Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies : perspectives from Australia, Finland and Norway

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies : perspectives from Australia, Finland and Norway © The Authors, 2019. Published version Halttunen, Leena; Sims, Margaret; Waniganayake, Manjula; Hadley, Fay; Bøe, Marit; Hognestad, Karin; Heikka, Johanna Halttunen, L., Sims, M., Waniganayake, M., Hadley, F., Bøe, M., Hognestad, K., & Heikka, J. (2019). Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies : perspectives from Australia, Finland and Norway. In P. Strehmel, J. Heikka, E. Hujala, J. Rodd, & M. Waniganayake (Eds.), Leadership in Early Education in Times of Change : Research from five Continents (pp. 231-252). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.3224/8474219918 2019 https://doi.org/10.3224/8474219918 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies – perspectives from Australia, Finland and Norway1 Leena Halttunen, Margaret Sims, Manjula Waniganayake, Fay Hadley, Marit Bøe, Karin Hognestad & Johanna Heikka English Abstract This research is based in early childhood centres in Australia, Finland and Norway, considered the leadership work of centre Directors and Deputy Directors. Theoretically, this study is situated within the global landscape of neoliberalism that Sims (2017) describes as forcing the reshaping of early childhood policy in numerous OECD countries. Essentially qualitative in design, this exploratory study uses data gathered via a short background survey questionnaire, content analysis of job description statements, and a follow up interview with each participant. Findings indicate that there are differences within and across the three countries in the way these jobs are structured. It appears that the expectations of each role and how participants engage in leadership are framed by their centre contexts. In Australia, leaders of centres achieving an excellent quality rating tend to focus on relationship work when making leadership decisions. In Finland, Directors and Deputy Directors are expected to collaborate as partners when overseeing the work of 2-3 centres and other services. In Norway, there has been a redistribution of work where Deputy Directors have a co-responsibility in leadership enactment. When taken together, these findings illuminate new insights on how Directors experience leadership when Deputies are part of the leadership team in early childhood settings. German Abstract Dieser Forschungsbereich Bericht basiert auf Kindertageseinrichtungen in Australien, Finnland und Norwegen und befasst sich mit der Arbeit von Einrichtungsleitungen und stellvertretenden Leitungskräften. Theoretisch ist die Studie angesiedelt in der globalen Landschaft des Neoliberalismus, den Sims als richtungsgebend für die Neuausrichtung der frühkindlichen Bildung in zahlreichen OECD-Ländern beschreibt. Grundsätzlich qualitativ im Design nutzt diese Studie Daten, die in einem kurzen Fragebogen für Hintergrundinformationen, einer Inhaltsanalyse von Stellenbeschreibungen und einer anschließenden Befragung aller Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer gesammelt wurden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen Unterschiede innerhalb und zwischen den drei Ländern in der Strukturierung der Stellen. Es scheint, dass die Erwartungen an jede Rolle und die Art und Weise, wie die Teilnehmerinnen und Teil1 This article has been object of double blind peer reviews. 232 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies nehmer ihre Leitungsrolle ausfüllen, durch den Kontext ihrer jeweiligen Einrichtung gerahmt sind. In Australien tendieren Leitungen, die eine exzellente Qualität erzielen, dazu, bei Leitungsentscheidungen den Fokus auf Beziehungsarbeit zu legen. In Finnland wird von Leitungskräfte und stellvertretenden Leitungskräften erwartet, dass sie partnerschaftlich zusammenarbeiten wenn sie für 2-3 Kitas sowie andere Einrichtungen zuständig sind. In Norwegen gab es eine Neuverteilung der Arbeit in der Weise, dass stellvertretende Leitungen eine Mitverantwortung in der Leitungsarbeit tragen. Insgesamt erlauben die Ergebnisse neue Einblicke, wie Leitungskräfte ihre Leitungsaufgaben erfahren, wenn Stellvertretungen ein Teil des Leitungsteams in Kitas sind. Finnish Abstract Tämä tutkimus, joka tarkasteli päiväkodin johtajien ja apulaisjohtajien johtajuutta, on toteutettu Australiassa, Suomessa ja Norjassa. Teoreettisesti tutkimus sijoittuu uusliberalistiseen ajatteluun, jonka Sims (2017) kuvaa laajenevasti muokkaavan varhaiskasvatuksen toimintatapoja useissa OECD maissa. Tutkimus on luonteeltaan laadullinen tutkimus ja sen aineistona on osallistujien lyhyt taustakysely, työnkuvien sisällönanalyysi ja yksilöhaastattelut. Tulosten mukaan erilaisuutta työn rakenteissa on sekä kunkin maan sisällä että maiden välillä. Tutkimuksessa havaittiin, että odotukset jokaisen roolista ja siitä, kuinka henkilöt osallistuvat johtajuuteen muovautuvat päiväkotikontekstissa. Australiassa johtajat hyvän laatuarvion saaneissa päiväkodeissa näyttävät toteuttavan yhteistoimijuutta päätöksiä tehtäessä. Suomessa johtajien ja apulaisjohtajien odotetaan toimivan yhteistyössä johtaessaan 2-3 päivähoitoyksikköä. Norjassa on tehty työn uudelleenjärjestelyä, jolloin apulaisjohtajat ovat johtajan rinnalla vastuullisia johtajuuden toteuttamisesta. Yhteenvetona voi todeta näiden tulosten tuovan esille uusia näkökulmia siitä, miten johtajat kokevat johtajuutensa, kun apulaisjohtajat ovat osa johtajuustiimiä varhaiskasvatuksen yksiköissä. Introduction This chapter is based on a small scale unfunded tri-nation study of early childhood education (ECE) centre Directors and Deputies in Australia, Finland and Norway. As a pioneering study, however, the goal was not to compare these three nations, but to ascertain insights about current developments in an area of shared interest in ECE leadership. The research aimed to understand aspects which frame the leadership of these early childhood practitioners who occupy positions of authority by virtue of their employment position and leadership status. Previous research and publications around ECE leadership influenced the design of this research. In this paper, we focus on time-based issues which framed the work expectations of centre Directors and Deputies. Ethical aspects of this study were approved by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics 233 Leena Halttunen et al. Committee (Ref. No 5201600733) and equivalent authorities at the other universities were all informed of this research. With increasing interest in leadership responsibilities, the work of Centre Directors and Deputies is evolving rapidly in each of the three countries involved in this research. In all three countries, there is limited research about the work of Deputies who work within and across clusters of centres. Likewise, there is little or no mention of the work of Deputy Directors in research focusing on Centre Directors. This lack of research does not allow for comparing our findings with the research done in other countries. Although the tradition of Deputy leadership is stronger in school education, research is also limited in that context. In a few studies focusing on Deputies, findings note a lack of training and unclear job descriptions (Cranston, Tromans, & Reugebrink, 2004). In addition, research related to distributed leadership rarely focuses on Deputies as a specific group further confirming a dearth of literature exploring the role of the Deputy in ECE settings. The extent to which the distribution of leadership can influence the core pedagogical tasks and the quality of the settings is not yet fully understood in the early childhood sector in Australia, Finland and Norway. With a view to contributing to this knowledge base, this study examined the influence of context in framing the work of ECE centre Directors and Deputy Directors in Australia, Finland and Norway. Key findings in this research are used to consider implications for future research as well as professional practice from a global perspective. Situating the Study The neoliberal political agenda is evident in various forms across much of the western world, and its impact is being felt in public education globally (Giroux, 2015). Thus, it is useful to examine how it impacts on ECE policy development, particularly in relation to how leadership is positioned. Giroux (2015), a vocal critique of the impact of neoliberalism on civilisation, positions the marketisation of society, and especially education and social services, as responsible for: … a ruthless quest for profits and the elevation of self-interests over the common good. The educational goal of expanding the capacity for critical thought and the outer limits of the imagination have given way to the instrumental desert of a mind-deadening audit culture. (p. 120) This is particularly pertinent in the early childhood sector where, in the past, a focus on supporting children’s developing interests and passions, encouraging imagination, critical thought and free play were long-held goals. Modern 234 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies ECE settings are increasingly characterised by curricula that specify what children have to learn along with the teaching strategies required to support their learning. These are accompanied by accountability processes that demonstrate settings are compliant to externally imposed standards designed to ensure good quality service delivery. It appears “democratic and value-based arguments seem to have disappeared from the public debate” (Vandenbroeck, 2017, p. 10). As a consequence, the work of ECE educators has moved more towards technocratic processes which “focus the educator’s gaze outwardly on the child who is to be assessed, measured then changed” (Campbell, Smith, & Alexander, 2017, p. 58). This is reflected in the ECE sector by requirements for documenting, observing and analysing children’s every emotion, expression and behaviour. This panoptic surveillance of children is justified by the neoliberal positioning of them as human capital (Hunkin, 2017). An extensive, highly esteemed and much cited body of literature supports this position (Black et al., 2017; OECD, 2017; Penn, 2017; UNICEF Early Childhood Development Unit, 2014; World Health Organisation and UN International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2018). Additionally, Heckman’s work (2006, 2011, 2014) provides the economic rationale for investing in quality settings for young children as this investment results in improving the chances of good outcomes. Thus, this is not only an effective, but an economically viable strategy to reduce societal disadvantage. However as others argue, this positioning also continues to support the advantages claimed by the elite (Chomsky, 2016; Monbiot, 2017). This highlights a fear that children are no longer valued for who they are, with rights to learn and develop following individual strengths and inclinations. Rather early childhood education risks becoming “a mere preparation for the real learning that takes place in compulsory school” and “pedagogy risks being reduced to the development of effective methods to achieve the predefined goals” (Vandenbroeck, 2017, p. 14). The situation in Australia foreshadows directions in which other nations may move, given it is claimed educators in this country are subject to more extreme neoliberalism than anywhere else in the world (Smyth, 2017) and that this is a direction emerging in policy initiatives elsewhere (Moss & Urban, 2017; Sims, Alexander, Pedey, & Tausere-Tiko, 2018; Sims et al., 2018a; Sims & Pedey, 2015; Sims & Tiko, 2016; Sims & Tiko, 2019). In the Australian early childhood sector this is exemplified by a range of policy and legislative initiatives (see Sims, Mulhearn, Grieshaber, & Sumsion, 2015 for an overview) that shape and ultimately define practice. The ‘technocratic-alisation’ of education arises from neoliberal-based “coercive and controlling social engineering by the state” (White & Wastell, 2017, p. 38) and it is in this context that leaders are put into a position where they become the tools used to attain the goals of the state (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2017). In other words, leaders in early childhood are positioned, by neoliberal policy, 235 Leena Halttunen et al. to act upon educators, becoming the agents responsible for shaping educator practice into the required parameters (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016). Thus, educators themselves are becoming more and more deskilled and, within early childhood settings, this situation manifests itself as de-professionalisation (Jovanovic & Fane, 2016; Sims, Forrest, Semann, & Slattery, 2014). Contextualising ECE Leadership in Australia, Finland and Norway In situating this study globally, it is appropriate to consider the enactment of leadership across the different national contexts. Such an examination will not only articulate the ways in which neoliberalism is performed in different contexts, it may also provide opportunities to identify the different ways in which some leaders are able to operate to create an organisational context where values, other than those foregrounded by neoliberalism, operate. The understandings of Directors and Deputy Directors operating in ECE settings, and the ways in which they work together will help shed light on some of the complexities of operating an ECE centre in a world where neoliberalism “perverts the modern ideals of justice, freedom, and political emancipation” (Giroux, 2015, p. 3), shapes individuals to become dehumanised, self-interested and lacking in empathy (Jurkiewicz & Grossman, 2012) and where organisations most likely to succeed do so by aggressively pursuing organisational goals to the detriment of individuals, communities and the environment (Jurkiewicz & Grossman, 2012). In the following section, we provide a brief overview of the contemporary ECE policy landscape in Australia, Finland and Norway to assist in contextualising the findings of this research. Within Australia In Australia, the role of the Educational Leader (equivalent to that sometimes identified as a ‘Pedagogical Leader’ in international literature) was established in 2012 to work with educators to ensure practice aligned with the required quality standards (Waniganayake & Sims, 2018). The creation of this position aligns with the neoliberal focus identifying leadership as a necessary tool to develop educator “discipline, order, mindless enthusiasm, conformity, and loyalty” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016, p. 17). Thus, leaders are seen as responsible for shaping an overall culture of conformity which is supposed to ensure quality (Giroux, 2015). However, the role of the educational leader was left undefined by the government and centres determined their own job descriptions (Cumming, Sumsion, & Wong, 2013; Fleet, Soper, Semann, & Madden, 2015; Grarock & Morrissey, 2013; Sims, Waniganayake, & Hadley, 2018a). Within the neoliberal context, there is 236 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies an emphasis on compliance and the expectation that the role will shape practice towards compulsory standards. Extant research indicates that leaders (Educational Leaders/Directors/Deputy Directors – the differentiation remains unclear in many circumstances) in the early years of implementing the National Quality Framework spent as much as a third of their time on compliance focused activities such as monitoring pedagogical documentation created by the educators they were supervising, and working on the compulsory accreditation standards (Garrock & Morrissey, 2013; Rouse & Spradbury, 2015; Sims et al., 2018a; Sims & Waniganayake, 2015). This research found that whilst many leaders thought they were doing relationship work with their staff, their perceptions of the way in which they performed their work did not reflect this approach. In reality, many were intensely focused on trying to understand the new requirements and teach their staff how to enact these so that their centres would receive the best possible accreditation outcome. Agency is a key element in professionalisation (Goodson, 2007; Skattebol, Adamson, & Woodrow, 2016) and unquestioning acquiescence to external imposition of definitions of quality is, in itself a form of de-professionalisation (Sims et al., 2014; Sims et al., 2018a). Leaders exemplified this acquiescence but it is important to note that in accepting this form of control, followers are also participating in their own de-professionalisation (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016). It is interesting to note that later research, undertaken after settings had been subject to the new legislative regime for some years, suggested that in selected high quality centres, leaders were less likely to focus on compliance and more likely to engage in supportive, collegial relationships with their staff (Sims, Waniganayake, & Hadley, 2018b). Within Finland Finland is currently in the process of making policy changes focusing on ECE. The Finnish National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (EDUFI, 2016) was revised two years ago. The previous curriculum provided specific directions that educators were required to follow. The revised version has taken a different approach, requiring municipalities and ECE centres to develop their own curriculum based on the national policy. Thus the national curriculum steers the provision, implementation and development of ECE with the exception of the pre-primary sector which has its own curriculum. The roles of Directors and educators are outlined in the National Curriculum including the role of teachers as leaders. At the time of writing this article, the sector awaits the new Act for ECE which will replace the 1973 version. It is anticipated that the new Act will provide new regulations for staffing ECE settings in Finland. Since the 1990s, in most Finnish municipalities, smaller day care units have been merged with larger ones. Whereas in the past, most Directors led one centre 237 Leena Halttunen et al. and simultaneously had teaching duties with children, today most focus wholly on leadership and run a cluster of centres. Vesalainen, Cleve, & Ilves (2013), for instance, report that 60% of the Directors led at least three types of services and units. Despite this, there are still Directors who continue to hold the traditional double role of director and early childhood teacher within a centre. The tasks of Centre Directors are also set at the municipality level. Eskelinen and Hujala (2015) and Vesalainen et al. (2013) report the main areas of leadership responsibility of a Centre Director include pedagogy, service, knowledge, human resources management and other daily operational tasks. The Centre Director has a key role in developing the organisational culture of ECE settings. Developing the organisational culture involves pedagogical leadership, development of education and care programmes, assessment of children’s learning as well as ensuring good working conditions for staff and developing their vocational competence (EDUFI, 2016). Deputy leadership is also not a new concept in the Finnish ECE context but its importance has increased (Halttunen, 2016). There are no national regulations identifying how leadership in ECE operates thus municipalities decide how Deputy Directors are appointed, what positional terms are used, whether they receive any extra salary and how their roles and responsibilities are defined. Despite municipalities potentially determining tasks and duties for Deputy Directors, job descriptions, if they exist, tend to be developed at the centre level. Often, the appointment of a Deputy Director is undertaken by the Director who tends to identify a suitable staff member from those already employed at the centre. Some municipalities have now started to open the position of Deputy Director for application by the early childhood educators of the municipality. In addition to a position of a Deputy Director, municipalities may appoint other leadership roles. As there are no set positional titles, there is a variation in the titles used. Within Norway In Norway, there is a similar evolution of the role of Centre Director from one of working in small centres with a few early childhood teachers and assistants, to the present day where small ECE settings are likely to be merged into larger ECE centres. This change is accompanied by a change in the role of EC Directors; in more recent times the role focuses more clearly on leadership with a lager emphasis on external tasks (Børhaug & Lotsberg, 2010). In Norway, 46% of ECE settings are public and 56% are private, with both forms being regulated under the same laws and regulations. In 2016, 91% of Directors and teacher leaders had an early childhood teacher education Bachelor degree qualification. Norway, like Finland and Australia, has recently revised core ECE laws and regulations. There has been much debate in the media, trade unions and the ECE sector in relation to these changes and the direction in which the sector 238 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies should develop. From 2009, children’s right to access ECE was introduced for children born before September 1st the year before admission. As of the autumn of 2017, children born in November were entitled to access ECE settings, enrolling in the autumn of the following year. The same year, changes to the way in which children’s age was recognised enabled children to stay 6 months longer in the younger children’s section. This change benefited children given the better adult:child ratios and smaller group sizes required for the younger age group. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education has now adopted stricter standards for educational staff (number of children/early childhood teacher educated with at least a Bachelor’s degree) with 7 children per early childhood teacher if the child is below three years and 14 children per ECE teacher if the child is more than three years old. This norm demands a minimum of 43% of early childhood teachers with a Bachelor’s degree make up staff in ECE centres. From August 2018, the new early childhood teacher norm became mandatory. Simultaneously, Directors’ time for leadership and management is no longer to be included in the calculation of the standards for the educational crew. The Kindergarten Act states that ECE centres shall have a Director who is a trained early childhood teacher (Kindergarten Act, 2018). In Norway the National Framework Plan for ECE has recently been revised (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). Despite the huge international intrusion of neoliberalism into ECE politics in this country, the revised version of the framework plan maintains a holistic approach to learning. This approach encourages play, relationships, curiosity, and the desire for meaning making based on activities that value both children and educators in a co-constructing environment. In the new framework plan, leadership roles and responsibilities have been emphasized and clarified (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017). The Norwegian Kindergarten Act (2005) states that ECE centres shall have both pedagogical and administrative leadership (Ministry of Education and Research, 2005). Leadership positions and time allocated to leadership tasks are regulated through special agreements between employee and employer (SENTRAL FORBUNDSVIS SÆRAVTALE, 2016). These requirements apply to both public and private centres and create the space in which Deputy Director positions have arisen. For example, a center with 100 children may have two full-time leadership positions: a Director and a Deputy. Centres with 45–59 children are required to have 0.6% full-time equivalent (FTE) leadership positions. Centres with more than 100 children are required to have 1.7% FTE leadership positions (Vassenden et al., 2011). How to divide leadership responsibilities between Directors and Deputies is determined by the municipality or at the centre level. The leadership tasks formally delegated to the Deputy Director can also vary according to factors such as the organisational size, structure, the nature of decision-making and culture 245 Leena Halttunen et al. laboration with the Centre Director addressing tasks such as client service, financial issues, placing a new child at the centre, arranging annual leave for the centre staff and coordinating the duty arrangements of all centre staff. If needed, the Deputy had full responsibility to rearrange the work shifts of the staff. However, there was nothing about the relationship between the Deputy and the Director in the very detailed job description of the Centre Director of this same municipality. The Deputy Director from the private centre had several administrative tasks such as reporting to the Director about the work shifts or sick leave. The Deputy was also expected to collaborate with the Director in designing pedagogical plans for the centre. Unfortunately, the job description from the private centre was not provided so comparison is not possible. Guidelines provided by the municipality provided information on the work of Deputies. Deputies should work in a playgroup for children between 3-5 years, there should be another teacher working in the same group and their work shift should be between 7:30-16:30. In Norway, the analysis of the job descriptions indicated that the Director and Deputy Director followed each other closely, but the wording of their responsibilities was different. With the Directors, the words “in charge of” was used and with the Deputy Directors, the words used were “contribute to”. These words make it clear that the main responsibility lies with the Director and that the Deputy Director was perceived as a support, assisting the Director. In the private centre, the main responsibility of the Director was also reinforced as leading as in this context the Director participated in the leadership team with the centre owner. How the work was distributed depended largely on the Director`s wishes and needs, but the division of labor was developed through dialogue and cooperation with the Deputy Director. One of the Deputy Directors from Norway was working one day a week in one of the departments (groups of children) together with the room leader (teacher leader with formal leadership responsibility for her department), assistants and children. Here, she had specific tasks in relation to observing children and to guide, support and challenge staff in pedagogical work with children. She was also responsible for supervising staff so that the team worked as well as possible. Although most of the time the work of both Directors and Deputy Directors work was away from the children, they both acknowledged the importance of getting to know the children and their parents. Therefore, they often stepped out of their offices to talk to children and parents, as well as staff. 246 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies Discussion Based on the findings of this study presented in this paper, we offer three key observations about the work of early childhood centre Directors and Deputy Directors in Australia, Finland and Norway. i) Time resources • Formal allocation of time resources across the three countries varied significantly. • Only the Norwegian participants agreed there was sufficient time allocated to do the Deputy Director’s work. • Some Directors worked as teacher-Directors, whereby they had regular responsibilities for a group of children. • Additionally, Directors in Finland also worked with playgroups and Family Day Carers. The data demonstrated different approaches to sharing the leadership work between Directors and Deputies both within and between countries. In some situations, the data showed Directors held sole authority (leading alone). Elsewhere, there appeared to be multiple roles being performed by Directors and Deputies, with the adoption of a collaborative approach to delineating leadership responsibilities (leading together). Elements of these two approaches arising from the data are identified below. ii) Leading alone • Deputy Director positions were not required by regulation in Australia and Finland. In Norwayleadership positions and time allocated to leadership are regulated by the size of the centre. Centres with 100+ children have Deputy Directors. Directors and Deputy Directors, who worked collaboratively. • Deputy Directors tended to develop their role informally through negotiation with the Director. Generally, the Director held strong leadership responsibilities, delegating tasks to the Deputy as needed. • Directors lead from a position of power and responsibility, and carried the main responsibility. The Deputy Directors stepped into this role only when the Director was away/absent from the centre. This study included a mix of ECE settings comprising both stand-alone centres and those that were located within a cluster of ECE programmes that also included family day care and playgroups as in the case of Finland and Norway. In the case of Australia, ECE centres could belong to a group or chain of centres that were owned by a private individual or corporation. However, the small number of participants involved in this study makes it impossible to comment about the 247 Leena Halttunen et al. nature of leading alone, on the basis of the structural arrangements of each setting. iii) Leading together • Leadership is enacted through democratic relationships between Directors and Deputy Directors • The Director involves the Deputy in meaning making and how to improve centre practices. It appears that across all three countries, there was a prevailing sense of collaboration within each ECE setting participating in this study. Likewise, all participants were also aware of the need to balance the pedagogical and administrative/compliance requirements of their leadership responsibilities that were being shaped by the expectations reflected in their country’s national policy landscape. Overall however, given the small scale of this research, it is important to note that the generalisability of these findings are limited. In particular, only one participant from each centre was included in the study, and this means that the findings reflect one person’s perspectives of the work at each organisation. Inclusion of multiple participants from one centre could provide a richer analysis of relationship dynamics between Centre Directors and their Deputies. Conclusion Overall, it appears that the enactment of neoliberalism in Australian early childhood may well foreshadow developments elsewhere in the world. The neoliberal positioning of leaders as the agents of compliance-driven change becomes possible when both leaders and followers accept the roles into which they are placed. As Freire (1973) wrote many years ago, we can choose to be complicit in our own oppression, or we can chose to resist. More recently Jurkiewicz and Giacalone (2017, p. 2) remind us that leaders have a significant impact on the culture of an organisation and that “leaders who are ethical have improved employee physical, psychological, and job wellbeing”. They define ethical leadership as consisting of a range of characteristics including transparency in decision-making and considerations of social justice, equity and fairness. Leaders in ECE have a huge responsibility to secure and support their leadership team to direct and facilitate pedagogical work with children (Bøe, 2016; Hognestad, 2016). In contexts where Directors and Deputies are leading together, they emphasize building strong teams. The question remains – when does a centre require a Deputy Director? To what extent does this decision rely solely on structural elements of child enrolments and child:staff ratios? Other factors, apart from the purely economic ones 248 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies associated with size might need to be considered. For example, the contextual elements of the community taking into account child and family background variables, require deeper consideration in leadership enactment. Where settings work with particularly challenging communities, families and or children, should they prioritise a Deputy position to enhance capacity to offer appropriate supports? Waniganayake and Sims (2018) suggest that in addition to this, there is a need to consider the relationship elements of leadership work. They argue that a strong focus on building supportive relationships with staff, and an ability to build on staff strengths, is likely to be reflected in high quality service delivery to children and families. In these neoliberal times where investment in good quality ECE settings is seen as the pathway to national economic well-being should ECE settings be advocating for Deputy positions to create space for relationship-focused, empowering leadership to occur? The insights gained from this research alert us to critically reflect on the impact of compliance requirements shaping the role of pedagogical leadership with care. Although formal job descriptions can provide boundaries and clarity about roles and responsibilities, the extent to which they can inhibit agency for those enacting leadership roles requires deeper exploration. References Alvesson, M. & Spicer, A. (2016). The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work. London: Pearson. Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., & Harris, A. (2012). How do they manage? An investigation of early childhood leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(1), 5-29. doi: 10.1177/1741143212462702. Black, M. M., Walker, S. P., Fernald, L. C. H., Andersen, C. T., DiGirolamo, A. M., Lu, C., . . . Grantham-McGrego, S. (2017). Advancing Early Childhood Development: from Science to Scale 1. Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. Lancet, 389, 77-90. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)31389-7 Bøe, M. (2016). Personalledelse som hybride praksiser. Et kvalitativt og tolkende skyggestudie av pedagogiske ledere i barnehagen (Leadership as hybrid practices. A qualitative and interpretive study of teacher leaders in early childhood education and care). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim. Børhaug, K. & Lotsberg, D. Ø. (2010). Barnehageledelse i endring. (Changing ECE leadership). Nordic Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 3 (3), 79-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.277 Campbell, S., Smith, K., & Alexander, K. (2017). Spaces for gender equity in Australian early childhood education in/bettween discourses of human capital and feminism. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42 (3), 54-62. 249 Leena Halttunen et al. Chomsky, N. (2016). Who rules the world? New York: Hamish Hamilton (Penguin Books). Cranston, N., Tromans, C., & Reugebrink, M. (2004). Forgotten leaders: what do we know about the deputy principalship in secondary schools?, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(3), 225-242. doi: 10.1080/13603120410001694531 Cumming, T., Sumsion, J., & Wong, S. (2013). Reading between the Lines: an interpretative meta-analysis of ways early childhood educators negotiate discourses and subjectivities informing practice. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14 (3), 223-240. doi:10.2304/ciec.2013.14.3.223 Eskelinen, M., & Hujala, E. (2015). Early Childhood leadership in Finland in light of recent research, in M. Waniganayake, J. Rodd, & L. Gibbs (Eds.). Thinking and Learning about Leadership: Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and Norway (pp. 87-101). Research Monograph #2. Sydney: Community Child Care Cooperative NSW. Finnish National Agency for Education. (EDUFI) (2016). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. Helsinki. Retrieved from: http://www. oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/early_childhood_education_and_ care Fleet, A., Soper, R., Semann, A., & Madden, L. (2015). The role of the Educational Leader: perceptions and expectations in an era of change. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40 (3), 29-37. Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury. Giroux, H. (2015). Dangerous thinking in the age of the new authoritarianism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Goodson, I. F. (2007). All the lonely people: the struggle for private meaning and public purpose in education. Critical Studies in Education, 48 (1), 131-148. doi:10.1080/17508480601120954 Grarock, M. & Morrissey, A.-M. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of their abilities to be educational leaders in Victorian childcare settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38 (2), 4-12. Halttunen, L. (2016). Distributing leadership in a day care setting, Journal of ECE Education Research, 5 (1), 2-18. Heckman, J. (2006). Investing in disadvantaged young children is an economically efficient policy. Paper presented at the Committee for Economic Development, Pew Charitable Trusts. January 10, 2006. New York. (Retrieved from www.ced. org) Heckman, J. (2011). The economics of inequality. The value of early childhood education. American Educator, Spring, 31-47. Heckman, J. (2014). Going forward wisely. Paper presented at the The White House Summit on Early Education, Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://heckmanequation.org/content/white-house-summit-early-education#disqus_thread. Downloaded 15 December 2014. Ho, C. (2011). Respecting the Presence of Others: School Micropublics and Everyday Multiculturalism. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 32 (6), 603-619. Hognestad, K. (2016). Pedagogiske lederes kunnskapsledelse som praksis på avdelingen i barnehagen. Et kvalitativt og tolkende skyggestudie. (Formal teacher leaders knowledge management as practice in early childhood education and 250 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies care). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim. Hunkin, E. (2017). Whose quality? The (mis)uses of quality reform in early childhood and education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 33 (4) 1-14. doi:10.108 0/02680939.2017.1352032 Jovanovic, J., & Fane, J. (2016). Learner engagement under the ‘regulatory gaze’: possibilities for re-positioning early childhood pre-service teachers as autonomous professionals Early Years, 36 (2), 148-164. doi:10.1080/09575146.2015.1124006 Jurkiewicz, C., & Giacalone, R. (2017). You can lead a man to oughta, but you can’t make him thin. In C. Jurkiewicz & R. Giacalone (Eds.), Radical thoughts on ethical leadership (1-20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Jurkiewicz, C., & Grossman, D. (2012). Evil at work. In C. Jurkiewicz (Ed.), The foundations of organisational evil (3-15). Armonk, New Youk: M E Sharpe. Kindergarten Act, Norway (2018). Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/ lov/2005-06-17-64 Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its Methodology (4th edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. McCrae, N. (2015). Leading and managing early childhood settings: Inspiring people, places and practices. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education and Research. (2005). The Norwegian Kindergarten Act. Rewised 2018-07-01. Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/200506-17-64#KAPITTEL_5. Monbiot, G. (2017). Out of the wreckage. A new politics for an age of crisis. London: Verso. Moss, P. & Urban, M. (2017). The OECD’s International Early Learning Study: what happens next. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/34130726/ The_OECDs_International_Early_Learning_Study_what_happened_next?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest OECD. (2017). Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD Publishing. Penn, H. (2017). Anything to divert attention from poverty. In M. Vandenbroeck, with J. De Vos, W. Fias, L. Mariett Olsson, H. Penn, D. Wastell, & S. White (Eds.), Constructions of neuroscience in early childhood education (54-67). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Rodd, J. (2013). Leadership in Early Childhood. Pathways to professionalism (4th edition). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Rouse, E. & Spradbury, G. (2015). The role of the educational leader in long day care – how do they perceive their role? Early Child Development and Care, 186 (3), 497-508. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1036419 SENTRAL FORBUNDSVIS SÆRAVTALE VEDRØRENDE SFS 2201, Norway (Special agreement between employer(KS) and employee (trade unions), (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.utdanningsforbundet.no/globalassets/lonn-og-arbeidsvilkar/tariffavtaler/1-ks/barnehageavtalen-sfs-2201-2016--2017.pdf Sims, M. (2017). Neoliberalism and early childhood. Cogent Education, 4, 1365411. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1365411 Sims, M., Alexander, E., Pedey, K., & Tiko, L. (2018). What discourses relating to the purpose of early childhood are shaping the work of early childhood practitioners 251 Leena Halttunen et al. in three different contexts: UK, Bhutan and the South Pacific? Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 223-236. doi: 10.5539/jel.v7n1p223 Sims, M., Alexander, E., Pedey, K., Tiko, L., Nislin, M., & Sajaniemi, N. (2018). Infant and Toddler Educare: a Challenge to Neoliberalism. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 8(1), 1-8. doi:10.4102/sajce.v8i1.594 Sims, M., Forrest, R., Semann, A., & Slattery, C. (2014). Conceptions of early childhood leadership: driving new professionalism? International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice 18 (2), 149-166. doi:10.1080/13603124 .2014.962101 Sims, M., Mulhearn, G., Grieshaber, S., & Sumsion, J. (2015). Australian National ECEC reforms, with a focus on the National Quality Framework and the National Quality Standard. Expert report for the German Youth Institute. Munich: Deutsches Jugendinstitut e. V (German Youth Institute). Sims, M., & Pedey, K. (2015). Are we all travelling similar paths to early childhood professionalisation? The case of Bhutan. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences, 2 (3), 218-226. Sims, M., & Tiko, L. (2016). We’re going on a bear hunt: reconciling neoliberalism and postcolonialism in Pacific early childhood. Cogent Education, 3 (1), 1152673. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1152673 Sims, M., & Tiko, L. (2019). Neoliberalism and Post-colonialism in conflict: hybridisation in early childhood in the South Pacific. New Zealand International Research in Early Childhood Education Journal, 22(1), 15-30. Sims, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2015). The role of staff in quality improvement in early childhood. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (5), 187-194. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i5.942 Sims, M., Waniganayake, M., & Hadley, F. (2018a). Educational leadership – an evolving role. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership. 46(1), 960979. doi:10.1177/1741143217714254 Sims, M., Waniganayake, M., & Hadley, F. (2018b). What makes good even better? Excellent EC Leadership Journal of Educational Management, 46(6), 960-979. doi:10.1177/1741143217714254. Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Manni, L. (2007). Effective leadership in the early years sector: The ELYES study. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Skattebol, J., Adamson, E., & Woodrow, C. (2016). Revisioning professionalism from the periphery. Early Years, 36 (2), 116-131. doi:10.1080/09575146.2015.1121975 Smyth, J. (2017). The toxic university. Zombie leadership, academic rock stars and neoliberal ideology. London: Palgrave Macmillan. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Framework Plan for Kindergartens. Oslo. Retrieved from: https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/ barnehage/rammeplan/framework-plan-for-kindergartens2-2017.pdf UNICEF Early Childhood Development Unit. (2014). Building better brains. New frontiers in early childhood development. Retrieved from: http://www.unicef. org/earlychildhood/files/Building_better_brains_web.pdf Vandenbroeck, M. (2017). Introduction: constructions of truth in early childhood education. In M. Vandenbroeck, with, J. De Vos, W. Fias, L. Mariett Olsson, H. Penn, D. Wastell, & S. White (Eds.), Constructions of neuroscience in early childhood education (1-19). Oxon, UK: Routledge. 252 Working as early childhood centre directors and deputies Vassenden, A., Thygesen, J., Brosvik, S. B., Alvestad, M., & Abrahamsen, G. (2011). Barnehagens organisering og strukturelle faktorers betydning for kvalitet. Retrieved from: http://www.udir.no/globalassets/upload/barnehage/forskning_ og_statistikk/rapporter/strukturelle_faktorers_betydning_for_kvalitet.pdf Vesalainen, A., Cleve, K., & Ilves, V. (2013). Päiväkodin johtajien työtaakasta tuli kohtuuton. Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö OAJ:n raportti päiväkodin johtajuudesta. Waniganayake, M., & Sims, M. (2018). Becoming critically reflective about early childhood education. Australian Educational Leaders effecting change as street-level bureaucrats. In J. L. Roopnarine & P. Faulk (Eds.), International Handbook for early childhood education (230-247). NY: Routledge. Waniganayake, M., Rodd, J., & Gibbs, L. (Eds.). (2015). Thinking and Learning about Leadership: Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and Norway. Research Monograph #2. Sydney: Community Child Care Cooperative NSW. White, S. & Wastell, D. (2017). Child development, parenting and polics of evidence. In M. Vandenbroeck, with, J. De Vos, W. Fias, L. Mariett Olsson, H. Penn, D. Wastell, & S. White (Eds.), Constructions of neuroscience in early childhood eduation (37-53). Oxon, UK: Routledge. World Health Organisation and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. (2018). Nurturing care for early childhood development. A global framework for action and results. Consultation document. Retrieved from: http://who. int/maternal_child_adolescent/child/nurturing-care-framework-first-draft.pdf?ua=1