month, while the non-formal teachers do not have the opportunity to get these extra wages. Hence, the dualism of formal and non-formal ECE has brought a bitter consequence for non-formal ECE teachers. Non-formal ECE teachers, thus, suffer from discrimination regarding their access to the teachers’ certification program. To complicate the picture, most formal ECE is in the urban area, while the non-formal ECE is in the rural area (Adriany et al., 2019). Here, one can see that the discourse of teachers’ professionalism in the ECE setting in Indonesia does not only act as a form of control but it becomes a vehicle that sustains inequality among the teachers in the rural and urban areas.

In addition to the government laws on teachers, there appear to be other dominant values that shape the construction of a professional teacher in Indonesia. The first value is rooted in religious values. As Adriany and Newberry (2021) argue, religion is often mobilized in Indonesia to uphold the status quo. As evident in the government law of teachers’ competencies, a good teacher conforms to societal and religious values. Hence being a professional teacher in the Indonesian context also means being a good person in line with religious and societal values. Besides religion, cultural values are the second dominant value influencing teachers’ construction in Indonesia. Culturally, teaching is considered an honorable occupation and a service to God. This is in line with the dominant philosophy in Java (the most dominant culture in Indonesia), the cultural setting of our research, which recognizes a dualism of halus (refined) and kasar (roughness). Halus represents spirituality, intellectuality, high morality, and politeness, while kasar represents everything related to physicality and materiality (Irawanto et al., 2011). Teaching is a refined occupation associated with honor, high morality, intellectuality, and spirituality (Yulindrasari, 2017). Teachers in Indonesia are often addressed as “a hero without a medal” (pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa). The discourse of halus versus kasar creates an assumption that materiality will cloud the nobility of the teaching profession, which is based on the Javanese norms of halus and kasar. As our study will reveal later, the idea of teachers as a refined profession often inhibits them from demanding their rights.

A brief introduction to ECE teachers’ organization

There exist at least three different ECE teachers’ organizations in Indonesia. The first one is the Indonesian Kindergarten Teachers Association. To preserve anonymity, in this paper, we will call this association is Formal ECE Organization (FEO). FEO’s membership is exclusively for formal ECE teachers. It is the oldest early childhood teachers’ organization in Indonesia which was established on May 20^th, 1950 (IGTKI, n.a.). FEO was a separate union from The Republic of Indonesia Teachers Union, Indonesia's most prominent teachers’ union. During the New Order era (1966–1998), this union was the only teachers’ organization controlled by the authoritarian regime. Thus, instead of playing the role of teachers’ advocates, they became a political instrument of the regime (Rosser and Fahmi, 2018). FEO’s visions are “actualizing a dynamic and dignified professional organization as the home of noble teachers who respect Indonesian religious and cultural diversity and who will be role models for children and Indonesian society as a whole” (IGTKI, n.a.). FEO is a multilevel organization ranging from the national level down to sub-districts. Nationally, this organization is a formal partner of the government. The government will communicate with the teachers through this organization; ideally, the teachers will communicate with the government through FEO.

Today, although FEO claims to be unaffiliated with any political party, its close relationship with the government persists. The monopoly model of membership, collecting money from its members without clear accountability, is preserved until today (Suryadinata, 1997). According to our interviews, FEO’s membership is not voluntary. Every teacher in formal ECE is automatically a member of FEO. Every member must pay a monthly contributory fee.

The second organization is Indonesian Non-formal Early Childhood Education Association. This paper labels them as Non-formal ECE organizations (NEO). It was established in Jakarta on June 6^th, 2005 (HIMPAUDI, n.a.). Although NEO claims it is a professional association, the members are not necessarily from the same profession. Unlike FEO, NEO is not only for people who teach or work in non-formal early childhood education centers but also for anyone with a similar concern about early childhood education, such as the owners of the ECE center and university lecturers from any discipline. Most of the time, the leader of NEO does not come from the least advantaged members of the organization. Instead, the leaders are often lecturers and professors whose primary occupation is a university lecturer. Like FEO, NEO is a multilevel organization from the national to sub-district levels. NEO’s primary goal is to improve the quality and welfare of non-formal ECE workers/professionals, though whether these are the cases remains problematic. Both FEO and NEO act as hegemonic organizations of ECE teachers in Indonesia.

The last teacher organization is an alternative teachers’ organization. The existence of this organization marks Indonesia’s transition to democracy, which took place after the fall of the New Order in 1998. The democratic environment enables teachers to be more active and assertive in voicing their aspirations through relatively new teacher-representative organizations (Rosser and Fahmi, 2018), such as ETF, Forum Aliansi Guru dan Karyawan (FAGAR) (teachers and employees alliance forum), and Ikatan Guru Indonesia PAUD (IGI PAUD) (Indonesian ECE teachers association). Unlike the membership of IGTK and NEO, joining this alternate organization is voluntary, and hence the membership is less formal. These organizations are alternative organizations created by a group of teachers in the field. For example, in the past 2 years, members of this (Sukarta, 2018) group started to strike in several big cities in Indonesia, asking for a better salary and better welfare (Putri, 2016). These events were unusual, considering that they challenged the taboo of questioning the material benefit of noble work. However, the strikes were not joined by FEO and NEO. Hence, their voices are often treated as “the other” and event disruption to the dominant values of teachers’ professionalism, as we will demonstrate in our finding section.

Methodology

We used a qualitative approach to understand the extent to which the discourse of professionalism has suppressed the voices of the active ECE teachers in the teachers’ organization. This paper focuses on the two foremost early childhood teachers’ organizations; FEO and NEO. We do this because we would like to unpack how the power travels from government regulations to teachers’ beliefs of what constitutes a good and professional teacher. At the same time, because the nature of membership in alternate organizations is less formal, it is challenging to find information on who the members are. Of the nine teachers participating in the study, five were affiliated with FEO, and five were members of NEO. However, two teachers in our research revealed they were affiliated with these alternative organizations: one was affiliated with FAGAR, and the other was affiliated with IGI PAUD. These two teachers had double memberships, one with the formal ECE organization and the other with the alternate organization.

In this research, the information from our participants was gathered mainly through interviews and FGDs. The interview was selected because it allowed our participants to voice their opinions (Fontana and Frey, 2005). We interviewed the chairpersons of the two foremost early childhood teachers' organizations: the Indonesian Kindergarten Teachers Association (FEO) and Indonesian Non-formal ECE Association (NEO) at the municipal and provincial levels; a member of the organization’s national advisory board, and six teachers from various regions in West Java. We asked questions regarding how did they become involved in the organizations? What was their motivation to join the organizations? How did they perceive the roles of their organizations? What were the organizations’ roles in developing teachers; professionalism and welfare? During the interview, we could feel that they represented the government, so their answers tended to be very formal.

In addition to interviewing the chairpersons, we also interviewed nine teachers. These teachers were selected using a snowball approach. Our position as academics in ECE since 2001 facilitates access to our participants. We first approached teachers who have been our acquaintances and informed them about the purpose of this research. They then invited their colleagues whom they thought would be interested in joining the research. Once we contacted them, we gave them the consent form to participate in our research.

We also conducted a focused group discussion (FGD) with our participants. FGD opted because it complements our interview (Hennink et al., 2020). We noticed a different relationship between the participants and us in the interviews and FGD sessions. Without the chairpersons, the dialogue was more informal and relaxed. Our teachers’ participants admitted that they enjoyed the FGD because it was when they could feel free to voice their opinion. However, of nine participants, only six teachers attended the FGD. More detailed information on the research participants and data collection tools is presented in Table 1.

In the FGD session, some of the questions used in the interview were repeated. We also added other questions to understand better how these teachers perceive the organizations and what was expected from these organizations. We also asked if they felt disappointed in dealing with the organizations. We believe all these probing questions were essential to help us understand the complexity of the discourse of teachers’ professionalism in Indonesia and what roles the organizations play in shaping the discourse. All the interviews and FGDs were conducted in the Indonesian language. We then transcribed them and later translated them into English. In translating, we adopt forward translation, which directly translates the original transcript into English (McKenna, 2022). We realize, however, that we will never achieve complete veracity when translating because of the different social and cultural contexts of the languages (Chen and Boore, 2010). Therefore throughout the process, we are constantly engaged in complete reflexivity to ensure we capture the voices of our research participants (McKenna, 2022).

Our research also adheres to ethical issues. In addition to ensuring that all participants consented to participate in our study, we also ensured their privacy was respected. We used a pseudonym for both the organization’s and informants’ names.

We adopted a constructivist grounded approach to generate emerging themes from the interview and focused group discussion data. As Charmaz (2006: 130) explains, a constructivist approach prioritizes the phenomenon of study and sees data and analysis as created from shared experiences and relationships with participants and other data sources. The core theoretical framework is used to guide our analysis.

In applying this version of grounded theory, we employed two stages of coding. The first one is open or initial coding, in which we conducted a close reading of all the data from our interview and FGD. We then continued with the second stage, which is focus coding. Here, we closely compared all the coding we had in the first stage. The constant comparison allows us to select the quotes from our interviews and FGDs that we believe can support our findings. The analysis then resulted from two themes, as presented in the next section of our findings. The themes developed were influenced by our theoretical framework as well as our sources of data. Aligned with our theoretical framework, we approached the information from the participants by focusing on what was being said and what was not being said, as well as paying attention to the discursive meaning of every word they said. We acknowledge that the quotes presented in our findings were only part of the data.

Findings and Discussion

Teachers as noble profession

Our findings suggest that the discourse of professionalism in Indonesia has constructed an idea that teaching is a noble profession. At the same time, we do not deny that teaching is indeed an exceptional task. This understanding perpetuates the binary between teaching and working. As explained in the previous section, teaching is considered a virtuous profession associated with honor, high morality, and spirituality (Yulindrasari, 2017). Using the Javanese norm of halus, a teacher is then someone who is expected to have refined and delicate behavior. If a teacher transgresses these norms, she crosses the boundaries of a good teacher. On the other hand, working is seen as something that focuses on physical labor and less use of the emotional aspect. This was evident in the following quote from an interview with Nina, one of the teachers, when asked about whether she participated in the previous strike that demanded better welfare for the teachers:

No! We were not involved. We disagree on that [street rally]. We are professional. We should show our maturity. I understand why Forum Guru PAUD did that. I think they are non-formal ECE teachers. They are different from us. We are not labors; we are teachers! Our educational background is also different from theirs. We all have at least a bachelor's degree. They do not. We are stronger than them!

Nina’s statement that they are teachers, not, labors is a common expression among teachers in Indonesia to highlight their noble position. Research done by Gultom (2011) also demonstrates how teachers always maintain the idea that they are teachers, not labors. By stating these, Nina establishes that the binary between teachers and laborers we are going to the street to protest is seen as a violation of society’s expectation of a good teacher and is only appropriate for laborers. Going to the street is seen as an obstruction to the halus behavior, as the behavior is seen as kasar. Nina further articulates, “Rallying is inappropriate for us because it is rough, unprofessional, uneducated, and immature.”

Nina’s point might also be understood from Indonesia’s long resistance toward the labor movement. Since 1965, one of the propaganda disseminated by the new order government is the rhetoric of anti-communism (Hefner, 2016). Communism in Indonesia is often reduced to an anti-religion and atheist group (Ramage, 1997). As a country where religion plays an essential role, communism is seen as an attack on religiosity. The new order government even banned the teaching of Marxism in higher education, fearing that it would propagate the teaching of communism (Rosser, 2016). The labor movement is often seen as an extension of communism, and hence, society is reluctant to support the labor movement (Ford, 2009).

Teachers’ reluctance to be associated as workers might also be derived from the social construction of labor itself. In Indonesia, labor is positioned as having a lower status and rank in society (Tjandra, 2016). They are considered to be less educated. Even though teachers, especially non-formal teachers, often share similar struggles with industrial laborers, such as having low income, working on a contract-based, and having no educational qualification, there is still a refusal to see themselves as laborers. This situation might also indicate teachers’ lack of class consciousness. People who are conscious of their class are more likely to involve in class struggles (Ollman, 1972). To involve in a class struggle, a person should realize that his/her experience of oppression is a result of a social structure, not his/her reason (Weber, 2009). Here, teachers’ class consciousness is disguised because they are made to believe their position is Nobel in society, even though they receive low wages. Again, the cultural discourse of halus/kasar places the teaching profession in a higher social position with specific rules to follow to maintain their perceived class position.

Nina’s statement also marks the binary between formal and non-formal teachers in Indonesia. In addition to not wanting to be affiliated with workers, Nina does not want to be envisaged to be similar to the non-formal teachers. She perceived non-formal ECE teachers as having a lower status than formal ECE teachers. By stressing on higher educational background, Nina assumed the superiority of formal ECE teachers. At the same time, the focus on teachers’ educational backgrounds demonstrates how the discourse on teachers’ professionalism results from power-knowledge relations. Claiming that formal ECE teachers are more professional than non-formal teachers is a contested claim. However, since all formal teachers are university graduates, their position becomes more legitimized. As Foucault (1980a) argues, a discourse becomes the truth not because it equates with rightness but because it carries more power.

The perception of different statuses between two categories of teachers results in weak solidarity between FEO as the formal teachers’ association and NEO as the non-formal ECE association. It was evident in the lack of FEO’s support for NEO when NEO, in December 2018, through one of its members, submitted a judicial review proposal to the constitutional court of Indonesia to review the Law of Teacher and Lecturer—the culprit of discrimination against non-formal teachers. According to Arief, a member of FEO's advisory board, FEO did not support the judicial review proposal because FEO's members do not have any problem with the law. The law is only affecting non-formal teachers. He said, “… let them fight their own battle.”

Teachers' understanding of teaching as a noble profession is also rooted in religious discourse. The religious discourse was pervasive, particularly among teachers who became members of NEO. Ita, the chair of NEO at the municipality level, said:

“Our salary is SAJUTA, Sabar (patience), Jujur (honesty), and Tawakal (trust in God).”

Ririn also yields the same statement. She said:

The salary is low, but we get HONDA, Honor Dari Allah (payment from God) (laughing).

As we explained before, religion plays a dominant role in Indonesia. The statement from Ina and Ririn illuminates how injustice and inequalities have been disguised by religious discourse. Research done by Newberry and Marpinjun (2018) also shows that many non-formal ECE teachers accept their low wages by believing that the actual payment is waiting for them in heaven. The use of religion to hide the inequities among the teachers reminds us of Marx's famous quote that religion is the opium of the people. Through religion, the teachers passively accept their conditions. The idea of teaching as a noble work that will get immeasurable rewards from God is perpetuated in the religious discourse.

The discourse of religion often intersects with neoliberalism. In a country like Indonesia, it is often a convenient marriage between the two (Adriany, 2018). With the focus on religion, social problems such as inequities and injustice experienced by the teachers are made invisible. At the same time, religious discourse also puts individual responsibility on the teachers. The teachers, especially the non-formal teachers, are made to believe they are entitled to receive low salaries because of their lack of educational qualifications. At the same time, the government shifts its responsibilities and extends its control by establishing more standards to regulate teachers’ professionalism. Our research demonstrated how the government laws on teachers’ professionalism define what it means to be a professional teacher. The laws act in patronizing and policing ways, aiming to police non-formal teachers without considering that these teachers have actually contributed to the children’s development and also assist the government in expanding children’s access and participation in ECE (Pangastuti, 2020).

Teachers’ organization as a form of panopticon

The second theme of our finding illustrates the extent to which ECE teachers’ organizations in Indonesia serve as a form of panopticon. Panopticon is a term from Jeremy Bentham to explain the architectural design that allows an observer to observe someone without a person realizing that she/he is being watched. Foucault uses the term to explain the concept of disciplinary power (Blackford, 2004; Foucault, 1991). An individual is subjected to surveillance and control not through repressive mechanisms but through the discourse resulting from knowledge-power relations.

One of how teachers’ organization acts as a panopticon is by disguising the nature of power embodied in the relationship between the organization and the government, as mentioned by Ida, a board member of FEO:

We do not want to get into trouble. Maintaining a good relationship with the council is very important. The council holds essential information for us. Everything related to schools and teachers has to go through the council. However, the dependency is mutual. We are partners; we are one unity. The council needs us to reach teachers in the field. Every central government program concerning ECE has to go through the council, and the council has to go through us.

By erasing the relationship’s power aspect, Ida and the other teachers in our study accept the government’s regulation. The process of disciplining the teachers has resulted in teachers accepting only one notion of teachers’ professionalism, which is promoted and disseminated in the government’s documents and policies. As shown by the first theme of our findings, for the teachers to be professional to become a formal ECE teacher. Again, the inequalities between formal and non-formal teachers are erased by embracing the discourse.

While Ida believes that the relationship between the teachers’ organization and the government serves a mutual interest, few teachers in our study disagree. Ina, one of the teachers, said

FEO is more like a bridge between us [teachers] and the municipality’s education council. However, the bridge is not really in our favor. FEO does the administrative stuff. It does not fight for our interests. I think FEO should be re-activated as a real teachers’ organization that channels our aspirations, develops our skills, and assists us in getting better welfare. Sometimes there was also collusion between “the unscrupulous” FEO and “the unscrupulous” education council that disadvantaged certain teachers.

Ina’s statement was revealed during our FGD. As mentioned in the methodological section, the teachers used FGD as an opportunity to voice their opinion. Here, Ina clearly articulated the kind of teachers’ organization she reimagined. The reflection from our methodology yields that given a safe space, teachers can articulate their opinion. Ina's point also shows the possibility for teachers to form a resistance to the domination of the teachers’ organization. By resisting and questioning the practices of the organizations, teachers might be able to formulate another meaning of teachers’ professionalism. As Dalli (2008) asserted, a ground-up perspective on ECE teachers’ professionalism is possible because teachers possess a clear perspective of what constitutes professionalism. Unfortunately, in many countries like Indonesia, teachers’ professionalism is defined by the government and promoted through various vehicles, including, as shown in our study, teachers' organizations.

Conclusion

Our research findings demonstrate how the discourse of teachers’ professionalism is traveled and disseminated in Indonesian early childhood education teachers’ organizations. Instead of becoming a space for the teachers to resist, the teachers’ organizations act as a form of panopticon and extension of disciplinary power that continue to promote the government’s version of teachers’ professionalism. The discourse is so pervasive that it controls individual teachers and regulates how the teachers think and act. Hence, the power relations embodied within the discourse of teachers’ professionalism continue to be produced and reproduced.

The findings of this paper hence call for another way to reimagine and rethink the kind of organization needed by ECE teachers. A teacher’s organization must become a space to allow teachers’ voices to be heard instead of becoming a government apparatus. For that to achieve, a teacher’s organization must be developed from the bottom instead of becoming a top-down policy from the government. Teachers must also be equipped with critical thinking that will allow them to examine and problematize dominant discourses and practices. As Solehuddin and Adriany (2017) argue, teachers are often submissive to their condition because they are not introduced to critical thinking. Providing a place for teachers to learn would be a way to go.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Hani Yulindrasari

Vina Adriany

Hani Yulindrasari is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. She received her bachelor degree in Psychology (2002) from Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia, a Master degree in Gender and Development (2006) and a PhD in Gender Studies (2017) from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her research interest is gender research in education and family settings.

Vina Adriany is an Associate Professor at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Her research focuses on the issues of gender and social justice in early childhood education (ECE) as well as the impact of neoliberalism in ECE. She has published numbers of peer review articles and books chapters on the topic. She has also been invited as visiting lecturer in Sutan Qaboos University, Oman; Gothenburg University; and University West, Sweden. She was a guest editor for Policy Future in Education (PFIE) Special Edition on Neoliberalism and Practices of ECE in Asia and Journal of Pedagogy’s special issue on “Negotiating the local and global discourses in shaping Early Childhood Education Practices in the Global South: An act of Decolonialisation.” Currently, she serves as an editorial board for Policy Futures in Education (Sage); International Journal of Early Years Education (Routledge); Global Studies of Childhood (Sage); and Children and Society (Wiley-Blackwell).

References

Adriany

(2018) Neoliberalism and Practices of Early Childhood Education in Asia. London: Sage Publications Sage UK.

Adriany

(2022) Early childhood education in Indonesia. In: Symaco

Hayden

(eds), International Handbook on Education in South East Asia. Singapore: Springer, 1–24.

Adriany

Newberry

(2021) Neuroscience and the construction of a new child in early childhood education in Indonesia: a neoliberal legacy. Current Sociology 70(4): 539–556.

Adriany

Saefullah

(2015) Deconstructing human capital discourse in early childhood education in Indonesia. In: Lightfoot-Rueda

Peach

Leask

(eds), Global perspectives on human capital in early childhood education: reconceptualizing theory, policy, and practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 159–179.

Adriany

Yulindrasari

Tesar

(2019) Satu Desa, Satu PAUD Unpacking the meaning of children’s participation within ECE policy and provision in Indonesia. In: Murray

Swadener

Smith

(eds) The routledge international handbook of young children’s rights. Oxon: Routledge, 66–76.

Ansori

ANA

(2020) HIMPAUDI: Masalah Utama Guru PAUD Non Formal Adalah Status Profesi. Jakarta: Liputan 6. Retrieved from https://www.liputan6.com/disabilitas/read/4254738/himpaudi-masalah-utama-guru-paud-non-formal-adalah-status-profesi#:∼:text=Menurut_data_HIMPAUDI%2C_hingga_kini,atau_47.6%25_di_seluruh_Indonesia.

Barnett

(2003) Low wages= low quality: solving the real preschool teacher crisis. Preschool policy matters 3(8): 1–8.

Bascia

(1997) Invisible leadership: teachers’ union activity in schools. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 43: 69–85.

Blackford

(2004) Playground panopticism: ring-around-the-children, a pocketful of women. Childhood 11(2): 227–249. DOI: 10.1177/0907568204043059.

10.

Boyd

(2013) I love my work but the professionalization of early childhood education. Qualitative Report; 18: 71.

11.

Chang

Shaeffer

Al-Samarrai

, et al. (eds) (2014) Teacher Reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and Evidence in Policy Making. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

12.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publication Ltd.

13.

Chen

H-Y

Boore

(2010) Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing research: methodological review. Journal of Clinical Nursing 19(1–2): 234–239. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02896.x.

14.

Dahlberg

Moss

Pence

(2007) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Language of Evaluation. 3rd edition. Oxon: Falmer Press.

15.

Dalli

(2008) Pedagogy, knowledge, and collaboration: towards a ground‐up perspective on professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 16(2): 171–185. DOI: 10.1080/13502930802141600.

16.

Davison

(2015) International Perspectives on Early Years Workforce Development. Northwich: Critical Publishing.

17.

De Ree

Muralidharan

Pradhan

, et al. (2018) Double for nothing? Experimental evidence on an unconditional teacher salary increase in Indonesia. Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(2): 993–1039.

18.

Eliza

Husna

Utami

, et al. (2022) Studi deskriptif profesionalisme guru PAUD berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip profesional guru pada undang-undang No. 14 Tahun 2005. Jurnal basicedu 6(3): 4663–4671.

19.

Fahruddin

Astini

(2018) Pelatihan program parenting untuk meningkatkan profesionalisme guru PAUD Di Kota Mataram Tahun 2018. Jurnal Pengabdian Magister Pendidikan IPA 1(1).

20.

Fenech

Sumsion

(2007) Early childhood teachers and regulation: complicating power relations using a Foucauldian lens. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 8(2): 109. DOI: 10.2304/ciec.2007.8.2.109.

21.

Fenech

Sumsion

Shepherd

(2010) Promoting early childhood teacher professionalism in the Australian context: the place of resistance. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(1): 89–105.

22.

Fontana

Frey

(2005) The interview. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, Vol. 3, 695–727.

23.

Ford

(2009) Workers and Intellectuals: NGOs, Trade Unions and the Indonesian Labour Movement. Leiden: Brill.

24.

Foucault

(1980a) Michael Foucault: Power Knowledge. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

25.

Foucault

(1980b) The order of discourse. In: Shapiro

(ed) The Language of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.

26.

Foucault

(1991) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin.

27.

Gibson

Cumming

Zollo

(2017) The rethinking discourse of teacher professionalism in early childhood education: an Australian perspective. In: Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Early Childhood Education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Berlin: Springer, 203–219.

28.

Gultom

(2011) Guru Bukan Buruh. Malang: Servaminora.

29.

Hakim

Dalli

(2018) ‘To be professional is a never-ending journey’: Indonesian early childhood practitioners’ views about the attitudes and behaviors of a professional teacher. Early Years 38(3): 244–257. DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2016.1256275.

30.

Hefner

(2016) Indonesia, Islam, and the new U.S. administration. The Review of Faith & International Affairs 14(2): 59–66.

31.

Hennink

Hutter

Bailey

(2020) Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage.

32.

HIMPAUDI (n.a.) Himpunan Pendidik Dan Tenaga Kependidikan Anak Usia Dini Indonesia. Retrieved from https://himpaudi.org/

33.

IGTKI (n.a.) Sejarah Berdirinya Ikatan Guru Taman Kanak-Kanak Indonesia (IGTKI). Retrieved from https://pp.igtki.or.id/pages/about-us.

34.

Irawanto

Ramsey

Ryan

(2011) Challenge of leading in Javanese culture. Asian Ethnicity 12(2): 125–139.

35.

Kemendikbud (2020) Statistik PAUD Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini 2019/2020. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.

36.

Lipman

(2013) The rebirth of the Chicago teachers union and possibilities for a counter-hegemonic education movement. Monthly Review 65(2): 1.

37.

MacNaughton

(2005) Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies. Oxon: Routledge.

38.

Maghfiroh

Eliza

(2021) Mengenal standar dan etika profesionalisme guru PAUD. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai 5(2): 2707–2711.

39.

Mausethagen

Granlund

(2012) Contested discourses of teacher professionalism: current tensions between education policy and teachers’ union. Journal of Education Policy 27(6): 815–833. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2012.672656.

40.

McKenna

(2022) Translation of research interviews: do we have a problem with qualitative rigor? Nurse Author & Editor 32(1): 1–3. DOI: 10.1111/nae2.31.

41.

Newberry

(2012) empowering children, disempowering women. Ethics and Social Welfare 6(3): 247–259.

42.

Newberry

Marpinjun

(2018) Payment in heaven: can early childhood education policies help women too? Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 29–42. DOI: 10.1177/1478210317739467.

43.

Ollman

(1972) Toward class consciousness next time: Marx and the working class. Politics & Society 3(1): 1–24.

44.

Osgood

(2006) Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7(1): 5–14.

45.

Pangastuti

(2020) Expansion of Early Childhood Education in Indonesia Finding Voices, Telling Stories. Auckland: The University of Auckland. Ph.D. Thesis.

46.

Putri

(2016) Ratusan Guru PAUD Kota Bandung Demo Tuntut Tiga Hal. Jakarta: Republika.

47.

Ramage

(1997) Politics in Indonesia: democracy, Islam, and the ideology of tolerance. Journal of Asian Studies 56(1): 266–267.

48.

Rosser

(2016) Neo-liberalism and the politics of higher education policy in Indonesia. Comparative Education 52(2): 109–135.

49.

Rosser

Fahmi

(2018) The political economy of teacher management reform in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development 61: 72–81.

50.

Roza

Nurhafizah

Yaswinda

(2019) Urgensi profesionalisme guru pendidikan anak usia dini dalam penyelenggaraan perlindungan anak. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini 4(1): 277.

51.

Solehuddin

Adriany

(2017) Kindergarten teachers’ understanding of social justice: stories from Indonesia. Sage Open 7(4): 2158244017739340. DOI: 10.1177/2158244017739340.

52.

Sukarta

(2018) Seribuan Guru PAUD Lampung Berdemo Tuntut Kesetaraan. Noida: Antara.

53.

Suryadinata

(1997) Golkar of Indonesia: recent developments. Contemporary Southeast Asia 19(2): 190.

54.

The Republic of Indonesia (2005) Law of Teacher and Lecturer. Jakarta: The Republic of Indonesia.

55.

Tjandra

(2016) Labor law and development in Indonesia. Leiden: Leiden University.

56.

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia . nomor 14 tahun 2005 tentang guru dan dosen (2005).

57.

Urban

Vandenbroeck

Van Laere

, et al. (2012) Towards competent systems in early childhood education and care. Implications for policy and practice. European Journal of Education 47(4): 508–526.

58.

Weber

(2009) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Milton Park: Routledge.

59.

Weedon

(1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell.

60.

Yulindrasari

(2017) Negotiating Masculinities: The Experience of Male Teachers in Indonesian Early Childhood Education. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

61.

Yulindrasari

Ujianti

(2018) “Trapped in the reform”: Kindergarten teachers’ experiences of teacher professionalization in Buleleng, Indonesia. Policy Futures in Education 16(1): 66–79. DOI: 10.1177/1478210317736206.