Transforming education through solidarity and collective representation

Abstract

In the spirit of solidarity, critical activist scholarship and collaborative critical inquiry, this article calls for adoption of a counterhegemonic, transformative education strategy by proposing the development of an alternative vision to current neoliberal education projects and standardization. The political economy of education is driven by the economic imperatives of neoliberalism promoting new modes of governance in the university space. Education, once positioned in the public domain and constructed as a place of intellectual thought and progressive pedagogy, is reframed and reconstituted into the knowledge economy and social enterprise. The article draws on Thomas Piketty’s concepts of educational convergence, institutional change, and collective representation to embed transformative strategies that reclaim democratic academic thought and collective action. Piketty’s concepts are supplemented by narratives from service users from a large non-government organization helping people transition out of poverty, which has an early childhood center as part of the support. Such an emancipatory strategy through the use of critical pedagogy helps reconnect links between learning, knowledge, and social change.

Introduction

Neoliberalism has been instrumental in shaping the political economy of education seen in the drive for economic imperatives over social, and new modes of governance across university and early childhood spaces. Education has long been recognized as a place of critical intellectual thought and collective public space for critical, activist scholarship and progressive pedagogy. Under the neoliberal project, such egalitarian notions are reframed and reconstituted into the knowledge economy and social enterprise. Neoliberalism is used here to describe the preeminence of economic priorities over social values, seen in the emphasis on the free market, trade liberalization, privatization of government-owned entities, and the application of contestability and competition to remaining government services (Mays et al., 2016). The discourse of economic reform, notably used pervasively since the 1980s, has strengthened the connection between education and employment outcomes. Neoliberalism and the notions of the knowledge economy have permeated all aspects of the educational domain, privileging market-oriented responses. Under this, education becomes a marketable commodity that perpetuates competition (as opposed to cooperation) and technical productive efficiencies (monetary and efficiency gains rather than universal qualities). Neoliberalism is a complex phenomenon that, when used by dominant leaders, becomes a rhetorical device to erode academic freedoms, democratic processes, and social justice imperatives in the education space.

Dominant discourses associated with neoliberalism, such as rational thought, performance measures, competitive testing, efficiency gains, and individualism, become normative and functions as divisive tools that rupture collective representation and critical thought. In turn, neoliberal beliefs and attitudes become the primary driver for producing graduates in education or early childhood studies whose professional identity is inherently tied to being “job ready” and a “skilled” worker in the labor market, rather than civically minded and critically active citizens engaged in building democracy and social justice (Piketty, 2014; Robertson, 2016). Nagasawa and Swadener (2017) alluded to the divisive nature of the neoliberal discourses, which sets up divisions when scholars attempt to embody critical, activist scholarship within the context of unequal dominant frames and assumptions. Piketty (2014) refers to the modern neoliberal de-democratization process as manifesting from a complex interplay of belief systems, discourses and representation, and divergent forces, which destabilize redistribution, commodify education and exacerbate inequalities.

In the spirit of collective solidarity and critical activist scholarship, and in a similar vein to Piketty (2014), this article reimagines a new vision through transformation of education and democracy for contemporary childhoods. Piketty (2014) argued that in the current political climate, a new democratic, transformative vision would need to include the forces of educational convergence (knowledge diffusion, which assumes that greater dissemination of knowledge, and increased training and skills produces a more equitable social and economic growth). The reinvisioning requires a new knowledge and set of belief systems, narratives and representations as the first step (Morley and Ablett, 2017; Dale, 2016; Piketty, 2014). From there, the new vision would be translated into activism as part of collective and activist practices. Counter-acts of resistance to neoliberal hegemony and transformation bring social justice to the fore, affirming civic and citizen rights and diffusion of knowledge through community education and awareness initiatives. Narrative and discursive change reflect one part of the overall transformative strategy.

Although we note its hybrid political economy, education was once preeminent in the public domain and upheld as the space for critical endeavors, intellectual pursuits, and progressive pedagogy through collective creativity. Under the neoliberal project, education has been structurally and discursively transformed in terms of the knowledge economy and social enterprise. An emphasis on how the neoliberal project has functioned in education allows for tracing and identification of the continuities and discontinuities in policy, practices, and discourses. Such an approach helps to reveal the way insidious neoliberalism has become entrenched and operated to perpetuate inequalities and barriers to critical activist scholarship and democratic education. A focus on policy and the language of neoliberalism that permeates Australian early childhood policy and practices also helps to reveal the interaction between policy documents, discourse/rhetoric, education practices and broader social-economic, and political context in which early childhood education is situated.

To trace the nature of the political economy of early childhood education and impact of increased efficiencies, standardization, surveillance, and accountability, this article draws on Piketty’s 2014 concepts of educational convergence, institutional change, and collective representation to embed transformative strategies that reclaim democratic academic thought and collective action. As such, attention is given to how an emancipatory strategy using critical pedagogy counters neoliberal hegemony and helps reconnect links between learning, knowledge, and social change. This article presents an overview of the neoliberal project and political economy backdrop to illustrate how neoliberal policy, practices, and discourses become embedded in the early childhood system and established as the only legitimate approach to knowledge generation and critical intellectual thought. For example, examination of the values attached to neoliberal policy choices, which views education as a commodity and prepares people for work, is necessary for revealing how children become objects of scrutiny (aka surveillance), standardization, and administration (Otterstad and Braathe, 2016).

Under neoliberalism, early childhood is a space for developing literacy and education as a foundation for economic survival and a globally economically competitive nation in the market (Bascia and Hargreaves, 2000). The platform seeks to generate skilled workers even when there are high levels of unemployment and widening inequalities (Bascia and Hargreaves, 2000; Kamat, 2016). There is an inherent tension between the competing aims of the neoliberal project, which posits education as a private commodity to improve competitiveness in the labor market, and democratic education as a public good for providing moral, social, critical, and emotional development and promoting autonomous and critical thinkers. From this position, in this article narratives from qualitative face-to-face and phone interviews and observation with vulnerable groups (young mothers who were experiencing multiple disadvantage in the form of material, social and cultural hardship) are used to highlight the experience by service users who encounter poverty and access early childhood centers. These interviews were part of a larger, mixed methods program evaluation conducted across several site locations (metropolitan and urban eastern Australia) of a large non-government organization (for comprehensive details on the study’s theoretical framework and methodology, see Davidson et al., 2018). Thus, through its investigation into the hidden neoliberal claims associated with policies, practices, and discourses the last section of the article presents an alternative vision that draws on transformation as an overall strategy, starting with narrative initially, and leading to translation into practice and activism.

Political economy of education

The Australian political economy of education is both a political and moral policy space grounded in a mixed economy in which funding regimes (government expenditure) are directed to public, private and independent or Catholic education models (Marston et al., 2014). The significance of understanding where funding is directed relates to the connection between equitable distribution of public money and the nature of educational outcomes, including life opportunities achieved by different groups (Marston et al., 2014). Spanning four decades, neoliberalism has been instrumental in the shift from more egalitarian democratic and critical intellectual endeavors in education, to emphasis on the pre-eminence of market-oriented, new business models of governance and standardization. The function has been inherently political and persuasive, set at both global and national levels, in that the purpose has been designed to establish and legitimate the neoliberalism as the only vision for education and society. Given this shift across time, redistribution of traditional funding models has occurred, with greater direct spending and subsidization going to the non-government sector. For Australia, this means taxes generally paid by non-government schools are “waived” by the government. For example, there is a growing disparity between public and private schools. Commonwealth funding in education privileges the private schools. Private schools receive 63.8%, whereas public schools receive 63.8% from the Commonwealth (Productivity Commission, 2018). Overall, total public funding (mix of federal and state) significantly increased by 9.8% for private schools but only marginally by 3.3% for public schools (Productivity Commission, 2018).

This means greater amounts of Commonwealth public funding are afforded to the private education sector, which is legitimated through narratives of greater choice and economic returns. Marston et al. (2014) earlier noted the trend toward funding allocation to the private sector, and drew attention to one community worker’s comment:

How can our top private schools justify yearly fees of between $16,000 and $27,000 for … tuition? And how do they rationalise raising these fees by 5 to 10 per cent each year … The most important of these [questions] has been debated for years: should elite private schools receive taxpayer funding? (p. 42)

Even with developments in education, inequalities between education models in the sector are evident. Alongside the diversion of public funding to the private sector, there are tighter links to the knowledge economy and labor market.

Australia has historically ascribed to the normative value of egalitarianism, seen in the discourse of the “fair go,” whereby education was once constructed as socially democratic, and a universal right (Marston et al., 2014). Although the policy aspiration of egalitarianism has not always effectively translated into policy or always been enacted, it is important not to discount the perceived role of education in being a site of social progress, equality of opportunity, and meritocracy (Marston et al., 2014). An egalitarian approach to education and knowledge is fundamental to the processes of social democracy, social change, and policy-making. The shift from knowledge as a civic and collective virtue to the knowledge economy has been subtle. The knowledge economy constructs education as a commodity, wherein the vision of education is translated into economic terms, hence the discourses of education as a service in the market place subject to competition, efficiency, and accountability measures. The marketization of education has promoted greater competition between education providers and schools or institutions, with politicians driving changes in governance and funding of schools. The shift from egalitarianism to neoliberalism has had a profound and detrimental effect on education. As Kenway (2006) noted,

Less and less is education seen as a means towards self-expression and fulfilment, or towards the development of cultural and social understanding and responsibility, and critical creative responsibilities … Buying an education becomes a substitute for getting an education. (p. 220)

For Australia, early childhood is a hybrid mix of private and public childcare centers and pre-schools (also known as kindergartens) and occurs in the year preceding full-time schooling (Kenway, 2006). Early childhood education collectively refers to child care as a means for generating connections to the educational context. Under neoliberalism, child care from the private market is expected to provide services more affordably and effectively than public services, and if incentivized through government subsidy, the private centers will produce higher quality services. Using economic discourse, the assumption generated was the perceived advantage afforded to the public sector by the government and subsequent monopolization of public funds by the public sector (Piketty, 2014). The argument for redistribution of public funding was grounded in the narrative of governments over-privileging the public sector over private markets. For the neoliberal project, this was an inequitable system which was believed to punish the private centers sector. As such, this discourse perpetuated the notion that the private sector had a legitimate claim to the funding and increased subsidies (Irvine and Farrell, 2013). The dominant discourse contended that opening up the market and promoting greater redistribution of public funds to the private sector led to a level playing field for greater competition between services (Irvine and Farrell, 2013). Piketty (2014) refers to these neoliberal practices and discursive representations as forces of divergence which justify the shift toward free-market privatization. In the case of Australia, forces of divergence reinforced the government policy approach of privatization of early childhood centers and the shifting of greater amounts of the public sector early childhood funding to the private sector.

Notably, it was during 1996 that the Liberal Coalition Government under then Prime Minister Howard strongly advanced their “reformist” agenda in the pursuit of a responsible economic strategy by legitimating the abolishment of operational subsidies to community-based childhood centers (Irvine and Farrell, 2013). The discourse afforded greater weight to increased competition, and parental choice (a.k.a. “consumer choice”), with an increased demand for a level playing field (Irvine and Farrell, 2013). The purported level playing field created by competition is severely undermined by factors such as “white flight” and the associated othering of social and racialized groups such as refugees. Efforts designed ostensibly to overcome this association, through the offering from private schools of scholarships for, for example, refugees, only serve to exacerbate the problematic association by perpetuating the view of expensive private schools as sites for better quality education and higher chances of social mobility (Windle, 2017). Aligned with the government agenda was the policy of strong economic growth, increased labor market participation, pursuit of economic efficiencies, and reduced public expenditure by government (Irvine and Farrell, 2013). Successive governments have maintained the policy approach and ascribed greater weight to the private sector as the provider of choice for child care. Although the Rudd/Gillard Labor Governments (2007–2012) sought to smooth equity and distribution by incorporating social justice and social inclusion discourses in policy and applying social inclusion initiatives (Lingard et al., 2014), the later Abbott/Turnbull and Morrison Liberal National Coalition Governments (2013 to current) markedly deviated from such inclusive approaches to embrace neoliberalism and refrain from any reference to social justice, preferring instead economic representations (Piketty, 2014). During this time though, the demand for work-related child care and early childhood centers has substantially increased due to the influence of ongoing work participation policies. Legislative changes provided the mechanism for privileging the private sector over public early childhood centers by sanctioning access to some public funding to be allocated predominantly to private for-profit childcare services (Irvine and Farrell, 2013). Piketty (2014) noted similar trends globally in advanced Western capitalist countries, and noted the growing disparities occurring as a consequence.

The policy shift was expected to increase competition, thereby reducing costs for childcare. In reality, childcare center costs soared the point of increased unaffordability by low- to mid-income and poorer families, particular young mothers. In highlighting this issue, Brennan (2013) contends,

[T]he market model in child care has served Australian parents very poorly. Instead of greater diversity, lower costs and higher quality promised by market enthusiasts, families face escalating child care fees, greater uniformity, lower quality and less choice. (p. 38)

Despite the espoused benefits highlighted under the neoliberal project, for many vulnerable groups, especially young mothers, the inequities in the education system and higher costs meant an additional cost burden to daily living resulting in downward pressure placed on the most disadvantaged. The cost burden on vulnerable groups, particularly young mothers was revealed by Piketty (2014). He argued that the changing nature of the taxation transfer system and greater austerity measures in Western industrial counters functioned as a force of divergence which allowed for this downward pressure.

For people experiencing poverty and financial hardship, the lived experience did not match the economic claims under neoliberalism. This is demonstrated in narratives of the people accessing a large non-government organization with a child care center. As mentioned earlier, the narratives derived from a larger study, and incorporated vulnerable young mothers, who were experiencing poverty and other social, material, and cultural disadvantage, while accessing non-government childcare center. One narrative illustrated the added financial burden of childcare costs, even with subsidies, when household incomes shift from double income to single income:

There’s a lot of financial stress, especially with a mortgage … So even it’s $70, get one day free and one day paid, I still have to find that $70, which with being a one income household, because … we’re going to be back to one household, ideally that is just not feasible. So I have to go to school two days, plus be able to work somewhere to cover that $70. (Narr_1)

The discourse above alludes to the pressure of juggling childcare costs, even with subsidies, when the financial circumstances change. Any financial change, whether expected or unexpected, places greater pressure on the family. Piketty (2014) alluded to the way disparities in funding and adequate income provision placed greater burden on young mothers to carry the additional childcare costs. Reconfigurations of early childcare (that is the neoliberal move to private sector provision), constitutes a meritocratic conceptualization of equity (as opposed to equality of opportunity). Here, the illustration demonstrates the need for greater consideration of subsidies for lower socio-economic groups, such as young mothers.

One narrative highlighted the impact that being able to afford childcare through subsidies assisted socialization and well-being of the family:

He’s just a lot happier being here as well and … coming to kindy. He’s just been a lot happier. The reduced childcare fees has helped … that has helped a lot … It means I have more money for other things … It means that I could put him in an extra day as well. (Narr_2)

Another narrative noted,

The childcare fees really help and just to get on top of things like budgeting, that sort of stuff … Definitely the fees dropping, that saved me a lot of money [in the day care centre]. (Narr_3)

For many families, funded public services with lower costs attached means they do not have to sacrifice food, clothing, or bill payment:

Even with the three kids … I don’t think I would have been able to afford it plus childcare is a big thing as well … I was very lucky, but they helped … In the meantime … while I haven’t been paying childcare I’ve managed to put away nearly four grand for a new car. We’ve got a Commodore at the moment, which is not what I would want for the rest of my life, at this point in time anyway. It’s getting quite squashy for the kids. So I’m after a seven-seater hopefully, just so they have a bit of room, just to move them around, which is good. I’ll definitely get there if I keep going that way. (Narr_5)

Here, the neoliberal policy rhetoric, constructed as unquestionable and inevitable, is at odds with the nature and reality of circumstances where vulnerable groups lack necessary economic resources to access childcare without subsidies or access public funded childcare. Forces of divergence come into play, in that greater structural inequalities are produced and function to create divisions between groups, that is, the haves and the have nots (Piketty, 2014), yet these inequities are not considered in policy representations by the government.

When coupled with the austerity discourse, economic arguments promote fear and crisis. An example of this can be seen in the funding of egalitarian schemes in education. The increase in child-focused investment discourse is a normative frame for equality and rationality in the knowledge economy. It is important to note at this point that some attempt was made by governments (between 2008 and 2012) to equalize distribution and support greater inclusion of equity groups (Lingard et al., 2014). 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. For these groups, the service is more than childcare, it is also a pathway out of poverty through connections to necessary programs:

This [support] program being linked with the child care is just what makes it … a Godsend. That’s where I found out about the child care, through that, and then all the extra things which has been a Godsend. It wasn’t just getting him out of the house and giving me time for the two days a week that he goes, it was now we have [program] Meals on Mondays. He goes to day care Tuesdays. Wednesdays is–they have seminars there, or they have the playgroup. So it’s either one or the other, depending what week. Thursday is again a day care day. Then Fridays is music, which we had been enrolled in and that’s where I started to really pop into the day care more and more. So, they got to know me, and being open, I found out about it. (Narr_4)

Here, the discourse suggests the notion of collectivity and support in which childcare service workers work with the family to develop stronger connections. For Thomas Piketty (2014), this narrative alludes to the notion of collective representation. Otterstad and Braathe (2016) suggest early childcare workers engage in resistance toward the neoliberal agenda and reframe discourses to espouse collectivist approaches and egalitarianism. In solidarity as a collective (collective representation) with vulnerable groups, childcare workers with human service workers can critically argue against tendencies toward privileging the private sector. Reconstituting narratives and discourse in line with Piketty’s (2014) representation argument, functions as the first step toward educational convergence and working in solidarity.

Political economy of education and educational convergence

Piketty’s (2014) work is extremely valuable in conceptualizing the argument for strengthening the public education system as one way to prevent burgeoning inequalities and degradation of the public sector funding regimes. For Piketty, rapidly increasing inequalities originate from the convergence between political institutions, social and economic forces, and belief systems (such as “meritocratic extremism”), perpetuating unequal wage and capital distribution. In these circumstances, the rate of return on capital far exceeds the growth rate of the economy, leading to an unequal concentration of wealth at the top 1% of economic power elites. Taken further, the Piketty treatise reveals the way inequality has been produced and reproduced over time through political economic systems to legitimate and benefit those in power and with greater income and wealth. The political economy of education therefore is anchored to political economic systems, wherein economic processes do not operate in isolation from social, political or educative processes.

In taking this to a grassroots level, Piketty’s (2014) idea of educational convergence and collective representation is also found in strengthening the public education system. In public early childcare centers, collective representation is found in the interaction between childcare workers, human service workers, families and communities. A narrative provides insight into working in solidarity with families and building broader connections with the community:

I suppose supporting the mums to successfully engage in the day care and not see that that is an issue that they’ve been facing before. But I think for those families to engage a little bit more socially within the community to benefit the kids and themselves. (Narr_5)

In Australia, educational outcomes are widening and highly disparate to the extent that children from poorer families are faring much worse than children from wealthier families. Good socially democratic education is cornerstone to redressing inequality and disadvantage (Novelli, 2016). The above illustration points to the need for educational convergence and collective representation as transformative and emancipatory forces implemented through all levels of education policy and practice. In line with Piketty’s argument, greater investment in education by strengthening public services and provision of funding to public education and social services can occur through solidarity and collective representation in a truly social democratic society. For example, the narratives of families that show how support can emancipate from poverty, especially when used in social activism are a means of resisting austerity discourses and advocating for investing in public subsidies:

But also supporting them to get their fees under control, their debts under control so when they do transition back in at full cost it won’t be as difficult and then they would’ve built better relationship with the childcare to be able to manage that in the future if that does happen … You see the benefits more than them. They’re kind of I’m the same/same but we’re getting a lot more out of it than just them coming for that fee. Because they are engaging all the other stuff that’s going on as well. (Narr_6)

Another narrative points to solidarity in working with families and providing more than a childcare service or early learning program:

I think even though if childcare wasn’t funded as part of this program again that case management model to attend the childcare is still probably really needed for those parents that either one, financially can’t afford it but don’t know about financial counsellors or loopholes in hardship with energy and all that kind of stuff. Just to create that bit more awareness I think to get the name out there a little bit more and work in conjunction better with stakeholders that are so close in this area that obviously you have [NGO] and [child safety, housing and income support are] massive here … So there’s obviously a demand for support for families outside of those walls. So if that could be us and we knew that it could be us for, say, a five year period from parents that started day care to transitioning out of it might’ve been really effective for those children. (Narr_7)

For vulnerable groups, such as the young mothers, early childcare is more than an educational setting site; it is a space for solidarity and collaboration beyond economic notions. Here, it becomes an important interplay between reconstituting discourses and representations and working collectively in solidarity for greater transformation.

Another case depicts solidarity with government agencies in transforming the space to be inclusive and represent the collective. The case illustrates that change may not be big picture in first instance and may in fact require solidarity in making the change to an egalitarian model:

Then we had to have this discussion with the (education) department about, well, the childcare’s going to look pretty different … I guess that gave us some more flexibility. But what that also meant is we could have more than 10 families, so we might have two families using one full-time childcare spot or whatever. But it took a little bit for the department to be like, yes, no, I get that. Yes, okay, that’s right. Yes, okay. They’ve been so good at letting us change so much stuff. It’s been really good. It’s the best experience I’ve ever had with the department … We’ve been feeding that back to them as well about, thanks so much for being flexible, because now we can get it to work. (Narr_8)

Such narratives reinforce the notion that change can happen through working in solidarity and reframing the discourse. The narratives also suggest concrete ways to resist neoliberalism in defense of public funded non-government organizations that can provide more than childcare but also a connection and space for transformation (Piketty, 2014) From there, actions taken by staff and large non-government organizations involved developing greater connections at the community level to initiate subsequent social actions such as submissions to the government (using discourses of the young mothers).

Conclusion: solidarity and collective representation

The notion of inequality is not new to the education domain. However, what is new and relevant is the push back against the neoliberal project and advancing the importance of strengthening public early childcare education and social supports as key to the creation of a more equal and democratic society for collective endeavors. Piketty (2014) identified through educational convergence the role of education in transforming the political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Working in solidarity helps redress inequality through reframing discourses in the first instance and resisting the neoliberal tendency for the redistribution of wealth to the private sector and promotion of the knowledge economy of education.

For this vulnerable group (young mothers), education and early childcare is more than an educational setting or site for assessment and testing. It becomes a site to resist oppression and garner solidarity and collaboration beyond economic notions. Education plays a critical role in transforming spaces, society, and oppressive education or economic systems and promoting alternative education visions (democratic and critical activist scholarship). This counter hegemony is seen in the way reconstituting discourses and then engaging in activism in education can contest inequality and promote alternative policies, practices, and discourses that function in with grassroots social movements and activist scholars. This provides one way forward in perpetuating and reinforcing new policies, practices, discourses, and norms in society (Moeller and Tarlau, 2016; Määttä and Uusiautti, 2012).

At the grassroots level, this means working in solidarity with vulnerable groups to ensure education is not reduced to reproducing the very inequalities it seeks to redress. As Tarlau (2016) contends, educational inequality is a structural issue and “for education to serve an emancipatory purpose, these inequalities must be addressed” (p. 12), therefore educational force as a convergence through diffusion of knowledge and power, and a newly framed counterhegemonic education strategy with vulnerable groups as co-collaborators. In solidarity with young mothers, collective representation can create an alternative vision to current neoliberal education project, privatization and standardization. The notion of educational convergence when used with other alternate strategies is a tool for disrupting the neoliberal project and transitioning to a socially democratic society that upholds education, inclusive of early childhood education, as a right. To be truly transformational solidarity occurs at the grassroots to tackle uncertainties and provide an alternative vision for vulnerable groups, such as young mothers and society as a whole. Piketty (2014) recognized personal agency and the potential for social change in the political economy of education through unpacking dominant ideas, values, and practices and giving rise to being comfortable in working with uncertainty and complexity in educational environments. Solidarity and collective representation found at the grassroots level can be used as a tool of resistance from neoliberal approaches, and one way to argue for public childcare centers and also a return to collective community centers.