Educators diminished by archaic attitudes and frameworks designed to oppress

‘The Angel in the House’ was a poem written in 1858 by Coventry Patmore as a homage to his widow, and serves as a description of how devoted wives should behave in Victorian times. 

 

Such wives were to be industrious, humble, unpaid, virtuous, loving, caring, charming, available, free of fancy, courteous, naturally talented, innocent, truthful, attractive, and of course, invisible and uncomplaining. 

 

While these notions may seem like relics from a bygone era, a closer examination of Government approved documents which guide and shape the work done in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector, such as standards, frameworks and curricula, shows that when it comes to the way in which educators’ talents, interests and wellbeing are considered, they are not so far away after all. 

 

Women’s invisibility has ramifications

 

The invisibility of women and societal attitudes to the work done by women has enormous ramifications for female wellbeing, career paths, status, pay, treatment and safety in our society – and these attitudes and invisibility all start with our systems and Government documents. 

 

Society’s attitudes are a reflection of how women are treated by the Government. It is little wonder early educators, 92 per cent of whom are women, are struggling, overworked, burning out, doing unacceptable amounts of unpaid work, and leaving the sector when we can’t recognise and appreciate them as humans in our documents and systems. 

 

Examples of educators’ invisibility

 

Let’s look at the documents for some examples of educators’ invisibility. 

 

In the Government approved Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework, the word ‘strengths’ is mentioned many times. Educators are instructed to identify:

 

1. children’s strengths, 
2. the strengths of theories, and 
3. the strengths of Indigenous families.

 

Educators are told to work with children by acknowledging, valuing, and working to support their strengths. These are wonderful ideals. Interestingly, however, not once in the whole 72 pages are educators’ strengths acknowledged, valued or allowed to shine despite being needed to do the job.

 

Similarly, in the same document, the word ‘wellbeing’ is used on many pages. Educators are told to provide support and opportunities to ensure children are developing optimal physical and mental health. Educators are instructed to take an active role in this task as well as being asked to advocate for their wellbeing, working closely with families to achieve these outcomes. Again, these are all positive practices. Nowhere in the document, however,  is the educators’ wellbeing mentioned. 

 

While it is important to focus on the child and the family, the close relationships between children and educators are the hallmark of quality education. If these relationships are jeopardised by an educator burning out, having low status, being undervalued and poorly paid, then the educator is less able to do their job well. Indeed, they may even leave the service in search of a better job or leave the sector entirely, which many have. 

 

In the National Quality Standards, when staffing is mentioned it is in the context of mandated levels of qualification, and the different roles which make up a quality service. Early learning services are instructed to: 

 

“ensure the provision of qualified and experienced educators, coordinators and nominated supervisors who are able to develop warm, respectful relationships with children, create safe and predictable environments and encourage children’s active engagement in the learning program”.

 

While these things are important, the educators, like the virtuous Victorian-era wives in Coventry’s poem, need to be everything to everybody. That is, they need to be without needs, wants, strengths, and recognition. They need to always serve, never receive, and above all, remain invisible. 

 

Why does it matter?

 

We now need an extra 21,000 educators to fill the gaps in our early learning sector. Many educators who have worked through the pandemic are burning out and looking to leave if they have not already. 

 

The vast majority of families in regional, rural and remote Australia, as well as the lower income suburbs of our metropolitan cities, are part of the enormous ‘childcare deserts’. This is where at least three families compete for one space in an early learning service. This has enormous ramifications for children’s learning, parent’s income, family stress and our economy. 

 

Our findings

 

We asked Australian educators in an online survey about their work and wellbeing, and if they intended to stay in the sector. Here is what those who wanted to leave had to say: 

 

I have been attempting to exit the field for some time but have not been able to convince other employers that 10+ years in early childhood should allow me transition to other roles – most employers see it as child minding and [a] low-skilled role.

 

The demand on educators is too high and the pressure is intense. I would prefer to work somewhere for the same or similar wage and less stress/take home work.

 

I am completing training to possibly take on a different role – not at a service but a consultancy/education role possibly.

 

Have been dealing with burnout from the job. Losing enjoyment as we are dealing with so many regulations and behaviour issues.

 

The pay and hours make life with a family difficult to juggle and the stress and requirements detract from the joy of working with children.

 

Every day I look for jobs, I enjoy what I do but I get tired. 

 

Where to from here?

 

Unlike Coventry’s ideal Victorian-era wives, these educators are expressing their needs, recognising their strengths, and realising they are undervalued, overworked, and underpaid. To fix the sector, the Government should also consider the messages their documents send to employers, parents, society, and educators about the value of the nuanced work they do. Educators are not invisible. Educators matter!