‘I have this subversive curriculum underneath’: Narratives of micro resistance in early childhood education

Troubling neoliberal policies

Neoliberalism, as an ideology, has been described as centring on marketization, efficiency, increased accountability and globalization (Baltodano, 2012) privileging the power of the market over issues of citizenship, equity and social justice. A growing corpus of international research critiques the ways in which early childhood educators have been positioned by and in relation to the dominance of this neoliberal paradigm (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005; Moss, 2014; Roberts-Holmes, 2019; Sims, 2017; Sims and Waniganayake, 2015; Wood, 2017). Further literature considers the reach of neoliberalism, as an economic and cultural orthodoxy, on educator professional identities (Hall and McGinity, 2015; Osgood, 2012) and teacher autonomy (Gewirtz et al., 2009; Kay et al., 2021) resulting in restricted occupational professionalism. Indeed, Vintimilla (2014) describes how

‘we are called to think about neoliberalism, not only as a state’s economic orientation, but as particular modes of subjectivity, and how one becomes (or can resist becoming) a neoliberal subject. . .’(p.80).

In England, the early childhood education and care (ECEC) workforce, is characterized by a high percentage (97%) (Bonetti, 2018) of female employees and the composition of this highly gendered workforce, has changed little in recent years. There is evidence to suggest that tensions exist between the values of this predominantly female workforce and neoliberal subjectivity. Osgood (2004) found that (female) English early educators participating in the studies emphasized collaboration, caring and community, values seen as at odds with a neoliberal agenda which emphasized competition, commercial acumen and entrepreneurialism.

Following the critical juncture of the first Childcare Act (Great Britain, 2006) in England, a raft of policies, have shaped, and continue to reshape, the early childhood education landscape. Increased marketization of early childhood provision, a renewed focus on ‘childcare’ for working parents and an intensified school readiness agenda have proliferated in the intervening years. In terms of workforce reform, substantial political attention and investment have been followed by a period of policy neglect in recent years. From the mid-2000s onwards, numerous government agencies initiated multiple changes to qualifications criteria, competency frameworks and occupational standards. These workforce developments created and inculcated multiple power discourses which, I contend, have framed the ‘ideal’ early childhood educator (Archer (2020)). It is these discourses, which, I argue, seek to (re)shape the professional identities of early childhood educators.

Storying professional identities

In keeping with a social/critical constructivist onto-epistemology, I approached this research by conceptualizing professional identities as being ‘multi-faceted’ (Alsup, 2006), as ‘socially and culturally’ shaped (Swennen et al., 2008) and as continually (re)constructed in multiple contexts. Thus, rather than fixed or static, professional identities are understood as complex, contingent and evolving in relation with others. Additionally, from a critical perspective, I draw on the concept of subjectivities which Ball (2016) describes as ‘the point of contact between self and power. . .the subject is then governed by others and at the same time governor of him/herself’. (p.1131). In this way, I consider subjectivities are formed in the ways individuals situate themselves but also how they are ‘subjected’ to external forces of societies, economies and histories.

Foucault (1980) argued that the subject is produced from the ways in which dominant discourses compete and collide through ‘subjectification’—the formation of subjectivity through power relations. In the case of this inquiry, I argue, such discursive moves are formative in the influence of professional identity construction.

A critical discourse analysis of workforce policy (Archer 2020) identified legitimized versions of ideal professional identities, shaped by neoliberal values. Such identities were established through desirable knowledges, skills, behaviours and attitudes in qualifications criteria and occupational standards. The critical discourse analysis revealed that these standards serve to formalize, engender and inculcate neoliberal forms of governmentality and responsibilization. As a consequence, policy texts frame the ideal early educator as a compliant technician, but also as autonomous, entrepreneurial, self-improving, subject to both vertical and horizontal surveillance (i.e. by both regulators and by peers) and engaged in self surveillance.

Workforce standards are presented as logical and desirable and are deployed (through credentialising, incentivizing and surveillance) to manufacture the acceptance and consent of an early childhood workforce. Consequently, I argue that these standards and associated policies seek to demarcate and delimit prescriptive professional identities and create ideal subject positions. In so doing, spaces for certain compliant identities are opened whilst others are closed down.

Notably, Ball and Olmedo (2013) propose that neoliberalism is shaping new kinds of teacher subjectivities and that this, in turn, is forming ‘the terrain of struggle, the terrain of resistance’ (p.85) in which teachers’ responses form a ‘struggle against mundane, quotidian forms of neoliberaliszations’ (p.85). These findings lead me to consider how power effects of (workforce) policy pervade education ‘via macro-level socio-political and economic contexts, and how that power then infuses micro-level practices and relationships’ (Wood, 2017: 109). However, despite a growing body of literature exploring these policy imperatives and their impacts, there has been little attention paid to the acts of resistance to these by early educators in a UK context. Whilst there has been some exploration of resistance movements in ECE (Moss, 2017, 2019), little is known from empirical studies about how acts of resistance are enacted individually (and collectively) in the professional lives of early years educators, and how such resistances form counter narratives to policy informed versions of professional identities. This paper draws on a wider study which sought to address this gap in understanding through the life stories of early educators’ professional identities.

Conceptualizing resistance

Within the field of resistance studies (Duncombe, 2002; Lilja and Vinthagen, 2018; Scott, 1985; Vinthagen, 2006), there exist numerous definitions of resistance. Routledge (1997) offers a broad, inclusive definition of resistance as a starting point:

‘any action imbued with intent that attempts to challenge, change or retain ‘particular circumstances relating to societal relations, processes and/or institutions. . .[which] imply some form of contestation. . .[and] cannot be separated from practices of domination’. (p.361)

Historically, studies of resistance have looked to social movement theories and focussed on highly visible acts of collective action against oppression, often manifesting as mass protests (Duncombe, 2002; Ortner, 1995). Scott’s (1985) typology of dominance and resistance moved the field on from a focus on resistance as visible and public struggles to the inclusion of low profile and often unnoticed acts of ‘everyday resistance’. In this, and later work, Scott challenged the reductive idea of resistance as consisting of only highly visible, coordinated collective action. Rather, an understanding of resistance is proposed as including everyday acts, often covert and indirect strategies of subversion ‘that often exist under the radar of the dominant group’ (Kastrinou-Theodoropoulou, 2009: 3).

Indeed, Scott (1990) goes on to argue that such low profile strategies of resistance, that go unnoticed by dominant groups, are termed as ‘infrapolitics’. Scott names the public interactions between those who dominate and the oppressed as a ‘public transcript’ whereas the subversions of power that happen under the radar are a ‘hidden transcript’. However, this modernist understanding is contrasted with postmodernists’ interpretations (Raby, 2005) which suggest the concept is read as much more complex, transitory and fragmented, focussing on localized, contextualized analyses.

Srnicek and Williams (2015) caution against overly valorizing resistance and suggest it be read as a conservative or even futile response. They attest that an emphasis on resistance is a ‘defensive stance’ (p.35), an oppositional act in relation to power and oppression rather than more fundamental re-visioning and that while resistance ‘can be important in some circumstances, in the task of building a new world, resistance is futile. . .’ (Srnicek and Williams, 2015: 35). This perspective frames resistance as a moderate reaction and the authors advocate for more radical action. I understand that the power of dominant discourses is such that resistance can be a first response, but perhaps not the only response. Indeed, Kindred (1999) analyses the concept of resistance as not only a contest of authority ‘. . .but ultimately it is a move towardtowards authorship. It is an act along the path of appropriation and empowerment. . .’(p.213).

These theorizations broaden understandings of resistance and the degrees of scale, visibility and co-ordination with which it might be demonstrated. Using these expansive definitions, I aimed to explore how such actions manifest in early childhood education contexts.

Critical narrative analysis

In keeping with the study’s interweaving of critical orientation and narrative inquiry, I adopted an analytical lens through which to view the empirical data which reconciled the power analyses in critical discourse analysis with respect for the narrative tradition. The development of critical narrative analysis, in the past few years, owes much to Souto-Manning (2010, 2013, 2014) whose work deploys the macro level analytical device of critical discourse analysis to everyday narratives. This approach analyses narratives for points of tension, contradiction and resistance between institutional discourses and personal narratives. A further framework for Critical Narrative Analysis has been developed by Laliberte-Rudman and Aldrich (2017) drawing on earlier work by Laliberte-Rudman (2015). This framework was selected because of the applicability of its guiding questions which focus on subjectivities, ideal subject positions and the relationships between those constructed through policy and perceptions of these by individuals:

The process of analysis involved searching for ideas and links within transcripts, informed by the guiding questions and discourses relating to professional identities and resistance and/or activism.

The policy subverter’s tale

Theresa is a Nursery teacher who teaches a nursery class in a primary school.

During her early years of teaching Theresa describes several times when she clashed with the headteacher because the head’s principles were not in alignment with hers and were out of sync’ with what was going on in the rest of the school. Theresa has recently returned to teaching in a nursery class and currently finds the school culture challenging:

‘So, this year, for example, my nursery children. . .three year olds. . .were supposed to be ability grouped for phonics, writing and maths. Now, there are a few pieces of paper up somewhere in my classroom which have got some [children’s] names on arbitrarily, so that’s up, it’s up. I pay no heed to it. It’s a tricky balance. . .

So, what I decided to do was just go against what I had been told to do in terms of ability grouping so they just come and do whatever they want whenever they want to. So, no writing books. It’s really free and there are no groups. We do mark making in an age appropriate way, drawing in the sand, painting, making pictures and yes sometimes writing on paper with pencils if they choose to. . .’

In the episode above, Theresa is describing how she put up ‘a few pieces of paper’ which included children’s names, nominally grouped by ability, but that she did not enact practice informed by this.

Broadly, Theresa identifies herself as a resistor rather than activist: ‘to me ‘resistance’ is about going against something. . .in this instance, against something you are being told to do’. She believes that operating ‘a little bit underground’ can be a more productive approach, maintaining the status quo. She feels as if she has done ‘the fighting thing’ and now prefers to be more subversive. . .

‘So that is my understanding of resistance and what I have had to come to terms with this year, so it can be just you standing up for what you believe in without making it known, because if I made it known I would be drawing attention to it and there be lots more involvement, so sometimes doing it a little bit underground, appearing to maintain the status quo is an easier way to go about it’.

In Theresa’s story, the headteacher’s expectation upon Theresa to group nursery children by ability for phonics teaching is an instance in which Theresa responds to a meso-level policy implementation with creative resistance or ‘strategic subordination’ (Souto-Manning et al., 2008). Theresa’s response of putting up a ‘few pieces of paper’ describes a charade of compliance in which she appeared to be grouping the children by ability in the eyes of senior managers, thereby adopting a sleight of hand response to the policy. This creative response, or constructive subversion might also be read in terms of a veneer or façade of acquiescing; a ‘masquerade as conforming’ (Goouch, 2010).

Theresa’s acknowledged her subversion:

‘. . .so, it can be just you standing up for what you believe in without making it known, because if I made it known I would be drawing attention to it and there be lots more involvement, so sometimes doing it a little bit underground, appearing to maintain the status quo is an easier way to go about it’.

Theresa’s response illustrated policy subversion as micro resistance. Ollin (2005) explores such teacher resistance drawing on De Certeau’s concept of ‘la perruque’: the wig. De Certeau’s (1984) thoughts on resistance take the form of ‘subtle, resistant activity’ and include ‘innumerable ways of playing and foiling the other’s game’ (p.18). He suggests that this takes the form of individuals adopting la perruque (the wig) which is ‘the worker’s own work disguised as work for his [sic] employer’ (p.18). In this way, he proposes that when individuals (such as Theresa) take action to evolve and transform existing spaces, they demonstrate agency and take ownership of such space, affirming their sense of self. In doing so, they deploy their own stories or discourses, refusing to legitimate dominant discourses and affirming an alternative worldview.

The play champion’s tale

Mark is an Early Years Leader in a Primary School.

Mark was offered a role in the EYFS to ‘manage a difficult cohort’ and immediately felt more at home. His ethos was to follow the children and their interests, and he became aware of increased levels of engagement of the whole class of children. Whilst acknowledging the positives of this approach Mark was mindful of ‘the adult world, and by that, I mean the Bold Beginnings1 brigade, they will want an outcome that they can define and say, ‘this has been learned’.’

He articulates the challenges he experiences between the curricular demands and his personal ethos as a champion of play: ‘I have to, by law, teach phonics—I have to teach synthetic phonics every day. You can make it playful, but it’s not play. Similarly, I have to do a maths input based on a maths scheme—I have to do it, because it is the expectation in a school. They have to be trained in a certain way. But it’s so divorced from play. . .’

Mark’s experiences of the tension between accountability and his passionate commitment to children’s play—‘I burn with a sense of “children need to play”- are further articulated in his fears about the forthcoming baseline assessment and the implications of the Ofsted Bold Beginnings report. He sees these as examples of further downward pressure of the primary curriculum on children in their early years. Mark describes resistance to the current policy regime as “a battle”. He sees a system of control in operation where the fear of falling behind has brought us to a place where we have hand-writing books for 5 year olds. As a result, Mark described having‘this subversive curriculum underneath’.

In an example of ‘bounded agency’ (Simpson, 2010), Mark offered a vivid illustration of his attempts to meet his statutory obligations as a leader with a heartfelt passion for affording children ‘free play’. He conceded that current policy requires significant teacher-led formal instruction, but he prioritized children’s free choices and play in the school day. However, he described the struggle to achieve this as ‘incredibly hard’ and faced pressures around this ‘pretty much each week in my own setting’. Mark sought a space to exert his agency and challenge the institutional discourses of formalized learning, and the teaching of phonics and mathematics as a priority. He attempted, despite institutional expectations, to maximize the space in the timetable for children ‘to get back to the richness of what children do best’. Mark found a way to reconcile school demands and personal values but acknowledged that this was not without challenge and came with the ‘pressure from data’. His sophisticated response entailed both compromise and resistance, as he acknowledged statutory expectations but engaged in ethical pedagogical decision making as micro-resistance.

Local

The narratives included examples of what I describe as local practices of resistance. Theresa’s non-compliance with ability grouping children in her class, Amy’s ‘disruption’ of summative assessment and Mark’s creation of a ‘subversive curriculum’ for his Foundation Unit all illustrate the power of resistances at a school/centre level. Whilst resistances in all three tales were in response to macro/meso level demands, they were enacted in practice within the school or nursery. I note how Holland and Lave’s (2009: 3) ideas of ‘enduring struggles and locally contested practice’, were reflected in the various micropolitical strategies adopted by participants and were key elements of resistance in these narratives. Such localized efforts to disrupt prevailing narratives can be viewed as being in addition to large scale direct actions (Matheson, 2013) or as precursors to ‘larger acts of social justice to come’ (Albin-Clark, 2020: 11).

This analysis offers an important and alternative contribution to the field of resistance studies, which has historically focussed on macro level action.

Quiet

In addition to these resistances being local or micro in scale, they can also be described as quiet, discreet or ‘on the low down’ (Marshall and Anderson, 2008). References to resisting ‘under the radar’ and ‘off the record’ were present in the narratives and point to alternative forms of subversion. Such quiet or ‘closeted’ actions move beyond conventional understandings of resistance as public, visible and ‘loud’ and extend the ‘repertoire of contention’ (Scott, 1985). Notably, Theresa highlighted the power of operating ‘a little bit underground’ and ‘without making it known’, thereby not drawing attention to her act of resistance. She noted how drawing attention to the subversion might prove counterproductive leading to increased involvement from senior leaders and the likelihood of increased interference in her pedagogical decisions.

(In)visible

Such resistances as those in the tales above can also be conceptualized in terms of their (in)visibility. Mark’s moves to maximize his subversive curriculum were seemingly obscured beneath his compliance with ‘input from the Maths scheme’, enabling him to mitigate the ‘system of control’. This example reflects conceptualizations of resistance in education as ‘everyday resistance’ (Vinthagen and Johansson, 2013) and ‘micropolitics’ (Hales, 2015). Such resistance is typically hidden, often individual and not necessarily articulated. These conceptualizations explain a different kind of resistance; one that is less dramatic and less obvious than many collective expressions of resistance, but nonetheless effective in its intended impact.

Multiple

The study finds that whilst these examples of resistance can be described as local, and often low-key, they are also multiple and cumulative. Drawing on Foucault’s (1978, pp.95–96) idea of ‘a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case’ the collection of narratives served to illustrate such a multiplicity of resistances and their power. Similar conclusions are drawn in other studies including:

‘thousands upon thousands of petty acts of insubordination and evasion create a political and economic barrier reef of their own’. (Scott, 1989, p.49)

‘social change may be carried by a thousand wedges—small but determined challenges to neoliberalism’s ideological and tactical grip, until its centre can no longer hold’. (Hales, 2015: 60)

These everyday resistances would not appear to be a universal approach nor an expression of multiple similar actions but approaches which are heterogenic, situated and evolving. Additionally, such resistances respond to numerous power relations and manifestations at micro, meso and macro levels. In line with readings by Vinthagen and Johansson (2013) these resistances are demonstrated as multiple practices rather than outcomes.