Background: There is strong evidence (e.g. Cook, Corr & Breitkreuz, 2016; Productivity Commission, 2011) on the link between quality services and staff professionalization in the ECEC sector. From the late 2000s, the Australian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector has passed through a series of reforms (COAG, 2009a, 2009 b, 2009c; DEEWR, 2009; SCSEEC, 2012). One of the key features of the reforms is a renewed interest in professionalizing the ECEC workforce, aligning professional development of educators with quality services for young children. In this study, following the National Center for Education Statistics (1997, p.vii), professionalization of educators refers to “the movement to upgrade the status, training, and working conditions” of individuals working directly with children in the ECEC sector.

The Problem and Research Questions: Given that the ECEC services are delivered in a ‘mixed market’ model that consists of governments, non-profit and for-profit private organizations, and community-passed providers (Brennan & Fenech, 2014; Weston & Tayler, 2016), and that the workforce is diverse in terms of qualifications, experiences and positions within the organizational structures, it is not clear how the professionalization agenda appeals to the workforce across the sector.  Also what has not been closely examined so far is the implication of the neoliberal logic of professionalization for professional capabilities valued in the policy space as well as in the field of practice. In this respect, the ECEC policy reforms remain largely under-researched. In addressing this knowledge gap, the study has been guided by the following research questions:

-       What are the policy-valued professional capabilities of ECEC educator?

-       What are the practitioner-valued professional capabilities?

-        To what extent are policy-valued professional capabilities aligned with practitioner-valued professional capabilities?

-       What do early childhood educators see as factors that influence their ability to enact their professional capabilities?

Theoretical Framework: In problematizing the professionalization agenda in the ECEC sector, we employ the Capability Approach (CA) to human development as an evaluative framework (Sen, 1985, 2010; Ul Haq, 1995). Human development is seen as “a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy” (Sen, 1999, p.3) through “the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency” (p.xii). Contrary to the neoliberal logic of professionalization that sees teacher learning as a form of human capital, a capabilities-based account of professionalization takes a human development perspective to emphasize the value of agency freedom, conversion factors, and social commitment.

Preparing educators for professional practice means expanding their capabilities in the areas of pedagogic and policy practices, and creating favourable conditions for them to put those capabilities to use. Substantive opportunities of an educator can be measured in terms their ability to be well educated in the profession they have reason to value, and to be recognised as qualified professionals. Drawing on Sen’s thinking tools, the study analyses professionalization strategies in Australia’s ECEC sector, and assesses their relevance to professional development needs and aspirations of ECEC educators. When it comes to the ECEC sector, mainly due to the sheer diversity of the ECEC workforce in terms of qualification and experiences, professional learning opportunities may not be equally relevant to all educators in the sector. As such, it is important to recognise differences in ability to convert resources into achievements. Likewise, the freedom educators have to pursue their goals is intricately linked with their aspirations, which are adaptive and changing.

Brennan, D., & Fenech, M. (2014). Early education and care in Australia: Equity in a mixed market-based system? In L. Gambaro, K. Stewart & J. Waldfogel (Eds.), An equal start?: Providing quality early education and care for disadvantaged children (pp. 171 – 192). Bristol: Policy Press. COAG [Council of Australian Governments]. (2009a). National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education. Canberra: GOAG. COAG [Council of Australian Governments]. (2009b). National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care. Canberra: GOAG. COAG [Council of Australian Governments]. (2009c). National quality standard for early childhood education and care and school age care. Canberra: COAG. Cook , K., Corr, L., & Breitkreuz, R. (2016). The framing of Australian childcare policy problems and their solutions. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 1–22. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage. DEEWR [Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations]. (2009) Belonging, being and becoming – The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: The Commonwealth of Australia. Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics]. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A multilevel analysis. Retrieved 04 August 2016, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97069.pdf Productivity Commission (2011). Early childhood development workforce: Research report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117. SCSEEC [Steering Council on School Education and Early Childhood]. (2012). Early years workforce strategy: The early childhood education and care workforce strategy for Australia, 2012–2016. Melbourne: SCSEEC. Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures. Journal of Philosophy, 82 (4), 169–221. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2010). Introduction. In J. Klugman (Ed.), UNDP – Human development report (20th Anniversary Edition) – the real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development (vi–vii). New York: UNDP. Ul Haq, M. (1995). Reflections on human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Weston, K., & Tayler, C. (2016). A policy frame on early learning and teaching. In J. Page & C. Tayler (Eds.), Learning and teaching in the early years (pp.26-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yanow, D. (2006). Thinking interpretively: Philosophical presuppositions and the human sciences. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp.5-26). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.