Leadership | Sample Pages

RECONCEPTUALISING EARLY CHILDHOOD LEADERSHIP

CHAPTER LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter you will understand that:

» L eadership is complex, contextual and changes over time.

» L eadership is a professional responsibility of well-qualified EC practitioners.

» L eadership can be exercised formally and informally.

» Research about the work of EC leaders, and leadership theorising, is progressing well.

» L eadership implementation brings together elements of the place, people and positions, and is influenced by the head, heart and hands.

KEY CONCEPTS

» intersectionality

» intentional leaders

OVERVIEW

» Demonstrating intentional leadership takes courage, resourcing, learning and collaboration with stakeholders.

» EC leaders play a pivotal role in implementing quality programs for young children.

» EC leadership is underpinned by ethical and inclusive practice.

» L eading for social justice is crucial in upholding the rights and best interests of all children.

» intentional leadership

» professional growth

» spheres of influence

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

Leadership in Early Childhood Education (ECE) is relational, ethical and shared. During times of rapid and unpredictable global change, leaders can offer hope and optimism by being informed, capable and skilful in striving to uphold the rights and best interests of young children. Globally, there is increasing recognition of the importance of educational leaders focusing on pedagogical matters to optimise children’s learning and developmental potential. In providing quality education, leadership is also key to optimising the capabilities that individual practitioners bring to each setting, so that they may thrive knowing they have each contributed meaningfully. Leadership is a professional responsibility in implementing quality Early Childhood (EC) programs. Accordingly, EC leaders are the drivers who maximise everyone’s participation in collaborative ways. Findings from distributed pedagogical leadership research offer fresh perspectives to inform policy reform and transform practice in the EC sector. In Australia, buoyed by government policy reform, there is an increasing sense of purpose and excitement in taking up leadership responsibilities in the sector.

The role of government is to aim for the best education for our youngest citizens. The year 2022 marked 50 years since Australia’s first Child Care Act was proclaimed in 1972. Reflecting on these five decades, we believe it is time now to reconceptualise early years education for children from birth to five years. Mounting research evidence clearly shows that highly qualified and experienced EC leaders make a difference in implementing high-quality programs (for example, Fenech et al., 2020; Harrison et al., 2019; Turani & Bloem, 2019). Government commitment to investing in EC education is required to make this ideal an certainty for every child. By providing an orientation to evolving theory and research-based knowledge on educational leadership, our book strives to contribute new understandings to inform and steer conversations that question and identify new and diverse possibilities in high-quality EC education.

intentional leadership

This describes purposeful, systematic and planned action taken by a person in a leadership role in order to guide, influence or direct others.

Being an EC leader is challenging as well as rewarding. The necessity to act purposefully and ethically becomes evident as leaders recognise the importance of strategic planning from a long-term perspective. This book introduces the notion of ‘intentional leadership’ as a way of conceptualising contemporary leadership practice in EC settings. We discuss how leadership is enacted in EC settings as enterprises imbued with social purposes and as sites for advocacy and activism. We assert that intentional leaders in EC settings are courageous and demonstrate leadership through considered actions and respectful interpersonal communication. Using research findings exploring the application of a variety of leadership approaches, we unpack the complexities of implementing intentional leadership in EC settings.

CONTEXTS OF EC LEADERSHIP

Leadership is a socio-cultural construct (Coleman & Earley, 2005; Hujala & Puroila, 1998; Hujala et al., 2013) that is underpinned by the beliefs and values of a society, community and organisation. This means that there are differences in the way practitioners in Australia, Finland, China or Russia, for example, would define EC leadership and explain its significance. How leadership is practised can vary between organisations in the same country and over time. These differences may arise because of, for example, the EC organisation’s philosophical approach to EC education and leadership; the number of university-qualified teachers employed; or the diverse mix of children attending the setting.

Leaders’ awareness of the local community, as well as the needs and interests of children and families at their centres, can enhance their work within their settings. Major events within a country and/or developments overseas can also influence the performance of leadership responsibilities locally. For example, natural disasters such as bushfires and floods can have a dramatic effect on communities, including the destruction of children’s homes and EC centres. Likewise, the impact of a resources mining boom in Australia can be felt across the country, including increasing employment in remote rural regions. The extent to which such developments are temporary or long term must be considered when providing EC programs in these regions. Some situations, such as a sudden outbreak of a contagious disease in a centre or a runaway car accidentally hitting an EC centre and damaging sections of the building, are unpredictable. When dealing with an unexpected crisis or changing community needs, practitioners can demonstrate leadership by being informed and creative, and by adopting a systematic approach to problem solving.

There is an abundance of studies affirming “the critical responsibility of a leader’s role and functions” in leading change (Rodd, 2013, p. 182). As explained by Stamopoulos and Barblett (2018, p. 43), EC leaders:

intentional leaders

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

These are EC practitioners who demonstrate courage in implementing leadership responsibilities in ethical ways. They act purposefully, learning and finding ways to collaborate with others to achieve collective goals for the common good.

Chapter 8 focuses on leading organisational change in depth.

assess the benefits and the challenges complex changes will bring and are advocates and activists when mandated policies or programs are not aligned with early childhood evidence-based pedagogies, professional values, child-centred learning and families’ aspirations.

Consistently, this literature has emphasised the importance of understanding three aspects comprising first, the contexts of leadership activities; second, the people involved in leadership; and third, the interconnectivities between them. As stated by Ladkin (2010, p. x), such an awareness reinforces leadership as “a collective process, in many ways not reducible to ‘the leader’” or one individual. Importantly, this approach indicates the changing focus of leadership theorising from looking at the individual with a designated leadership position to focusing on a more collective approach whereby leadership is distributed within an organisation and relies on relationships among stakeholders (Mujis et al., 2004; Rodd, 2013; Thomas & Nuttall, 2014; Waniganayake et al., 2015). This discussion on examining EC leadership from the perspective of people, places and positions is developed further in this chapter and throughout our book.

Arriving at an appropriate definition for the words ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ that can be applied to EC contexts has proved difficult (Rodd, 2013; Nicholson et al., 2020; Thornton et al., 2009; Waniganayake, 2011). Widespread use of these terms across a range of media, from the popular press to scholarly publications, adds to the confusion. Everyone has an opinion about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ leaders and what constitutes successful or unsuccessful leadership. Moreover, failure or lack of leadership is presented as an explanation when things do not work out according to plans. This begs the question posed by Hogan (2015, p. 4): “Are we expecting too much from our leaders?”.

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.1

• Write your definition of leadership by reflecting on your experiences and understandings before you read this book.

• A re we expecting too much from our EC leaders today? What evidence do you have to support your response one way or the other?

• C onsider to what extent your personal perspectives of leadership align with public perceptions about leadership reflected in media accounts.

An individual leader’s personality—including their dispositions and style of leadership— can also influence the way their behaviour is perceived and assessed by others. Various typologies of EC leaders began appearing in the 1990s (see Rodd, 2013). Global application or relevance of these models is yet to be verified through robust research in diverse contexts. Some believe that ‘leaders are born and not made’ and others feel that attending a leadership course is sufficient to acquire leadership skills. These discussions are sometimes aligned with leadership enjoyed by kings and queens by virtue of being born into a royal family. Notions of royalty and its associated leadership responsibilities do not, however, fit with professional leadership functions performed by EC practitioners.

More than ten years ago, Thornton et al. (2009, p. 5) lamented “the monocultural nature of writing on leadership” and argued for shifting the focus to a more inclusive consideration of contextual aspects, “to promote educational advancement of indigenous and minority

groups”. Today, however, although written in English, research by EC scholars from Scandinavia, Asia and Africa (see, for example, Strehmel et al., 2019) is extending the EC leadership knowledge base by considering the cultural contexts of their homelands. Research based on the employment of EC practitioners and leaders from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, however, remains under-explored and requires addressing, particularly within multicultural societies such as Australia (Gide et al., 2022).

Intentional leaders are expected to be proactive in enabling everyone involved in an EC setting to have their say and be listened to with respect. Establishment of a safe space to share divergent perspectives on leadership based on various cultural beliefs and values can be enriching. Being heard is essential in gaining trust, and in turn, can stimulate new ideas and garner support in making decisions that are inclusive of the local community.

Today, the Australian Government’s interest in leadership in EC education is affirmed as a workforce improvement strategy (ACECQA, 2021b). This interest is also evident worldwide, as reflected in the series of ‘Starting Strong’ reports produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It is widely accepted that if Australia is to realise its reform aspirations for the EC sector, it is crucial to upskill the EC workforce, in particular its leadership capabilities (ACECQA, 2021b; COAG, 2009a). This requires provisioning adequate time and resourcing of practitioner engagement in professional learning and development (PLD), a consistent theme in our book.

In responding to this challenge, the Australian Government is uniquely positioned in the OECD countries in mandating the appointment of ‘educational leaders’ in EC settings in this country in 2012 (Waniganayake & Sims, 2018). Although the first edition of the Te Whāriki, New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum (Thornton, 2019, p. 43) and Australia’s original Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009) did not contain the word ‘leadership’ explicitly, the updated versions do. In Australia, the updated EYLF includes a principle of Collaborative leadership and teamwork (AGDE, 2022a). With improved understanding of the role of pedagogical leadership in EC settings, there can be stronger alignments in national policy between children’s learning outcomes, pedagogy and the critical role of leaders in EC education.

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.2

Make a list of people you consider to be leaders in EC.

• Reflect on your reasons for identifying these individuals as leaders. In your opinion, to what extent have their personal characteristics (personality, age, gender, ethnicity and so on) and their professional backgrounds, including their EC qualifications, skills and experience in the sector, influenced their leadership capabilities?

• Make the time to have a conversation with these leaders, to ask them about their own perceptions and experiences of leadership. These conversations can provide insights on alternative ways of working as leaders in EC.

• If you can read publications written in a language other than English, include these in your analysis and share the learning with peers. Explore the question: to what extent can cultural beliefs and values influence leadership definitions?

Refer to Chapter 6 for a full discussion on pedagogical leadership.

INTENTIONAL LEADERSHIP

The concept of ‘intentional leadership’ frames the discussion of EC leadership matters in our book. Intentional leaders are practitioners who engage in ethical practice by implementing leadership responsibilities in positive, purposeful ways with respect, care and compassion. Such leaders demonstrate courage in their decision-making and find ways to collaborate with others to achieve shared goals that benefit children’s learning, development and well-being.

In a rapidly changing world, the frequency of making decisions impacting the lives of young children and their families requires leaders to appreciate the complexities of their working environments. It means demonstrating a willingness to learn, inform and guide others connected with their organisation so that everyone is kept abreast of evolving developments. In adopting a positive frame of thinking about change, Semann (2011, np) calls on practitioners to “reimagine, dream and visualise a future landscape of hope and success”. This view is based on the belief that intentional leaders can demonstrate authenticity because they are “deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge and strengths”. (Avolio & Luthans, 2006, as cited in Semann, 2011)

Reflecting on contemporary research evidence on EC leadership, we identify three enduring relational constructs that underpin intentional leadership in practice:

• Leadership for vision: Leadership literature has consistently affirmed the link between leadership enactment and the organisation’s future objectives as declared in its vision statement.

• Leadership for learning: Leaders epitomise a love of learning by actively and continually engaging in professional learning and development.

• Leadership for connectedness: Intentional leaders articulate their ideas in ways that others can understand and seek collaboration to make a difference by working together and bringing together people with diverse beliefs, values and attitudes. Each of these constructs is expanded upon in subsequent chapters in our book. The integration of these three relational constructs signifies the essence of intentional leadership practice. It means implementing the organisational vision in ways so that others can easily see how leaders apply their espoused beliefs and values every day (see Cooper, 2018). It also requires leaders to demonstrate their philosophical approach to achieving highquality EC education for all children. Likewise, leaders’ actions can indicate their thirst for learning and interest in actively engaging with others for the purposes of advocating for children’s interests.

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

In promoting intentional leadership, it is also necessary to draw attention to the destructive and harmful elements of leadership achieved “through the abuse of power and self-interests of the leader”. (Slattery, 2009, p. 4) Discussion or publication of difficulties encountered by those experiencing workplace bullying, racism and discrimination are rare within the EC sector (Waniganayake, 2011). Pioneering research by Hard (2006) about the presence of horizontal violence in EC settings is an exception. Extending on this research through a comparative study between Australia and Iceland, Hard and Jónsdóttir (2013, p. 321), respectively, found evidence that EC practitioners avoided conflict, and in some cases, actions silenced the debate. Strong expectations of conformity through the discourse of niceness and an ethic of care observed in EC leadership practice are pervasive. When conformity is the prevailing organisational culture, it can mean that staff seek agreement

and adherence to these expectations rather than engage in open and robust debate for fear of conflict.

These findings may surprise some, while others may deny the existence of conflict or discord within EC settings run by ‘nice ladies’. If leadership is about creating positive change, then acting with courage and compassion by being proactive in enabling everyone to feel a sense of security and belonging is a priority for intentional leaders. Accordingly, the work of intentional leaders within EC organisations may be framed along six foundational principles :

See Chapters 4, 5, 13 and 14 for a wider discussion on leadership as it relates to strategic planning.

1. Implementing high-quality EC education programs that optimise the potential of every child.

2. Having a well-developed organisational vision, philosophy and strategic plans that are thoughtfully activated through everyday practice at the setting.

3. Upholding the commitment to establishing socially just environments for children and adults at EC settings, regardless of class, culture, religion/faith, language, sexual orientation, marital status or any other individual identifiers and community variables.

4. Having a vested interest dedicated to collaborating with children and adults and achieved through respectful communication.

5. Using diverse resources, beyond the minimum standards required by government regulations, especially in advancing better staff qualifications and staff:child ratios.

6. Practising purpose-based governance, where the organisation pursues financial viability with the express intention of delivering high-quality EC programs targeting learning, development and well-being.

These six principles underpin the content of our book, as can be seen in the discussion of various ideas and issues examined in subsequent chapters.

THEORISING EC LEADERSHIP

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

Since the publication of our first edition, with increasing empirical research being conducted globally, theorising EC leadership has expanded, as is evident in Nicholson et al.’s (2020) review of papers published between 1995 and 2015. Rodd (2013, pp. 45–60) also provided a potted history of the grand theories that influenced the early conceptualisations of EC leadership. This discussion included trait theory, which claims that leaders possess innate characteristics, such as decisiveness, intelligence and extroversion; behavioural theory, which proposes that leadership can be learned; and transformational theory, which emphasises a leader’s charisma, morality and relationships with staff as key to inspiring others and driving change. Historically, Bloom (2003), Hayden (1996) and Ebbeck and Waniganayake (2004) began using leadership research from the business sector and school education by Sergiovanni (1984) and Harris (2009) respectively to explore the nature of leadership within the EC sector. Despite the disciplinary differences with EC education, Mujis et al. (2004) suggested there was much to be gained from collaboration in researching and theorising by professionals from diverse backgrounds.

In recent years, the growing body of literature and mounting research evidence have enabled a healthy progression in theorising EC leadership. In appraising this theoretical landscape, we consider four key themes emerging from the work of Julie Nicholson, Helen Maniates and colleagues, whose literature reviews have informed our update:

Chapters 2, 3, 6 and 15 look at broad policy concerns including staff qualifications and staff:child ratios.

Look at Chapters 4, 5, 9, 12, 13 and 14 for more on the importance of organisational philosophies and strategic plans.

See Chapter 8 for the exercise of effective communication and an ethical use of power.

Collaboration between all stakeholders in the EC setting is explored in Chapters 4, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15.

The concept of purposebased governance in relation to financial matters is unpacked in Chapter 13.

intersectionality

This concept indicates the overlapping nature of multiple identifiers such as gender, social class, religion and ethnicity, used by or applied to an individual or a group. These identifiers or labels are constructed within communities and can discriminate, bully, stereotype and marginalise people. Instead, respectful acknowledgment by leaders of people’s preferences or agency in identifying themselves can enable inclusion and equity for all.

1. Leadership as positional authority: Those employed as EC centre directors have traditionally followed a ‘command-and-lead’ approach based on job title and position within the organisation. As such, decision-making was hierarchical with the final authority vested at the top. Effectively, this approach “positioned leaders as managers” (Nicholson & Maniates, 2016, p. 70) and the resulting confusion between leadership and management responsibilities has continued to hamper day-to-day application within EC settings. For instance, in New Zealand, Thornton (2019) discusses the use of the term ‘manager’ in private centres in contrast to ‘head teacher’ in kindergartens. Accordingly, the separation or prioritisation of management or leadership functions in EC settings in New Zealand remains unclear. A plethora of studies in Australia also demonstrates struggles encountered in defining or clarifying the role descriptions for those employed as the mandated ‘educational leaders’ in EC settings (Page & Waniganayake, 2019). Findings by Alchin, Arthur and Woodrow (2019), for instance, reflect the ongoing role conflict between teaching, managing and leadership responsibilities.

2. Leadership as specialist knowledge : It is now 25 years since Kagan and Bowman (1997) introduced the notion of EC leader specialisation by focusing on five specific areas— pedagogy, community, policy, administration and advocacy—as discussed in Chapter 15. Nicholson et al. (2020, p. 94) also note the shift in having multiple leaders in a single EC setting “with specified domains of expertise”, and highlight pedagogical knowledge, which underpins Nordic approaches to EC leadership (Heikka, 2014). Finland’s move to require centre leaders to have “a 5-year masters degree … consisting of studies in educational sciences, pedagogy and teaching practice” (Ahtiainen, Fonsén & Kiuru, 2021, p. 128) is a significant policy shift reflecting strong government endorsement of specialist knowledge for EC leaders.

3. Leadership as distributed and relational: In keeping with the collaborative ethos of EC settings, conceptualisations of distributed ways of leading EC settings emerged in the 2000s. This approach reflects the sharing of leadership responsibilities, and the importance of teamwork in making decisions within the EC setting. Governments in countries such as New Zealand have embraced this approach wholeheartedly, as evident in their national policy documents (Thornton, 2019). In their global review, Nicholson and colleagues (2020, p. 104) are, however, cautious in noting that the actualisation of national policy imperatives on distributed leadership in everyday practice “is rife with tension” due to the gaps between policy, goals and practicalities in EC settings. Given its popularity, the discussion of distributed leadership is expanded later in this chapter.

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

4. Leadership as continual negotiation of uncertainties : According to the literature analysed by Nicholson et al. (2020), scholars from the USA have adopted a primarily modernist stance depicting traditional/hierarchical models. In contrast, most Australian publications reflect primarily postmodernist perspectives or a mix of traditional and postmodernist models, predicated on leader agency and agility. That is, expanding responsibilities and increasing complexities of contemporary leadership work do not always fit within linear ways of enacting EC leadership. In calling for alternative perspectives that can deal with ambiguities, tensions and uncertainties, those such as Davis, Krieg and Smith (2015), and Murray and McDowall Clark (2013) have been pushing the theorisation of EC leadership through postmodern lenses. Importantly, Nicholson et al. (2020) also highlight the paucity of studies on leader identity and intersectionality, which has meant there is limited research to guide practitioners about leading for social justice.

The brief overview above reflects how EC leadership theorising has moved from the privileged positioning of one individual as a leader to a more inclusive socially constructed and contextually situated phenomenon (Nicholson et al., 2020). Opportunities for collaboration are emerging in the examination of distributed leadership approaches and have attracted the interest of diverse EC scholars. Within a distributed frame of reference, leadership activity is dispersed over different aspects of a particular organisation, system or situation (Harris, 2009). The process of leadership decision-making thereby moves beyond a single leader to a group, through shared values that are meaningful at the local context of each setting.

Social justice

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.3

• Th inking about your experiences of working in EC settings, to what extent was pedagogical expertise critical in shaping the everyday practice of leaders?

• W hat does it take to be creative and courageous as an EC leader when making difficult decisions involving children, families and colleagues at their EC setting?

• If you have observed and/or experienced distributed leadership within an EC setting, consider what made it effective. Identify factors that enable or constrain leaders working in collaborative ways.

PIVOTAL ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN EC SETTINGS

It has long been argued that EC leaders play a pivotal role in EC settings (Bloom & Sheerer, 1992; Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2004; Nupponen, 2006; Rodd, 1994, 1998, 2006, 2013). An accumulating body of empirical evidence has continued to support this view, demonstrating the benefits of having effective leaders in EC settings (Douglass, 2019; OECD, 2015, 2017, 2019a, 2020a; Rodd, 2013). Research also shows that leadership can positively impact the quality of EC services as a workplace, the quality of education provided, and the learning, development and well-being of children as discussed in our book.

Research on EC leadership conducted independently in various countries and documented in publications such as Granrusten et al. (2018), Hujala and Puriola (1998), Rodd (2013), and Strehmel et al. (2019) demonstrate how leadership manifests in a clear vision and philosophy that is shared by all staff; curriculum development with a strong educational focus; opportunities for continuous professional growth ; clear policies and procedures; and program innovation. These aspects can influence quality EC education provision directly, as well as indirectly, as reflected in staff retention and enhanced job satisfaction (Cumming, Wong & Logan, 2021; Jones, 2021). In Australia, the inclusion of Governance and Leadership as one of the seven areas in the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2018) is evidence of clear alignment between research, policy and practice.

A focused discussion on professional growth is also presented in Chapter 15.

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

Turn to Chapters 7, 8, 11 and 12 for a discussion on the importance of advocacy in EC education.

As discussed in Chapters 5 and 8, purposebased governance is an essential component in today’s EC settings.

professional growth

This refers to the continual process of how EC practitioners learn and advance their professional capabilities in leadership over time.

spheres of influence

This concept helps to explain how leadership enactment can inspire, shape and impact others. Within an organisation, leadership responsibilities may be formally defined in individual staff job descriptions and reflect the level of authority or positional power held by a leader. Individuals may also influence others through encouragement and/or control by demonstrating leadership informally in everyday work.

Individuals may implement distributed leadership along spheres of influence , reflective of the expertise or authority and control the leader may have, and their capacity to inspire and impact the work of other practitioners within the same EC setting. Within distributed leadership theorising there are, however, no set limits about the “openness of the boundaries of leadership” (Bennett et al., 2003, p. 7) and there could be any number of leaders in one EC setting. Heikka, Waniganayake and Hujala (2013) also discuss how distributed leadership approaches emphasise leadership practice rather than leadership roles being performed by various individuals. Accordingly, when reflecting on staff interactions, as stated by Harris and Spillane (2008, p. 33) “it is the nature and quality of leadership practice that matters”, reinforcing the shift in focusing leadership analysis away from the individual to the structures and processes of implementing leadership.

Discussions about distributed leadership began appearing in EC literature in the 2000s (Aubrey, 2007; Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2004; Fasoli et al., 2007; Mujis et al., 2004; Rodd, 2006). The conceptual model of distributed leadership initially developed by Waniganayake (2000, in Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2004) advocated the centrality of knowledge-based leadership. The underlying aim of this model was to facilitate leadership in areas in which the leader is knowledgeable and competent, and therefore able to guide decision-making in an informed manner. Essentially, distributed leadership “reflects a participatory and decentralised approach to leadership” and it “relies on building relationships as well as ‘team work’” (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2004, p. 35). As such, it represents a flat organisational structure where leadership responsibilities are shared among multiple leaders. Harris (2013, p. 12) explains this as “leadership that is shared within, between and across organisations”. This is evident in our model where the effectiveness of leadership is reliant on the nature of interactions between people, places and positions, and the reciprocal benefits that flow on. The complexities of enacting leadership mean that consensus is not always possible, and skilful leadership based on specialist knowledge is essential in resolving key decisions.

Due to misconceptions arising from the popularity of distributing leadership within an organisation, Harris and De Flaminis (2016, p. 144) were moved to declare that it “does not imply that everyone is a leader or that everyone leads”. It is evident, as they explain, that not every leader is “enabling and impactful” (p. 44). They also assert that there is no blueprint or roadmap on distributed leadership that could be applied universally. Within this context, teacher leadership in Finland (Halttunen, Waniganayake & Heikka, 2019; Heikka et al., 2018), New Zealand (Cooper, 2018) and Norway (Hognestad & Bøe, 2015) presents diverse approaches to enacting leadership in distributed ways.

Caution is also necessary against the naivety of presuming that all leaders are “inherently good or automatically associated with positive outcomes” (Harris & De Flaminis 2016, p. 143). In declaring that “distributed leadership is not automatically democratic”, Woods and Woods (2013, p. 3), for instance, call for a deeper level of exploration to “address issues of purpose and power” (p. 16) in the application of distributed leadership. At all times, the demonstration of ethical practice must be assessed locally where the impact of leadership is felt directly. Overall, the potential value of distributed leadership approaches rests on developing a collaborative organisational culture where there is a sense of trust, appropriate resourcing and organisational cohesion.

In seeking conceptual clarity when contextualising distributed leadership within EC settings, Heikka, Waniganayake and Hujala (2013, p. 39) highlighted the importance of ensuring “that the difficulties encountered by school leadership scholars are minimised or eliminated”. These difficulties include the importance of clarifying concepts such as delegation

when explaining what is involved in distributing leadership roles and responsibilities within an organisation. Research on distributed approaches applied within EC settings demonstrates the complexities of this task (Colmer, 2016; Heikka & Hujala, 2013; Kangas, Venninen & Ojala, 2015). Research on distributed leadership is also expanding as hybrid models such as the conceptualisation of distributed pedagogical leadership (DPL) by Heikka (2014). Created by adding pedagogy as the central focus of leadership in EC settings, DPL is explained in Chapter 6 by examining its application in Finland and Norway by those such as Heikka et al. (2021) and Bøe and Hognestad (2017) respectively.

Other iterations of shared leadership practice are also emerging elsewhere in the world. Of particular importance is the emphasis on teacher leadership in EC settings. This is evident in research conducted in Aotearoa, New Zealand by those such as Cooper (2018, 2019), Ord et al. (2013) and Ryder et al. (2017). Contextualised within the country’s First Nations’ Māori and Pasifika/Pacific heritages, findings from these studies indicate EC teacher capabilities in leading by building on respectful consultation and collaboration with local communities. Of interest is the Māori concept of ‘hospitality’ noted by Cooper (2018, p. 130) whereby “families and teachers took up opportunities to engage with one another with respect, and, in doing so, contributed to a community that felt warm, welcoming and family like”. Cooper found this kind of respectful collegiality to be an authentic indicator of quality education. These teacher leadership practices demonstrating interconnectedness and trusting relationships are also strongly embedded within Te Whāriki, New Zealand’s EC curriculum framework. As such, these studies depict the benefits or the power of alignment between societal values, national policy and everyday leadership practice.

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.4

• Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Give two or three reasons to support your view.

– Not everyone can teach or lead.

There can be more than one leader in an EC centre.

– C onsensus is necessary when making leadership decisions at an EC setting.

• W hat are the implications of a view that says everyone has a leadership responsibility?

• Is leadership of learning in a room any different from leading an EC service?

• Does leading of learning involve the same skill set as leading a service?

• W hat are the prerequisites for distributing leadership within an EC setting?

• Identify the benefits of aligning societal values, national policy and everyday leadership practice. Why is this alignment important in leading EC settings?

There is, however, no prescribed list of leadership functions, key roles and responsibilities of EC leaders that is universally accepted. Given the contextual nature of leadership enactment evident in EC leadership research, it is best that leadership role descriptions are defined locally. Globally, EC scholars (see Strehmel et al., 2019) refer to research findings to affirm the centrality of pedagogical leadership in EC settings. Responsibility for pedagogical

planning and development—as well as program or curriculum implementation—are core functions that require specialist expertise in EC education.

Recent decades have seen increased attention to data-informed teaching and assessment of children’s learning.

In a relatively short space of time, advances in technology have enabled not only the capacity to collect and collate big data sets in ways that we have not known before, but now to also link data sets, and to correlate and compare findings from one source to others. (Cheeseman, 2019, p. 4)

EC leaders are increasingly required to engage with data, to interpret meaning in the context of their EC setting and often report on how their programs respond to trends identified in data sets such as the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC). Data literacy is an increasingly important skill for all EC teachers and can be particularly empowering for those leading education projects at their settings. We should not be afraid of big data. Rather, EC leaders who develop their data literacy skills can become advocates for the importance of using big data wisely and responsibly. They can use the big data to ask more questions, develop their own more nuanced practitioner inquiry approaches and create EC settings that are truly places of inquiry- and research-based teaching and learning.

Within Australia, concerned about the potential loss of professional autonomy through compliance-based practices, Sims and Waniganayake (2015) call on EC practitioners and leaders to resist by rethinking the purpose of education, by asking critical questions and by facilitating dialogue that can transform leadership practice. In cultivating new ways of leading in EC, it is also no longer a matter of needing ‘more’ leaders because we must also seek ‘more kinds of leadership’ (Kagan & Hallmark, 2011) that reflect the diverse challenges encountered within our communities.

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.5

• From your observations and professional experiences as a student and/or practitioner in EC settings, identify examples that show:

– c onnections between effective leadership and program quality

how practitioners in leadership positions demonstrate effective leadership

– how respect for diversity is being reflected in leadership work.

• C onsider the extent to which your observations and experiences reflect the research findings on leadership. Refer to the references cited in this book for some appropriate readings.

• Identify potential gaps in the research and develop questions that you may want to ask to address issues that are relevant for your EC organisation.

A NEW CONCEPTUALISATION OF EC LEADERSHIP

In keeping with the shift away from the single heroic leader to a more collective leadership conceptualisation, we have updated and extended upon the leadership elements presented in the previous editions of our book. Over the years, research on EC leadership has continued to highlight the importance of the place, the positions and the people. As depicted in Figure 1.1, our new conceptualisation now depicts a wheel, with three gears at the core reflecting the work of an EC setting. The rim symbolises how leadership practices within the setting are impacted by the head, the heart and the hands that engage leaders’ cognitive, social, emotional and physical capabilities.

When taken together, with the arrows in the rim and the spokes depicting movement and interconnections between the various parts of the wheel, this image reflects the dynamic nature of our leadership model. The circular imagery is reflective of the leaders’ spheres of influence, as discussed previously in this chapter. The boundaries of leading are defined locally, as relevant to each setting, and are variable over time. Each component of our model is described next, to illuminate the growing understanding of early childhood leadership, informed by research findings in the sector.

The internal gears of the wheel depict three core leadership elements that can be applied to any educational setting. The place, the people and the positions are each described as follows:

• PLACE refers to the EC service type and requires answering questions such as, Is it a preschool, family day care or long day care centre? How many children is it licensed for?

Where is it located: in a beach suburb, the inner city, a remote area or a regional town?

FIGURE 1.1 Reconceptualising leadership in EC settings

Was it built in the 1970s or more recently? Has it changed its ownership or governance system? These questions signify the importance of the understanding the context or the location within which leadership is operationalised. The history of the EC setting as well as its local community characteristics may reflect the children, families and practitioners, and organisational culture of the setting as well as its EC programs and pedagogical practices.

• PEOPLE enacting leadership in an EC setting can vary from place to place in number and the roles and responsibilities they are expected to implement. Some or all staff at the setting may be allowed to exercise leadership in either formal or informal ways. Each person comes with their own background values, beliefs and demographic characteristics such as their age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, residency status and religion/faith. These demographics, as well as their professional qualifications, skills and experience, can influence leaders’ behaviour and style of working.

• POSITIONS of leadership found in each EC setting vary depending on factors such as its size, governance, provider/ownership and staffing structure. Job responsibilities may be set by a governing board/committee, the owner or a large organisation that oversees the management of two or 200+ EC settings. Although all EC centres in Australia are required to have an educational leader, it is possible that some centres have two or more of these positions or have a deputy/assistant director and team/room leaders attached to various children’s playrooms. The level of authority to make decisions could be hierarchical, flat or more evenly distributed among an executive leadership team or all staff at the setting. It appears that positional authority strongly influences EC leadership practice and decision-making.

In summary, there is great variation in the place, the people and the positions of leadership found within EC settings. Our aim is to honour this diversity and provide an analytical frame to better understand the commonality of structures that contributes to enacting EC leadership. We believe successful leaders are well informed about aspects that make each EC setting unique or distinctive, and how this knowledge, in turn, influences their leadership practice.

Leadership work also involves engaging the head, the heart and the hands. Our conceptualisation builds on the leadership model developed by Sergiovanni (1994). In his model, ‘the head’ represents how a leader looks at the world of work; the ‘heart’ represents the leader’s beliefs and values; and the ‘hands’ depict the decisions, actions and behaviours of the leader. In our conceptualisation, placed within the rim of the wheel, these three components act in combination to maximise the impact of leadership practices within the EC setting.

Our reconceptualisation indicates how leadership practice is strengthened by using each component as follows:

• The HEAD symbolises the EC expertise and intentionality leaders bring to their work. It demonstrates leaders’ use of cognitive capabilities to assess, plan and prioritise matters connected with the EC setting’s vision, philosophy and strategic plans, and is underpinned by ethical, inclusive and equitable principles.

• The HEART is associated with the moral purposes of educational leadership and relies on activating leaders’ social-emotional capabilities, which are the key drivers of building trusting relationships. These aspects are crucial in enacting ethical leadership practice and frame the deep appreciation of humanity in all of us.

• The HANDS demonstrate the practical realities of enacting leadership within EC settings. They illustrate that effective leaders have a thorough understanding of making the best use of human, material and financial resources accessible, and the pragmatic implications of their capacity to implement high-quality EC education programs.

Our model acknowledges the humanistic nature of educational leadership as well as the commitment of EC practitioners to make a difference by upholding the rights and best interests of young children wherever they are working as leaders. The six leadership components of our model, as identified above, are ever present in educational organisations. Paying attention to these enables EC leaders to find clarity when planning and implementing their vision in objective and holistic ways. We also emphasise the adaptive qualities of our model as it is aligned with the contextually situated nature of EC leadership, and therefore it is sufficiently flexible in incorporating local conditions as relevant to each EC setting.

LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS

Being an intentional leader is more than just performing the responsibilities specified in a job statement. A manager may be expected to focus on the staff and the regulatory responsibilities that impact the day-to-day activities of the centre. A leader, on the other hand, is a visionary, and is therefore expected to be future oriented. Typically, these characteristics may be reflected in the philosophy and strategic directions of the centre. Adoption of ethical practices that align with research showing strong links between quality outcomes for children by employing well-qualified practitioners, for example, sits well with an intentional leader who believes in prioritising their work in the best interests of the children.

Being an ethical leader means taking a stand and explaining the reasons that underpin your decisions, based on a consideration of prevailing community values and beliefs about a particular issue. This is not always easy, as can be seen in Pause–reflect–act 1.6.

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.6

You receive pamphlets and online requests from businesses interested in securing a market for their products through the staff and families at your centre. Some advertisements offer a percentage of income from the sales generated through your centre. Over time, these sales can provide a steady income for your centre to pay for staff support and additional resources. Some parents are critical that selling chocolates, for example, contradicts the nutritious food policy of the centre. Other parents consider it is not appropriate to support certain companies they deem unethical; and others feel that staff spend too much time administering these promotions. In response to community criticism, you have at least four options to consider as a way forward:

1. Stop all promotions—no longer allow selling items as a revenue raiser.

2. A llow some promotions by carefully selecting the organisations on a case-bycase basis.

3. A llow some advertising by creating an annual list of preferred businesses.

4. A llow all advertising and promotions without any limits.

– Define the ethical issues and underlying values that are presented in each option.

– A s an intentional leader, consider the consequences of each option for the centre and select the option you will adopt. Give your reasons.

In an increasingly market-oriented workplace, EC leaders are expected to deliver productivity through efficiency, assessed typically through financial measures. Intentional leaders, however, seek to create workplaces that are equitable and supportive of all. There have been significant advances in the knowledge base of EC education, and the professional status of practitioners has moved on from being merely ‘nice ladies who love children’ (Stonehouse, 1989) to becoming dynamic and vibrant leaders (Rodd, 2013). Moreover, as Fasoli et al. (2007, p. 244) have noted, consideration of distributed approaches to leadership in EC settings is enabling a shift in thinking “away from being an expert and towards being an agent or facilitator of change”. As such, it is important that intentional leaders take the time to reflect and understand existing approaches to EC practice, theories, research and policy so that they may move forward with wisdom and courage, as will be discussed in more detail in the chapters that follow.

Hard and Jónsdóttir (2013) have also noted that a culture of teamwork or collaboration does not guarantee or reflect equity or fair play, and instead could reinforce an institutionalised pattern of negative behaviour where some practitioners were “being marginalised by one’s peers” (p. 321) for standing out from the crowd. There is also no point denying either the power of those who hold a position of leadership or the potential danger of abusing positional power or esteem within the sector or within individual EC settings. Solutions to these challenges can be found, both as individuals and collectively, by taking action to demonstrate one’s commitment to inclusion, equity and justice in EC settings. More research is urgently needed to better understand relationships between staff, leaders and management, and the use of power, privilege and authority within EC settings. Importantly, it is anticipated that an intentional leader “[will] be inclusive; [will] learn from others; doesn’t always have the answers and solutions; listens to and with others; [and] places ethics at the core of their work” (Davis, Krieg & Smith, 2015, p. 144).

LEADING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

EC leaders have a critical role in upholding equity, fairness and justice, by creating safe social spaces to welcome one and all. Theoretically, as Aubrey (2019, p. 68) notes, “postmodern critique opened up the possibility of contesting competing discourses in ECE. It offers alternative ways of thinking and working and exposes practices that marginalise and disempower particular groups.” In contributing to this discussion, Waniganayake and Cooper (in press) unpack the concept of intersectionality as a “socio-political construct” that reflects how individual and group identifiers can be used to marginalise, stigmatise, bully and withhold people’s agentic potential. Understanding the political nature of these discussions is essential in eliminating the inequities, control and oppression of children and adults who are part of your EC setting as well as the broader community.

Social justice

Lamenting the dearth of EC research that explicitly explores social justice objectives as a leadership endeavour, Nicholson et al. (2020) call for strong leadership to guide systems reform efforts (that) we must query the intended purposes motivating leadership in early childhood so change is directed at improving equity in society instead of representing a quixotic crusade. (p. 114)

This requires a better understanding of the difference between ‘othering’ and ‘celebrating’ diversity in all its shapes and forms.

Waniganayake and Cooper (in press, p. 6) posit, “EC leaders are well placed to unleash the emancipatory powers of education”, as is evident in Gibbs’s (2020) research demonstrating “leading as a socially-just practice”. They present a bricolage of intersectional identifiers applicable to one or more individuals, as “an analytical device” and “a conversation starter” to enable EC leaders to unpack assumptions, advocate, ask questions and facilitate dialogue about social justice (Waniganayake & Cooper, in press, p. 7). As intentional leaders, this is an important way of anchoring our commitment to strengths-based ways of honouring the richness of intersectional identifiers afforded by children and adults in our communities. In this regard, throughout our book, we also refer to the power of the Uluru Statement of the Heart (https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/) as a guiding document for social justice conversations being led by EC leaders.

The formulation of collegial and/or reciprocal relationships with children, their families, other caregivers, EC colleagues internally and externally, as well as diverse professionals and community members interested in EC education is taken for granted today. Perceived as a preventative measure against EC practitioner attrition, it is well documented in studies by both Australian (for example, Irvine et al., 2016) and international (for example, Rohrmann, Brody & Plaisir, 2021) researchers. Relationships based on trust, integrity and reciprocity can be built by the intentional leader through active listening, respect for agency and an openness to learning—consistent themes underpinning our book. These aspects invariably denote the importance of a leader’s communication capabilities for interacting with diverse stakeholders, both within and beyond their place of employment.

PAUSE–REFLECT–ACT 1.7

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

Read the story of Leela and her family and reflect on the questions below. Leela’s mum came to your long day care centre through a government initiative aimed at helping single parents to find paid employment. Leela is nine months old. She has two older siblings at school. It has been two years since the family escaped from the political unrest and violence in their homeland. Leela’s mum wanted to find a job so that she could provide for her children. She had not used centre-based EC programs with her older children and was finding it difficult to be separated from Leela, her new baby. When you explained Leela’s family context to the staff in the baby room at your centre, they were also anxious about their responsibilities in caring for Leela.

• A s a leader, how will you use your leadership skills and understandings to respond to Leela and her family, and to the concerns of the staff?

Chapter 15 discusses diversity and inclusion in strengthening the EC workforce.

Focusing on interpersonal and workplace communication, Chapter 9 presents an extended discussion of relevance for leaders in EC settings.

• W hich leadership qualities can you use to demonstrate empathy towards families with complex challenges?

• Write a profile of your ideal leader, identifying their key roles and responsibilities. Which of these will you use when working with your colleagues?

• You can revisit these reflections after finishing this book or on completion of your studies to see how this profile might be revised in light of your new understandings about intentional leaders.

The interconnectivity between leadership and communication is not new, but there is now an increasing level of sophistication in communication that is expected of today’s EC leaders. Within this context, we emphasise the value of adopting collective leadership approaches to address complex societal issues, such as the poverty, food insecurity, climate change, mental health and energy crises impacting us all globally as well as within our local communities. The complexity, unpredictability and sheer size of these issues warrant the involvement of many, combined with effective leadership to steer and coordinate developments in ethical ways, as was observable in the way they dealt with the rapidly evolving circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (Harris, Azorín & Jones, 2021). For instance, observing communitywide broad action during the COVID-19 pandemic, Harris, Azorín and Jones (2021) contend that there has been a “seismic shift in networking activities” involving school principals. They suggest that today, networking requires “a different set of leadership responses and priorities” as well as the mastery of technological tools to ensure rapid communication and effective coordination, which are essential in sustaining engagement within and beyond their own schools (p. 3). Accordingly, Harris, Azorín and Jones (2021, p. 13) concluded that today’s professional networking “is essential, and vital, and in this respect, it is a new educational imperative” for contemporary educational leaders.

Honouring children’s best interests and collaborating for the common good are essential tenets of the EC profession (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2004; Rodd, 2013). At the heart of this work is EC practitioner networking, as discussed in Chapter 7, focusing on advocacy and activism. In Australia, for instance, the long history of grass-roots leadership has yielded critical policy reform, as in the case of achieving better staff:child ratios for infants being incorporated into the National Law and Regulations (ACECQA, n.d.c.). There is, however, an absence of robust empirical studies examining the long-term effectiveness of networks and networking in the EC sector. Accordingly, we are pleased to note that the Australian Government has developed an evaluation plan to assess its 10-year national workforce strategy, and this includes a review of existing EC practitioner networks (ACECQA, 2021b). This work offers much promise for learning and leading in supportive ways.

THINK GLOBALLY AND ACT LOCALLY

In this chapter, we introduced the notion of ‘intentional leadership’ that frames the content in our book. It is evident that the increasing expectations, challenges and complexities of the ECE sector, exacerbated by COVID-19’s impacts during the past three years, have meant that there is now a “growing demand for strong leadership” in EC settings (Turani, 2022, np). It has been difficult, however, to evaluate or measure the effectiveness of EC leaders

in systematic ways. This is largely because most EC leadership research is small scale and lacking the longitudinal data necessary to assess what works and what does not, and to explain why.

As discussed throughout our book, research published in English is associated with EC services in countries in the global north in Europe and North America, as well as the global south in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. Importantly, Turani and Bloem (2019) note the expanding interests in EC education by influential global organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the World Bank. Evidence can be found in increasing awareness and use of international leagues tables or benchmarks for systems development within countries and global comparative reporting of children’s learning and educational outcomes across countries, as well as “strengthening of international and intercultural aspects of the curriculum” in terms of both “educational content and purpose.” (Naumann, 2018, p. 182)

Within this context, it is exciting to consider the possibilities offered by the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) led by the OECD (2018). Involving nine countries, this is the first large-scale international survey to have investigated the professional background, beliefs and work practices of EC staff and leaders. This research has the potential to reach a worldwide audience and “enrich the national and international discourse on ECEC leadership” based on statistically significant, longitudinal data (Turani & Bloem, 2019, p. 280). It is pleasing to note that the data collected and being analysed are aligned with the three gears of our new model of EC leadership, reflecting personal, centre and community level characteristics. (Turani, 2022)

Although the TALIS data analysis is in its early stages, initial findings affirm what the EC sector has been calling for in terms of public recognition of practitioners’ status and complexities of professional work through better salaries and conditions of employment and including continuous access to professional learning and development (PLD). In responding to the implementation of the revised national Strategic Plan for Early Learning 2019–2029 in Aotearoa New Zealand, Cooper (2019, p. 33) was emphatic in demanding adequate resourcing of PLD focusing on leadership, “sooner, rather than later”. In Australia, some provider organisations are also making use of insights on leadership enactment, by using various assessment tools and processes involving the staff and families in their PLD programs.

EC leaders who are intentional understand the benefits of collaboration. By sharing global and local research findings as well as inviting input from EC practitioners and incorporating child and family voices in designing programs, leaders can be strategic in lifting their planning and decision-making to a higher level. These avenues, which enable codesigning and joint implementation, hold the promise of new ways of advancing leadership theory and practice.

OxfordUniversityPressSampleOnly

KEY REFERENCES

Gibbs, L. (2020). “That’s your right as a human isn’t it?” The emergence and development of leading as a socially-just practice in Early Childhood Education, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 45(4), 295–308.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120966093

This paper presents findings from an Australian study where leadership steering garnered children’s right to access high-quality EC education. It used the theory of practice architectures to illuminate socially just leadership practice.

Social justice

Nicholson, J., Kuhl, K., Maniates, H., Lin, B. & Bonetti, S. (2020). A review of the literature on leadership in early childhood: examining epistemological foundations and considerations of social justice. Early Child Development and Care, 190 (2), 91–122. https://doi:10.1080/03004430.2018. 1455036

These authors examine the theoretical underpinnings of EC leadership in relation to social justice considerations, based on a review of 81 papers that were published during 1995–2015. Well written, this paper is of interest to anyone wanting to address social injustice in the EC sector.

Rodd, J. (2013). Leadership in early childhood. The pathway to professionalism. (4th edn). Allen and Unwin. Written by an esteemed EC leadership scholar, and first published in 1994, this fourth edition provides a good orientation to the emergence of leadership research in the EC sector, and key aspects that have shaped thinking about leadership today.

ONLINE RESOURCES

Australian Early Childhood Teacher Education Network (AECTEN)

https://www.acde.edu.au/australian-early-childhood-teacher-education-network/

The AECTEN is of relevance to EC academics involved in teacher education programs in Australia. Attached to the Australian Council of Deans of Education since 2016, the website offers a range of resources including submissions to government inquiries, reports, videos and podcasts.

Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)

https://www.edresearch.edu.au/

AERO is Australia’s independent education evidence body. AERO supports teachers, educators and leaders by providing research evidence and teaching resources. As part of its research and resource development, AERO actively consults with and seeks feedback from the early childhood sector.

Early Education Leaders Peer Network (NSW Government and Community Early Learning Australia (CELA))

https://earlyednetwork.com/

https://www.cela.org.au/early-education-leaders-peer-network

This is a joint venture connecting the State government Department of Education and the not-forprofit EC peak organisation, CELA.

Early Education Show

https://www.earlyeducationshow.com/earlyeducationshow

The Early Education Show looks at the policy, politics and practice of Australia’s early education sector in a light-hearted and accessible way. The hosts approach the subjects not as dry learning experiences, but opportunities to chat, discuss and question.

Educational Leaders Network and Support Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/506690516049527

An Australia-wide network of practitioners who primarily hold the position of an educational leader in EC settings. It was established in 2013 and is a members-only discussion forum.

International Leadership Research Forum in Early Childhood

https://ilrfec.org/contact-us/

This is a global network of early childhood leadership researchers, established by Emeritus Professor Eeva Hujala from Finland. The founding countries included Finland, Australia and Norway. Member countries take turns to host the ILRF gatherings every two years. Publications based on the latest research are freely accessible from the homepage.

Social Justice in Early Childhood (SJIEC)

https://www.sjiec.org/

With wide representation of members working in a variety of roles—including EC teachers, educators, managers, academics and community people—this network is proactive in upholding social justice matters associated with the EC sector. Emerging in the 1990s, the website includes snippets from their annual conference, articles and blogs. It functions as a membership-based Facebook group for those interested in discussing and networking on social justice matters in the early years.

The Front Project

https://www.thefrontproject.org.au/about-us

This is a network of business and community leaders dedicated to advocating for young children’s growth and development to ensure they thrive throughout their lives. Submissions to government and independent research reports prepared by The Front Project are of relevance to all concerned with early years education. Their Apiary Fellowship program offers opportunities for EC practitioners to strengthen their leadership capabilities.

Social justice