Professional language in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is not neutral; it functions as a political mechanism through which professional identity, responsibility, quality and safety are constructed and contested. This paper examines how political and media discourse shapes representations of the ECEC workforce in contemporary Australian debates about safety and workforce reform. Drawing on poststructural policy analysis, particularly Bacchi and Goodwin’s What’s the Problem Represented to Be? (WPR) framework, the study analyses a corpus of visible public texts including ministerial media releases, government communications and national news coverage relating to early childhood safety and workforce policy. The analysis identifies three recurring discursive patterns: the naming of educators as “childcare workers”, the framing of safeguarding through individual vigilance such as “spotting predators”, and the representation of temporary workforce funding as “pay rises”. These constructions individualise responsibility, displace systemic accountability and obscure the structural conditions required for sustainable and high-quality provision.
BacchiC.GoodwinS. (2025). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice (Updated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
BamseyV.FogartyL. (2025). ‘We are teachers too’: Reclaiming professionalism in early childhood education from within. Early Years, November, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2025.2580480
11.
CohrssenC.de RosnayM.GarvisS.Neilsen-HewettC. (2023). Assessing the quality of early childhood education and care in Australia: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1147669. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1147669
12.
CummingT.SumsionJ.WongS. (2015). Rethinking early childhood workforce sustainability in the context of Australia's early childhood education and care reforms. ICEP, 9(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40723-015-0005-z
HunkinE. (2018). Whose quality? The (mis)uses of quality reform in early childhood and education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 33(4), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1352032
MoloneyM.SimsM.RotheA. (2019). Resisting neoliberalism: Professionalisation of early childhood education and care. International Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20190801.11
17.
NuttallJ.HendersonL.WoodE.TrippestadT. A. (2022). Policy rhetorics and responsibilisation in the formation of early childhood educational leaders in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 37(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1739340
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2017). Starting strong 2017: Key OECD indicators on early childhood education and care. OECD.
20.
OsgoodJ. (2012). Narratives from the nursery: Negotiating professional identities in early childhood. Routledge.
21.
Productivity Commission. (2024). A path to universal early childhood education and care. Australian Government.
22.
SenR.DevaneyJ. (2025). Accountability and hyperaccountability in child protection scandals. Child & Family Social Work, May, 1–11. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13301
WhiteM. (2023). Leadership in Australia’s early childhood workforce policy: Silences and ambiguities as missed opportunities. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 48(4), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391231202841
25.
XuH. (2025). Outsourcing safety regulation and public blame attribution for regulatory failures: Evidence from survey experiments. International Public Management Journal, September, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2025.2559831
26.
YangW.XuP.LiuH.LiH. (2022). Neoliberalism and sociocultural specificities: A discourse analysis of early childhood curriculum policies in Australia, China, New Zealand, and Singapore. Early Child Development and Care, 192(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.175421
