This article critically analyses how empirical research investigating quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the period 1980–2008 has conceptualised ‘quality’. Applying Foucault's notion of ‘critique’ to 338 peer-reviewed journal articles uncovered six interconnected truths: quality is an objective reality; quality enhances children's optimal development; quality is the domain of science/psychology; quality can be known from researchers' perspectives; quality can be understood using an ecological framework that is limited to child, familial and childcare variables; and quality ECEC is more pertinent to preschoolers than babies and infants. The article problematises these prevailing truths, arguing that the dominance of positivist discourse in ECEC research has limited how quality ECEC can be thought and talked about. An addressing of the blind spots this article identifies has the potential to lead to more developed and nuanced understandings of quality ECEC.

It is well established that families facing financial adversity have low enrolment rates in early childhood education and care services. This paper reports on a study that utilised Nancy Fraser's theorising of social justice to analyse the approaches and practices of five centres in Australia with a reputation for doing inclusion well. Findings showed that five-fold interconnected ‘E’ strategies were utilised in the participating centres – Equity focus; Equip for inclusion; Entice participation; Enable access; and Engage families – and that these strategies embraced both transformative and affirmative approaches to social injustice. In the context of low-income families, inclusion as a social justice construct and practice is shown to be distinct from enrolment and attendance in ECEC services, requiring purposeful and sustained practices that in the absence of transformative inclusive government policy, is likely to continue to be the exception rather than the norm in mainstream services.

In Australia and internationally, government policies aim to increase the supply of early childhood teachers and thus improve the quality of early childhood education and care services. In this paper, we suggest that such a policy-quality trajectory in Australia is not as straightforward as policy discourses suggest. From industrial relations and broader policy contexts, we argue that the early childhood profession is a profession on the margins and that this marginalisation complicates efforts to enhance numbers of early childhood teachers. Mindful of this marginalisation, we draw upon preliminary findings from a study exploring the motivations, beliefs and expectations of mature age postgraduate students to highlight practical issues pertaining to students and early childhood teacher education programs that further complicate policy drives to increase the supply of early childhood teachers. We propose that the success of such policy drives is dependent on a comprehensive addressing of the complexities raised in this paper.

Quantitative approaches to defining and measuring quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) have provided a key platform for policy development. Yet their strengths and limitations as informants of high-quality ECEC have not been tested. In this study we examine two sources of quantitative data collected over a five-year period for 74 long day care centres: (1) the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised and Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale instruments which are well-established observational measures; and (2) Australia's nationally administered Quality Improvement and Accreditation System which involves a self-study and validation process. Correspondence over time and across measures was more consistent for the centres identified as providing lower quality ECEC. Variability in ratings of quality was more evident in lower quality centres, whereas high-quality centres showed less variability over time. High quality, however, was less consistently identified across measures. Discussion focuses on the strengths and limitations of these measures of quality, and the implications these have for policy development and future research.

Dominant constructions of professionalism in early childhood education can diminish early childhood teachers’ and educators’ undertaking of advocacy at the systems or political level. In this paper, we propose an ethically grounded construction of professionalism that provides space for professional practice to move beyond the classroom and into the political sphere. Findings from interviews with four early childhood teachers from Australia who undertake systems advocacy as part of their professional practice show that this work is driven by ethical influences that extend beyond the rule-based imperative, in ethical codes, that teachers should undertake systems advocacy. Findings highlight the value of considering systems advocacy as practice that emerges from an interplay of three theoretical foundations of ethics: deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Implications for teacher professionalism and the building of a teacher disposition that incorporates systems advocacy are considered.