Unravelling conceptualizations of (in)equality in early childhood education

Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=zns 20 No dic Jou nal o S udies in Educa ional Policy ISSN: (P in ) 2002-0317 (Online) Jou nal homepage: h ps://www. and online.com/loi/zns 20 Un a elling concep ualiza ions o (in)equali y in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e sys em Maiju Paananen, Ka ja Repo, Pe e i Ee ola & Maa i Alasuu a i To ci e his a icle: Maiju Paananen, Ka ja Repo, Pe e i Ee ola & Maa i Alasuu a i (2019) Un a elling concep ualiza ions o (in)equali y in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e sys em, No dic Jou nal o S udies in Educa ional Policy, 5:1, 54-64, DOI: 10.1080/20020317.2018.1485423 To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/20020317.2018.1485423 © 2018 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup. Published online: 28 Jun 2018. Submi you a icle o his jou nal A icle iews: 700 View C ossma k da a RESEARCH ARTICLE Un a elling concep ualiza ions o (in)equali y in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e sys em Maiju Paananen a , Ka ja Repo b , Pe e i Ee ola b and Maa i Alasuu a i c a Facul y o Educa ion, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland; b Facul y o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland; c Depa men o Educa ion, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland ABSTRACT Ea ly childhood educa ion’s ole in inc easing equali y in socie y has been highligh ed by in e na ional o ganiza ions. Howe e , i is unclea wha is mean by he concep o equali y in di e en si ua ions, as he meaning luc ua es and e lec s he cul u al poli ical con ex s in which i is embedded. In his pape , we analyse he equali y discou ses o local ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e (ECEC) policymake s in Finland, d awing on di e en concep ualiza ions o equali y and social jus ice. In doing so, we show ha he way in which equali y is concep ualized di e s –along wi h he sugges ed emedies –depending on whe he he subjec s o equali y a e adul s, child en a he bo de o an ins i u ional se ing, o child en wi hin he ECEC ins i u ion. ARTICLE HISTORY Recei ed 30 Oc obe 2017 Accep ed 22 May 2018 KEYWORDS Equali y; equi y; social jus ice; ea ly childhood educa ion; child ca e In oduc ion Ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e (ECEC) has become a co e in e es o policymake s in many coun- ies in he Global No h. In addi ion o being an in es men in a knowledge-based economy and a means o ensu ing economic g ow h and na ional com- pe i i eness, ECEC se ices a e conside ed a key playe in educing inequali y (e.g. UNICEF, 2000;Wo ld Bank, 1995). A educ ion o inequali ies ha e said o include, o example, b eaking he cycle o ansgene a- ional po e y (UNICEF, 2000), educing he need o special educa ion, inc easing he likelihood o heal hie li es yles, lowe ing he c ime a e and dec easing o e all social cos s (Heckman, 2011). A he same ime, inc easing in e connec edness ac oss na ion-s a es in e ms o he low o capi al has led o an inc ease in he discou se o in es ing in human capi al, meaning, educa ing p o i able wo ke s o s eng hen na ional economies. Howe e , he discou se abou he need o limi he ole o he s a e has, o some ex en , led o a ace o he bo om in he o m o minimizing egula- ions, social secu i y and public se ices (see Mahon, 2010; Mo el, Palie and Palme, 2012). The e o e, i is no su p ising ha issues ela ed o equali y and equi y ha e been on he ECEC agenda la ely. In addi ion, (in)equali y in ECEC has been subjec o inc eased in e es in he academic deba e o e he pas decade. The body o ECEC esea ch on (in)equali y has mainly conside ed (in)equali y om he iewpoin o balancing wo k and amily li e, and he a ailabili y o and access o se ices, and om he iewpoin o chil- d en’s de elopmen and lea ning en i onmen s (Ma y, Hau ala, Alasuu a i, Repo, & Ka ila, 2018). Ye , also pos -colonial and pos -s uc u al eminis pe spec i es ha e been u ilized o examining a hie a chy o di e - ences wi hin ECEC – he ways in which opp essi e powe ela ions ope a e in ECEC p ac ices (Robinson &JonesDiaz,2005). As no ed in ea lie s udies, equali y is a e m ha is some imes used loosely and aguely as an aim o ECEC so ha all s akeholde s a e willing o accep i (see Lazenby, 2016). Howe e , he ma e o wha exac ly is being alked abou when discussing equali y in he con- ex o ECEC has a ely been aised. Mo eo e , he e is e en spa se in o ma ion conce ning how hese issues a e concep ualized wi hin local-le el policies e en hough in many coun ies, as Finland, local ac o s ha e a g ea deal o au onomy in designing he ECEC sys em. This pape ocuses on he concep ualiza ions o equali y wi hin he ECEC sys em. We aim o ake pa in he ecen discussions conce ning discou ses o equali y in educa ion (Bøyum, 2013; Reay, 2012; Smi h, 2013). Speci ically, we aim o shed ligh on he how we can make di e ing concep ualiza ions o equali y mo e isible and u he un a el he di e - ences by using he discou ses o ECEC and childca e by Finnish policymake s as an example. In doing so, i becomes possible o con inue o seek common g ound o discussing he possible bene icial oles o educa ional sys ems and, mo e pa icula ly, he ECEC sys em in ackling socie al inequali ies. The pape is o ganized as ollows. Fi s , we p o- ide con ex ual in o ma ion abou Finnish ea ly childhood educa ion. Second, we explica e he s eps o ou inqui y and summa ize Wes en’s(1985), CONTACT Maiju Paananen [email p o ec ed] Uni e si y o Tampe e Åke lundinka u 5, Tampe e 33140, Finland NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 2019, VOL. 5, NO. 1, 54–64 h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/20020317.2018.1485423 © 2018 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup. This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. Lazenby’s(2016) and F ase ’s(1997,2008) accoun s o he elemen s he concep o equali y consis s o ha we ha e been inspi ed by when looking o an analy ical ool ha would help us un a el he mul i- plici y o concep ualiza ions o equali y in ea ly child- hood educa ion among local policymake s in Finland. Thi d, we illus a e he complexi y ela ed o concep- ualiza ions o equali y in ECEC by using illus a i e examples om he Finnish ECEC policy deba e. Finally, we discuss ou indings. Finnish ECEC as a con ex o examining concep ualiza ions o equali y The Finnish case o ECEC p o ides us wi h a use ul an age poin on examining concep ualiza ions o equali y. Equali y in childhood has usually been con- side ed as an essen ial cha ac e is ic o he No dic coun ies, and i is some imes iewed as a goal ha has been al eady achie ed. In he PISA su ey 2010 o ganized by he O ganisa ion o Economic Co- ope a ion and De elopmen (OECD), Finland had he smalles pe o mance a ia ions be ween schools on achie emen in he a eas o eading, ma hema ics and science as compa ed o all o he pa icipa ing na ions (OECD, 2010). This has been conside ed as a sign o an educa ional sys em ha os e s equali y. His o ically, he Finnish educa ion sys em has been de eloped assuming ha Finland is a he homogenous socie y (Go don & Holland, 2003). In his millennium, his con inues o be he dominan iew on Finnish ECEC (Lappalainen, 2006). Howe e , issues o (in)equali y ela ed o ECEC ha e been discussed. In he la e 1960s and ea ly 1970s, gende equali y –especially, he possibili y o women o pa icipa e in wo king li e –was on he agenda o Finnish social policy. This led o he es ab- lishmen o public ECEC se ices, p e iously e e ed as day ca e. In he 1980s, equali y was opicalized pa icula ly ega ding amilies who did no use ECEC se ices o hose who did no ha e access o cen e-based ECEC in he u al a eas (An onen, Baldock, & Sipilä, 2003). As a solu ion o his issue, he law ega ding home ca e allowance was enac ed, as will be desc ibed la e . Since he 1990s, he e oge- nei y in ECEC has been examined based mos ly on linguis ic and cul u al di e ences be ween child en and amilies (Jokikokko & Ka ikoski, 2016). The he e ogenei y in Finnish ECEC has inc eased especially a e he 1990s (A ola, Las ikka, & Reunamo, 2017). Ye , compa ed o o he coun ies, o example, he numbe o people wi h immig an backg ound is s ill low in Finland. In 2016, hei p opo ion was 6.6% o he whole popula ion. 1 Howe e , Finnish socie y has been o some ex en e hnically and cul u ally he e ogenous o cen u ies. Due o i s common his o y wi h Sweden, Finland has wo na ional languages, Finnish and Swedish, wi h he Swedish-speaking popula ion being he mino i y. Mo eo e , he e is a small Sami popula ion and Roma mino i y in Finland as well. All ECEC ins i u ions in Finland a e expec ed o ollow he na ional egula ions and cu iculum. Ins i u ional ECEC encompasses in eg a ed se ices o 0–6-yea -olds and includes cen e-based se ices as well as amily day ca e. Municipali ies ha e he esponsibili y o p o ide ECEC se ices o hei inhabi an s. Public p eschool 2 is he mos common ins i u ional ECEC se ing in Finland since 79% o he child en a ending ECEC a e en olled in public p eschools. In o al, abou 63% o all 1–6-yea -olds a end ECEC in Finland (THL, 2015). Municipal ECEC is no he only choice a ailable o Finnish pa en s a e pa en al lea e, howe e . As was men ioned ea lie , Finnish pa en s a e en i led o a child home ca e allowance. This enables hem o ake ca e o hei child en by hemsel es o o use o he in o mal ca e op ions i hei unde - h ee-yea -old child does no a end o u ilize he publicly subsi- dized ECEC se ices (K öge , An onen, & Sipilä, 2003; Repo, 2010). In addi ion, pa en s can be paid p i a e day ca e allowance by he Social Insu ance Ins i u ion o Finland, which enables hem o pu - chase child ca e se ices om he ma ke . Some municipali ies also pay a municipal supplemen on op o he p i a e day ca e allowance and/o p o ide a ouche o use a p i a e p eschools o p i a e amily day ca e se ices. While such bene i s o e al e na i es o he use o he public se ices, hey balance he cos s o p i a e se ices o he amilies ha choose ha op ion o a simila same le el as he cos o public ECEC. The mix u e o ca e allowances in Finland e lec s he key p inciple o he ECEC sys em, uni e salism, which e e s o he idea ha e e yone should ha e access o good-quali y se ices. This is conside ed one o he ma e ializa ions o he No dic ideals o equali y (An onen and Sipilä, 1994; Eydal & Ros gaa d, 2011; Mahon, An onen, Be gq is , B ennan, & Hobson, 2012). Uni e salism is associa ed wi h an egali a ian wel a e s a e, he dissolu ion o he class sys em and he p omo ion o equali y (An onen and Sipilä, 2012). In ECEC, uni e salism was mani es ed in he 1990s when he so-called ‘subjec i e igh o ECEC’ was en o ced. Since 1996, all child en unde school age a e legally en i led o a end publicly subsidized ECEC ega dless o hei pa en s’labou ma ke posi- ion o o he amilial ac o s. In e ms o he use o ca e igh s Finnish pa en s employ, he posi ion o ECEC has become qui e in e - es ing. Finland has in oduced he s onges igh s o public ECEC in all o he No dic coun ies, bu in Finland, small child en a e ca ed o longe and on a mo e ull- ime basis a home han in any o he o he NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 55 No dic coun ies (see Haa aja, 2005;NOSOSCO,2015). On a p ac ical le el, Finnish childca e policies and he oppo uni y s uc u e in ol ed in i ha e led o he ela i ely widesp ead popula i y o home ca e o chil- d en (Sjöbe g, 2004). As such, a ound hal o he chil- d en unde he age o h ee and hi d o 3–5-yea -old child en a e ca ed o a home, mos ly by hei mo he s (KELA, 2015). In compa ison, o example, in Sweden, only a small pe cen o child en o e 3 yea s a e ca ed a home (NOSOSCO, 2015). Mo eo e , access o se ices does no gua an ee a educ ion o inequali y. Fo example, i is a gued ha eache s ha e a limi ed unde s anding o how o add ess he di e si y. Consequen ly, people wi h di - e en amily, social and e hnic backg ounds and he hie a chies hey a e su ounded wi h a e o en no aken in o accoun (Layne & De in, 2016). Ea lie examina ions o he use o he concep o equali y in ECEC in Finnish policy a enas ha e e ealed –pe haps somewha su p isingly – ha he equali y o child en has no been a he cen e o he policy delibe a ion. His o ically, he a ionales upon which Finnish ECEC policies a e delibe a ed ha e been hea ily ocused on labou ma ke needs. Equali y- and equi y- ela ed issues ha e been p esen in ECEC policy delibe a ion mos ly in ega d o gen- de equali y and women’s oppo uni ies o pa icipa e in he labou o ce (Paananen, 2017). Recen ly, poli ical deba es conce ning ECEC ha e p o oked discussion conce ning equali y. One o he key issues has been he go e nmen ’s decision o limi en i lemen o ECEC in o de o balance he budge in 2016. Since 1996 un il 2016, he amoun o ime ha a child could a end ECEC was no egula ed. In 2016, Pa liamen passed new legisla ion ha allowed municipali ies o limi ECEC en i lemen o 20 h pe week unless he child’s pa en s wo ked o s udied ull ime (EV 112/2015). In addi ion, ull- ime ECEC o o e 20 h pe week was gua an eed o hose child en who bene i om he ECEC due o de elopmen al, social o o he easons. These pa en s we e equi ed o apply o ull- ime EDEC. The p oposi ion o his law e oked much discussion in he media, and well- a ended public demons a ions we e held. The issue also p o oked conside able delibe a ion among he ci y councils o some municipali ies. In his pape , we will ocus on some o hese deba es. The concep ualiza ion o equali y e lec s he poli- ical clima e in which he policy s a emen s ha e been c ea ed and, hus, a ies and changes. Since he ECEC policy si ua ion in Finland has been shi - ing ecen ly, i p o ides us a use ul an age poin o examine he po en ially mul i- old meanings o equali y. Thus, in his pape , we examine he ways in which Finnish policymake s cons uc he con- cep s o ‘equali y’and ‘inequali y’in hei discus- sions conce ning ECEC. Un a elling he concep o inequali y In his s udy, we a e commi ed o he idea ha language no only e lec s he wo ld bu also ep o- duces and econs uc s i . De ini ions o ‘equali y’and ‘inequali y’a e based on alues and belie s abou he good socie y and he na u e o childhood, o exam- ple. Howe e , i is also based on belie s conce ning he cu en s a e o a ai s, so i is impo an o examine hese concep ualiza ions in a mo e nuanced way. Fi s , we will explo e he concep o inequali y om he iewpoin o i s nega ion, equali y. In he con ex o educa ion, Husén (1975) has di ided he di e en concep ualiza ions o equali y in o h ee ca ego ies: equali y as a beginning, equali y as ea men and equali y as a inal goal. The con- cep ualiza ion o equali y as a beginning en ails a p esupposi ion ha when en e ing an educa ional ins i u ion, child en s a on exac ly he same oo ing. The idea o equali y as ea men p esupposes ha e e yone, i espec i e o his o he social o igin, should be ea ed equally. This idea o equali y is usually embedded in legal ins i u ions: e e ybody is equal unde he law. Finally, equali y can be ega ded as a goal. In his iew, educa ional policy should in oduce measu es ha con ibu e o inc eased equaliza ion in educa ional a ainmen , socio- economic s a us and pa icipa ion in he decision- making p ocesses (Husén, 1975). Somewha simila ly, Hugh Lazenby has di e en- ia ed wo ways o connec ing educa ion and equali y. Fi s , educa ion may be a ehicle o he ealiza ion o equali y o oppo uni ies (Lazenby, 2016). Fo exam- ple, he concep ion o equali y o oppo uni y en ails ha each indi idual should ha e he same means o li e a good li e, e en hough hey may ha e di e - ences in wha hey achie e ha depend on hei na u al alen and hei pe sonal choices and le el o e o hey pu in o achie ing hei goals. In his concep ualiza ion o equali y, he educa ional sys- em’s ole is o p o ide compensa ion o hose indi- iduals who ha e been in one way o ano he disad an aged ou side o he educa ional ins i u ions. The second way o connec ing equali y and educa ion does no iew educa ion solely as a ehicle; a he , i is de ined as he equal access o he educa ional sys em and he equal dis ibu ion o esou ces wi hin i (Lazenby, 2016). Lazenby calls his iew ‘equali y o oppo uni y o educa ion’. These ca ego iza ions migh no be su icien when examining equali y in he con ex o ea ly childhood educa ion and childca e, howe e . In his pape , we will show ha a mo e nuanced concep ualiza ion helps o be e i emize and di e en ia e he a ious ways o pe cei ing equali y in he con ex o ECEC. Thus, we will p o ide mo e use ul analy ical ools o examining he a ious meanings o equali y. In wha 56 M. PAANANEN ET AL. ollows, we will u he explica e his by examining Wes en’s(1985), Lazenby’s(2016) and F ase ’s(1997, 2008) concep ualiza ions ela ed o equali y. Wes en (1985) has sugges ed ha he concep o equali y should be seen as being composed o ou dis inc elemen s: (1) A dis ibu i e pa e n, namely, equali y (2) A desc ip ion o he subjec s be ween whom he pa e n is o hold, such as all membe s o a pa icula dis ic o all ci izens o a s a e (3) A dis ibu i e objec a ound which he pa e n is ocused, such as jobs, esou ces o wel a e (4) An accoun o he obs acle(s) o achie ing he objec ha ough o be absen o equalized as an obs acle(s), such as [opp essi e powe ela- ions ela ed o] weal h, physical s eng h o skin colou . The sec ions in b acke s [] ha e been added by he au ho s o con ex ual accu acy. Wes en’s analysis conce ning he componen s o he concep ualiza ion o equali y acknowledges i s ela ion o di e si y mo e explici ly han Husén’s concep ualiza ion, since i sugges s also aking in o accoun he obs acles o achie ing he objec . The e o e, his iew acknowledges he po en ial exis- ence o hie a chies and powe ela ions ha ela e o some kind o concep ualiza ions o ‘di e ence’. This no ion conce ning he ela ion o he e ms ‘inequali y’and ‘di e ence’leads o a discussion o social jus ice (e.g. F ase , 1997,2008;Nussbaum, 2003). In sho , social jus ice add esses he ques ion o how o achie e equali y in a socie y whe e di - e ences and opp essi e powe ela ions exis . Consequen ly, Lazenby (2016) a gues ha he con- cep ion o equali y should be examined, in addi ion o he elemen s p oposed by Wes en (1985), om he pe spec i e o scope. This e e s o concep ions o who he main ac o is in in luencing equali y in educa ion. Lazenby (2016)s a es ha concep ions o equali y wi h an ins i u ional scope include a conside a ion o he s a e and he public ins i u- ions o socie y, including he educa ional ins i u- ions. These concep ions de e mine how ins i u ions and hei go e nance ough o be s uc- u ed. Concep ions o equali y wi h an in e pe so- nal scope conce n he esponsibili ies o indi iduals. In e pe sonal concep ions o equali y guide ou ac ions in ela ion o o he people in he wo ld. Since accoun s usually sugges o delibe a e ‘how o’ques ions in policy deba es, ‘how o’ques ion is ele an o ou aim as well. F ase (1997) sugges s ha he emedies, o injus ice, depending on he dis ibu i e objec , a e (economic) edis ibu ion, (cul u al) ecogni ion and (poli ical) ep esen a ion. Redis ibu ion seeks o c ea e a mo e jus dis ibu ion o esou ces amongs indi iduals o g oups o people. The concep o ecogni ion aims o challenge he equi emen o assimila e o he dominan cul u al no ms and ins ead ecognizes he dis inc i e pe spec- i es o di e en , some imes opp essed, mino i y g oups. The hi d emedy, ep esen a ion, aims o poin ou ha he abili y o in luence public deba e and decision-making is c ucial o equali y o exis (F ase , 2008). Fu he mo e, F ase (1997) di ides he emedies o injus ice in o a i ma ion and ans o ma ion. A i ma i e emedies aim o co ec unequal ou - comes wi hou des abilizing he s a us quo by dis- u bing he amewo k ha gene a es hem. A i ma i e edis ibu ion is he ealloca ion o esou ces o di e en g oups o people whose di e - en ia ion is no ques ioned bu a he aken o g an ed. T ans o ma i e emedies a emp o in e - ene in esponse o unequal ou comes by es uc u - ing he amewo k ha gene a es he ou come. This could be, o example, in e en ion in o he p oduc- ion o g oup di e en ia ion (F ase , 1997). Recogni ion in i s a i ma i e o m means e alua ing he iden i ies o opp essed g oups, such as women, non-he e osexuals, wo king-class people, people o non-bina y gende , people o colou and people wi h disabili ies. In con as , ans o ma ion means a undamen al decons uc ion o hese cul u al ca e- go ies (F ase , 1997). The inqui y We will illus a e how he abo e-men ioned way o concep ualizing equali y helps un a el he meanings o equali y by using he quali a i e in e iews o 31 municipal poli icians (19 women and 12 men), who we e membe s o he go e ning bodies, such as municipal boa ds o educa ion, ha we e esponsible o ECEC decision-making in 10 municipali ies. The in e iewees ep esen ed six di e en poli ical pa ies encompassing all o he majo Finnish pa ies om le o igh . As is common in a quali a i e inqui y, he in e iewees do no comp ise a ep esen a i e sample o Finnish ECEC policymake s. Ins ead, he selec ion aims a con ex ual a ia ions. The in e ie- wees come om 10 municipali ies ha we e in i ed o collabo a e wi h he esea ch eam. The municipa- li ies ha pa icipa ed in his s udy a y in hei geog aphical loca ion, demog aphics and aspec s ela ed o hei economic s a us. Fou o he munici- pali ies a e, in he Finnish con ex , conside ed la ge ci ies wi h popula ions anging om 100,000 o 650,000 inhabi an s. Two o he municipali ies a e, om a Finnish pe spec i e, mid-sized owns wi h popula ions a ying be ween 20,000 and 100,000 inhabi an s. The las ou municipali ies each ha e ewe han 20,000 inhabi an s. The ou la ges , den- sely popula ed ci ies ha e expe ienced a posi i e ne NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 57 mig a ion, which is based on he good a ailabili y o wo k and s udy oppo uni ies. Two mid-sized muni- cipali ies ha e aced economic di icul ies in ecen yea s due o changes in he economic s uc u e. Due o a dec ease in wo k oppo uni ies, bo h o hese owns ha e expe ienced a nega i e ne mig a ion. Two o he smalles municipali ies a e spa sely popu- la ed u al municipali ies. The 10 municipali ies ha e o ganized hei ECEC in di e ing ways. Fo example, he e a e di e ences in he sha e o public and p i a e ECEC p o isions, in e ms o he local bene i s p o ided o pa en s o use o p i a e ECEC se ices and ca e o child en a home and in he p o isions o ECEC o child en wi h a pa en a home due o unemploymen o e i emen , o ins ance. The pa icipa ing municipa- li ies illus a e he a ia ions ha can ypically be ound among Finnish municipali ies. The in e iews we e conduc ed in 2016 by a eam o nine esea che s. The in e iewees ga e hei in o med consen o pa icipa e in he s udy. In he in e iews, opics such as municipal ECEC, childca e allowances, he p i a iza ion o ECEC and he deci- sion-making p ocess in he municipal ECEC we e discussed. The in e iews, which a e age 90 min in leng h, we e audio eco ded and ansc ibed e ba- im. The language used in he in e iews was Finnish, and hus, he p esen ed quo a ions ha e been ans- la ed in o English wi h he in en ion o cap u ing he meanings and senses desc ibed a he han exac wo d- o -wo d ansla ions (see Nikande , 2008). In his inqui y, ou analy ical amewo k is in o med by discou se s udies. In e ms o ou empi ical da a, we in e p e ed he in e iews as p o- duced h ough he in e ac ion o he in e iewee and he in e iewe a a ce ain ime and in a speci ic place. Thus, he analy ical ocus is on he concep ua- liza ions o equali y a he han he ac ual in o ma- ion abou ECEC p o isions. We commenced ou analysis by eading h ough he in e iews and selec - ing o u he analysis all o he exce p s in which equali y, equi y, inequali y, social jus ice o injus ice we e implied o e e ed o di ec ly. Nex , he selec ed exce p s we e ca ego ized acco ding o he ollowing iewpoin s based on he ideas o Wes en (1985), Lazenby (2016) and F ase (1997,2008)). (1) Subjec o equali y: Be ween whom is equali y aimed o be achie ed? (2) Objec o equali y: Wha a e he dis ibu i e objec s a ound which he concep ion o equal- i y is ocused? (3) Remedies o equali y (a i ma i e o ans o - ma i e): Who a e he main ac o s in luencing equali y in ECEC? Each combina ion o di e en esponses o he i s wo ques ions was i s examined as a sepa a e dis- cou se. E e y discou se was hen u he assessed using ques ion 3. Then, based on he examina ion o he simila i ies and di e ences o hese discou ses, hey we e ca ego ized in o h ee g oups: concep uali- za ions o equali y ocusing on he p esen , concep- ualiza ions o equali y ocusing on he u u e and mul idimensional concep ualiza ions o equali y. In he ollowing sec ions, hese app oaches o equali y a e p esen ed mo e ho oughly. Concep ualiza ions o equali y ocusing on he p esen In he da a unde examina ion, one way o concep- ualizing equali y was o see i as he equal dis ibu- ion o objec s a he p esen ime. The e we e h ee discou ses holding his kind o iew o equali y. In hese discou ses, he p esupposi ion seemed o be ha he subjec s o equali y, mainly pa en s, had simila kinds o abili ies o u ilize gi en esou ces – o example, o make in o med decisions ha would bes se e he needs o he amily and child en –and hus p esupposed he idea o equali y as a beginning (Husén, 1975). We will illumina e his u he ia h ee discou ses ha di e in e ms o hei ocus on he subjec s and objec s o equali y. Equali y as an equal oppo uni y o choose In he in e iews, he oppo uni y o choose was con- s uc ed as one o he objec s o equali y. Wi hin he discou se on his objec o equali y, i was iewed as impo an ha pa en s ha e simila kinds o oppo u- ni ies o selec home ca e, public ECEC se ices o a p i a e ECEC p o ide . I was conside ed a public esponsibili y o make su e ha hese oppo uni ies o make indi idual decisions conce ning day ca e and ea ly educa ion we e made possible ia public unding. The ollowing exce p illus a es his discou se: In e iewe : Well wha abou his municipali y’s supplemen o he home ca e allow- ance? The e a e maybe kind o wo ex emes in he public deba e. The i s is ha child en ha e a igh o be ca ed o a home and ano he is ha i migh become a po e y ap o pa en s, mos ly mo he s, who a e aking ca e o hei child en a home. How do you eel abou ha ? Policymake : Well, I hink i is, i migh be his kind o po e y ap, since he allowance is no .. I is oo.. I [ he allowance] should be decen so ha he oppo u- ni y is equal o e e y amily. I needs o be su icien . In he exce p , he in e iewee posi ions he oppo uni y o make a choice abou whe he o ake 58 M. PAANANEN ET AL. ca e o child en a home as an objec o equali y in lines 7–8. Repe i i e alk in he esponse, as seen in line 7, sugges s a hesi ance o ake an explici s ance conce ning he amoun o he home ca e allowance. In his discou se, he municipali y should p o ide su icien inancial suppo so ha indi iduals can make choices conce ning child ca e, which is, iewed as an indi idual and p i a e decision. In he ollowing exce p , whe e he in e iewee alks abou es ic ions in en i lemen o ECEC, he objec o equali y is he eedom o choose child ca e se ices ega dless o he pa en s’labou ma ke s a- us. The in e iewee s a es ha means es ing o access o ull- ime ECEC migh be an obs acle o achie ing his kind o equali y. Policymake : I is abou he equali y o amilies. We canno know.. Wha is said in he iles does no in o m us abou he si ua ion o he amily. I can be good o all ha i you a e unemployed you ha e he oppo uni y o ake a job igh away, o i you ha e a empo a y job, you need o ha e an oppo uni y o ha e a leas a pa - ime day ca e place. O cou se, we also ha e qui e good club ac i i ies o ganized by he chu ch, so I don’ know how many pa en s we ha e who a e s aying a home and whose child en a end ea ly childhood educa ion. In ou pa y, we simply hink ha i is equal- i y ha e e yone has he igh o pa - icipa e wi hou needing o explain hei physical and men al heal h his- o y o some hing else. The e migh be some hing in he backg ound. The in e iewee’s poli ical pa y suppo s uncondi- ional en i lemen o ECEC. The in e iewee a gues ha we canno know whe he he amily would bene i om ECEC by solely looking a he pa en s’labou ma ke s a us. The in e iewee highligh s ha she conside s i impo an ha pa en s can make a decision conce ning he use o ECEC se ices wi hou needing o explain he easons o hei decision. Thus, he objec o equali y seems again o be eedom o choice. Ne e heless, she sugges s ha pa - ime ECEC migh be su icien , and she men ions ha he e is also open ECEC o ganized by non-p o i o ganiza ions. Thus, he scope is no solely ins i u ional (Lazenby, 2016). Equali y as access o se ices ha (a e age) pa en s choose The o he side o he coin o his discou se conce ns access o se ices as an objec o equali y. Wi hin his discou se, equali y o access is conside ed as he adequa e supply o se ices ha he a e age amily would like o use. As he ollowing exce p illus- a es, wi hin his iew, he policymake conside s equali y as some hing be ween child en wi h di e - en socio-economic backg ounds. In o he wo ds, he subjec s o equali y he e a e he child en hemsel es. Policymake : Well, i we hink eally, o child en.. o small and a bi olde , and also o young school child en, his ci y is a small big ci y. I mean ha all o hese se ices o amilies o small child en – ea ly childhood educa ion, heal h se - ices such as ma e ni y clinics, den is s, all possible day ca e cen es, bo h pub- lic and p i a e –a e accessible. This is one hing. And I need o men ion, eally, ha ou se ices, such as hockey clubs, scou s, musical play schools and o he se ices…i is acknowledged he e ha money doesn’ g ow on ees, so hey a e a o dable o la ge numbe s o amilies. I makes i mo e equal o he child en. I we hink abou hose e y small child en, i hei amilies wan o, hey can a end in an swimming since i is accessible. I is no ha he e a e jus a ew who can a o d i . I hink i is abou equali y. In his exce p , equali y is seen as some hing ha needs o be achie ed su icien ly, no o ally: he in e - iewee s a es ha he se ices a e a o dable o la ge numbe s o amilies and ha his makes i ‘mo e equal’. Thus, his discou se sugges s ha i is accep able ha no all child en access hese se ices. In his discou se, he objec o equali y is access o he se ices pa en s wan hei child o a end; he e o e, equali y is no a s a ing poin , no a ea men (Husén, 1975). As we can see in line 8, whe e he in e iewee s a es ha se ices a e a o dable o ‘la ge numbe s o amilies’, his discou se accep s he idea ha some child en may be ou . Thus, equali y is a he cons uc ed as a inal goal o ha ing equal (enough) oppo uni ies o expe i- ences conside ed impo an a by pa en s. This discou se sugges s he ealloca ion o esou ces ia a (pa ly) subsidized public-sec o and hi d-sec o se ices. I seems ha equali y is some hing ha encom- passes child en o he middle class, bu no necessa y hose child en whose pa en s a e, o some eason o o he , incapable o u ilizing hese se ices. By e e ing o he ac ha i is acknowledged in gene al by bo h p i a e and public ins i u ions ha ‘money does no g ow on ees’as men ioned in line 7, i seems ha he esponsi- bili y o add essing ques ions o inequali y is di ided be ween he ma ke , hi d sec o and public se ices. The need o emedies is no conside ed in his discou se. NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 59 Equali y as an equal ee o e e yone Wi hin he concep ualiza ions o equali y ocusing on he p esen , inancial issues we e deal wi h om he poin o iew ela ed o he child ca e ees: In e iewe : When you said ha you hink ha i belongs o e e yone, did you mean ha he e a e some kinds o ques ions o equali y o equi y in ol ed? Policymake : I hink ha i is he same as heal h clinics. I should cos he same o e e yone ega dless o income, like child bene i s and so on. In his exce p , he in e iewee s a es ha he child ca e ee should be he same ega dless o he amily’s income, as seen in lines 3–4. Cu en ly in Finland, he ee is dependen o he amily’s income and size. The maximum ee o public day ca e in 2017 was 290 eu os/mon h. Acco ding o he OECD (2007), Finnish wo-ea ne amilies spend app oxima ely 7% o hei income on child ca e as compa ed o he OECD a e age o 17%. The subjec s o his concep equali y conce ns a e amilies ha ha e made simila choices conce ning child ca e, namely, amilies ha ha e selec ed o ecei e ECEC in a p eschool. In his iew, he objec equali y conce n is he ee. The in e iewee jux a- poses he child ca e ee wi h he cos s o heal h ca e clinics and child bene i s paid by he s a e, which a e he same o e e yone. Thus, his discou se sugges s ha he ee should be subsidized and a o dable, ha is, equally inexpensi e o e e yone. This discou se is no ela ed o accessibili y. The ees a e no con- s uc ed he e as a ma e o a o dabili y, bu a he , acco ding o his iew, equali y en ails ha he cos is dis ibu ed equally. In sum, hese concep ualiza ions o equali y we e la , meaning ha wi hin hese discou ses, he sub- jec s o equali y did no seem o ha e his o ies o la ge li e con ex s ha would equi e le elling he playing ield. D awing on Wes en’s(1985) analy ics o equali y, we can a gue ha his discou se o equal- i y, which iews equali y bo h as he s a ing poin and, a leas some ex en , he inal goal, is p esen when alking abou equali y among he pa en s. The co e objec o equali y is he oppo uni y o choose. Using he concep ualiza ion o F ase (2008), no emedies o igh he exis ing injus ices a e needed acco ding o his discou se. Concep ualiza ion o equali y ocusing on he u u e The second way o concep ualizing equali y was o pe cei e i om he pe spec i e o he u u e, ha is o say, om he pe spec i e o ex e nal esul s (Sub ahmanian, 2005). As in he p esen -o ien ed use o he concep o equali y examined abo e, hese discou ses also p esupposed ha he subjec s o equali y had simila kinds o abili ies o u ilize he a ailable esou ces o ha he di e ing abili ies we e no conside ed o ha e any hing o do wi h ques ions o equali y. We will illumina e hese discou ses u he ia wo sepa a e objec s o equali y ha we e e iden in he in e iews: he u u e income o he pa en s and he child en’s u u e oppo uni ies. Equali y conce ning he pa en s’ u u e income When alking abou ex e nal esul s (Sub ahmanian, 2005) om he poin o iew o he pa en s, gende equali y was men ioned. This is exempli ied in he ollowing exce p in which a policymake esponds o a ques ion abou he issue o equali y in he con ex o ECEC: Policymake : I don’ know, I hink ha i [ECEC] has made i possible o women o pa ici- pa e in wo king li e equally wi h men. We ha e day ca e places a ailable. They a e high quali y, a o dable and nea by. I migh be misleading o speak abou es ic ing he uncondi ional igh because i is no longe uncondi ional. Bu anyway, i we con inue making hese es ic ions, he in luence will e en ually be ha women will.. Since in Finland women ha e lowe sala ies in gene al, e en i hey ha e mo e edu- ca ion. Women will s ay a home o ake ca e o child en because we don’ ha e he igh o day ca e. This migh be he esul . These [ ecen ] decisions do no ye lead o his, bu i we enac all o hem and aise he ees, he e will be amilies who will hink ha i will be mo e bene icial o hem o ake ca e o hei child en a home. And o cou se, i will in luence all o hei u u es. They do no gain wo k expe ience and p og ess in hei ca ee s. I in luences hei pensions as well. I migh be so ha .. I is so ha he de elopmen o equali y is e e sed. This exce p illus a es accoun s in which equali y among pa en s is examined om he poin o iew o ex e nal esul s. D awing on Wes en’s(1985) analy ics o he componen s o equali y, we can see ha in hese accoun s, he objec o equali y is ela ed o inances, such as, sala ies and pensions (lines 7 and 13). The subjec s o equali y a e pa en s o di e en gende s (lines 6 and 7). In hese exce p s, esponsibili y o 60 M. PAANANEN ET AL. add essing he ques ion o inequali y is di ec ed o he s a e and policymake s. Following he de ini ion by F ase (1997), i can be concluded ha wi hin his discou se, edis ibu ion ia subsidized ECEC se ices is seen as a po en ial emedy o inequali ies among pa en s. In his ega d, he emedy is a i ma i e since i does no sugges des abilizing he cul u al no m o mo he s being pa en s who need o choose be ween being pa o he labou o ce and s aying a home. Ra he , i aims o co ec unequal ou comes wi hou des abilizing he s a us quo by dis u bing he ame- wo k ha gene a es hem. Equali y conce ning he child en’s u u e Wi hin he discou ses o equali y ha a e concen- a ed on he u u e, he e we e examples whe e chil- d en we e posi ed as he subjec s o equali y. In hese accoun s, equali y o access o ECEC was he opic ha was discussed mos o en. In hese accoun s, access o ECEC is conside ed a emedy o o e come unequal backg ounds o s a ing poin s and i is seen o equalize he di e ences caused by poo pa en ing. In he nex exce p , he in e iewee answe s he ques ion o whe he issues ela ed o equali y ha e been discussed by policymake s ecen ly. The exce p , in which he in e iewee con empla es he accessibili y and a ge ing o ECEC se ices om he poin o iew o immig an s and na i e Finns, exempli ies his kind o concep ualiza ion: Policymake : We can’ know wha is happening in hei homes. These kinds o basic e e yday ac i i ies may no be going well [in some amilies]. The lack o basic secu i y o child en al eady be o e school age may ha e a long- las ing impac . So his sa ing may u n in o a la ge expense. I conside hese [ECEC se ices] as pa o social se ices. We should hold on o hese social se ices –also o na i e Finns – and we should main ain hei quali y jus o main ain he s abili y o socie y. In his exce p , he policymake is add essing a ques ion conce ning es ic ions on an access o ull- ime ECEC. When asked abou equali y in ela ion o ECEC se ices, he policymake e e s o basic secu - i y ha some child en migh lack (lines 2–3). This s a emen conce ning he long- e m consequences can be in e p e ed om he pe spec i e o equali y in e ms o ex e nal esul s. I e e s o he gains achie able by ensu ing a secu e en i onmen o chil- d en o de elop (Sub ahmanian, 2005). In he second pa o he exce p , he policymake no es he di e ence be ween na i e Finns and o he s: equali y is some hing ha is c ea ed be ween hese g oups in o de o main ain peace ul ela ions in socie y (lines 5–7). Wi hin his discou se, equali y is no only impo an in i sel ; i also has ins umen al alue. In he example, i is conside ed a means o main ain social cohesion. Seg ega ion be ween e hnic g oups is aken o g an ed, and his discou se does no p opose a change in e ms o his ca ego iza ion. Thus, his discou se has a i ma i e elemen s since i sugges s ha some child en do no ha e secu e en i - onmen s o g ow up in and i is a socie al du y o e en ou hese di e ences. Equal, publicly suppo ed access o ECEC is cons uc ed as a emedy o injus ice. In conclusion, wi hin his discou se, he concep- ualiza ion o equali y is ela ed o ex e nal esul s – o he u u e. Equali y has ins umen al alue. D awing on he wo k o F ase (2008), he emedies o injus ice a e a i ma i e a he han ans o ma- i e. Un a elling he mechanisms ha in luence he pa en s and cause hem o be unable o o e basic secu i y, a leas as i is ypically seen and de ined, is iewed as an essen ial ask. Mul idimensional equali y: only o child en in ECEC? The hi d way o concep ualizing equali y akes in o accoun he u u e and he cul u al con ex mo e widely in addi ion o a conside a ion o he p esen . Due o his, he emedies examined wi hin his dis- cou se di e om he ones p esen ed ea lie . The nex exce p illus a es his discou se and deals wi h he inequali ies ha exis among child en. I is acknowledged ha access o ECEC does no p o ide a su icien solu ion o he inequali ies ha p esen ly exis among child en. Wi hin his discou se, he sub- jec s o equali y a e he child en o di e en socio- economic backg ounds. In he example, hey a e pe - cei ed as li ing in di e en pa s o he municipali y: Policymake : In municipali y D, i is g ea ha all he poli ical pa ies ha e unde s ood ha good se ices o amilies wi h small child en a e some hing we can be p oud o . They a e ou lagship and compe i i e edge since we also wan o be a ac i e when amilies wi h small child en make decisions conce ning whe e o li e. I is a huge hing ha ECEC se ices and o he se ices o amilies wi h small child en ha e a good epu a ion. Howe e , we do ha e hese majo p oblems in his ci y. Ma ginaliza ion o child en is a ya d- s ick and ha is some hing in which we a e ailing. The e a e di e en eali- ies among child en in di e en pa s o NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 61