Critically Discuss Issues and Debates Affecting the Early Years Profession and Their Implications for Practice
The main argument is to justify EYTS qualification reform as a policy tocology aims to address some issues of Early Years profession but lack inner liver and clear pathway, it essentially objectifies early childhood educators(ECEs) by specific training and structed indivision, severely limit their teaching practice in Early Years curriculum and their working environment in private setting, and use this qualification as a label to give them unequal status, payment, identity in a seemingly reasonable way.
Introduction
Human interactions are more specialized and skilled, we live in an increasingly professional society which is be constructed by human capital produced by education and strengthened by segregation of the unqualified. More and more ordinary jobs transform into professions which acquire certified expertise beyond the common sense of the layman, and the professionals claim that their specific service is irreplaceable to society to seek corresponding status and rewards (Perkin, 2002). Profession symbolizes a monopolization of a specific expertise, an ideology of public service and altruism beyond individual interests (Abbott & Meerabeau,1998). Foucault's work demonstrates to us how humankind is converted into subjects through objectification, it is a process of objectivizing the subject by dividing practices which seek to categorize people into a rigidly organized world and help people find their status over here (Foucault,1982).
Teacher as a profession is a salient illustration of this kind of objectification of human, and teacher workforce shows an enduring trend to be organized by qualification framework in national policy level (Gosden,1972). Qualification is the recognition of the level and sorts of knowledge, skills and competencies which practitioner has obtained (OECD 2012). Early years workforce is also dominated by national qualification framework (EYFS,2021), qualification framework as a policy tool is the main meaning to improve and confirm the professionalism and professionalization of teacher (Nuttall, Thomas& Wood, 2014). It's necessary to articulate the definition of professionalization and professionalism in this context: professionalism denotes the issue of the right and obligations of teacher to determine their practice in classroom, it's about quality of teaching practice; while professionalization emphasizes the issue of teachers' status, these two elements influence the identity of the teacher together (Eisenmann, 1991). A bunch of research commonly held belief that well-trained and well-qualified early childhood educators (ECEs) play a crucial role in delivering high-quality early childhood education (ECE) service (OECD 2012, Sylva et al.2004, Siraj-Blatchford et al.2002) which is most probable to promote children's positive development (Helburn et al, 1995). But there is still an ambiguous and even contradictory relationship between the implement of qualifications and the construction of teachers' professionalism and professionalization under the policy background. Therefore, this essay chooses to critically discuss the ECEs' professionalization and professionalism issues in UK' s policy contexts. Although there are different levels qualifications in early childhood workforce, but this essay only focuses on the graduate qualifications implementation which starts with Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) to the Early Years Teachers Status (EYTS). Because the graduate level qualification currently represents the highest professionalization level in early years workforce field and the criteria of 'high-quality' practice, which leaves more space to examine.
In addition, this discussion based on a thorough analysis of policy texts regarding EYPS and EYTS reform, draws on a rhetorical analysis perspective, which means the principle of examination is to acknowledge that policy text is based on specifical political and social ideology to identify problems and propose solutions by rhetorical strategies, and rhetorical strategies emphasize that policy text is a form of persuasive discourse for specifical audience (Crines 2015). By investigating the evaluation of EYTS qualification, this essay aims to critically discuss professionalism issues within policy text of this qualification, and then go on to discuss professionalization issues including status issue, gender issue and identity issue of Early Years profession. The main argument is to justify EYTS qualification reform as a policy tocology aims to address some issues of Early Years profession but lack inner liver and clear pathway, it essentially objectifies ECEs by specific training and structed indivision, severely limit their teaching practice in Early Years curriculum and their working environment in private setting, and use this qualification as a label to give them unequal status, payment, identity in a seemingly reasonable way.
Part 1 The evolution from EYPS to EYTS
Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) is a graduate level qualification of ECE workforce which was officially introduced to qualification framework in 2008(CWDC 2008). The initial of EYPS originated from the policy document Children's Workforce Strategy (DfES 2005), which emphasized the importance of training graduate level practitioners to develop professionalism and leadership within ECE sector (DfES 2005, 41). As the response of this consultation, government decided to introduce a new Early Years Professionals (EYPs) role as a policy technology, aims to raise the status and quality of ECEs by delivering more professional early years' workforce (DfES 2006). And subsequently publish qualification standard Guidance to the standards for the award of Early Years Professional status, which define the attribute of EYPs is that they play a reflective and leadership role to improve their practice and outcome of children (CWDC 2008). In 2012, the government undertook a review of EYPS qualification and publish the report Review of the Early Years Professional Status standards to clarify that there are three reasons to make a change: To streamline the standards and avoid complexity of some standards, redesign the grouping of standards, make standards clearer and easier to understand and assess; To align with the new Early Years Foundation Stages (EYFS); To improve candidate profession expectations of this graduate-level qualification (CWDC, 2012, 8). At the same time, Nutbrown (2012) published Foundations for Quality (Nutbrown Report) to review ECE qualifications, according EYPS qualification, this report state that the start point of EYPS is to raise status of ECEs by creating a graduate level qualification in Early Years sector, but EYPs is only allowed to work in private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector, the maintained ECE system which only open to QTS holders, the EYPs complain that although they attain the graduate level qualification as same as QTS holder, but they can't get the equal profession status and payment. This review suggested that we should develop a specialist teacher for children aged 0-7 years, which means expand the specialist teachers' service range from EYFS to Key Stage 1. It's an assumption to raise EYPs professional status and Early Year sector's status by building a continuum between EYFS and Key Stage (DfE 2012). As responses to these reviews, the government published More Great Childcare which introduced Early Year Teachers (EYTs) to replace EYPs from September 2013 (DfE 2013). EYTs candidates need to be trained by Early Years Initial Teacher Training (EYITT), which make sure all the graduates meet the Teachers Standards (Early Years) (DfE 2013) to be award Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS). But this reform didn't respond to prementioned issue directly, EYTs still don't get the same status as QTS and can't work in maintained schools.
By scrutinizing the policy text of Teachers Standards (Early Years), seven principles are related to teacher's personal effective practice and the accountability of children's outcome and safety, even clearly stated that professional ability of teaching early mathematics and phonics, the remaining one dedicated principle is relevant to teacher's leadership role, the policy makers state in policy text that they intend to ensure candidates know exactly what elements of practical leadership include and can provide solid and explicit evidence (DfE 2013; CWDC, 2012, 18). Although there is a shift from EYPS to EYTS, but from the aforementioned policy text, we can conclude that the original attributes of this graduate qualification, namely emphasize reflective practice and practical leadership, as well as the implicit policy ideology have not only endured but have been further strengthened. Outlining the evolution of EYTS qualification reform and clarifying how the national policy construct the ECE professionalism provide a specific context and premise to reflect the issues within Early Years profession.
Part 2 Professionalism issues of EYTS qualification
The issue on the relationship between professionalism and national curriculum
Reflective practice is the cornerstone of construction of professionalism in EYTS, which as a distinction of this graduate level qualification. By examining the attribute on reflective practice of EYTs, it was defined as EYTs has a solid reason for their every single educational action based on their deep and comprehensive understanding of EYFS and related academic theories. At the same time, EYTs are requested to have the initiative to reflect and recognize the practice problems. To some extent, this policy text apparently proposes a contradictory or naïve solution to nuanced practical problems, because it assumed that the EYTs should thoroughly understand and comply the established curriculum but also be expected to change and make a difference of curriculum, which lead EYTs to stand in an ambiguous professional situation.
The high dependence on curriculum manifests an inherent logic that early childhood education quality is guaranteed through authoritative management and supervision. Simultaneously, the emphasis on reflective practice is based on an inherent logic that early childhood education quality is determined by practitioners' professionalism. These two logics from different policies are forcibly juxtaposed together, resulting a contradictory framework (Kay et al, 2021). This paradox indicates that the professionalism of ECEs is subject to the implementation of national curriculum in policy context, the development of professionalism is actually lack of inner lever and driver. Through analyzing of the policy documents driving the EYTS reform, Wild et al (2015) found that the government holds the belief that ensuring the professionalism of the ECE workforce can only be achieved by a hierarchical approach to regulation and assessment. However, the construction and development of professionalism cannot be solely achieved through pre-service training facilitated by macro-level policies. Instead, the work context is the most conducive soil for growth of professionalism (Karila, 1997).
This issue leads us further discuss how educators develop the professionalism through an inner way more than just implement syllabus technically under the national curriculum policy background. Dawson (1994) claimed that there are two forms of professionalism: namely, 'inside-out' professionalism which derives from ethical sensitivity (McDowell 1979) and 'outside-in' professionalism based on specifical regulations. The 'outside-in' definition of profession is a form of obedience to traditional male occupations, such as medicine and law, while female-dominated caring profession should focus on the factors of autonomy and control within the profession (Abbott & Meerabeau, 1990, 8). Osgood (2006) argues 'outside-in' professionalism which puts teachers' work in a mandatory regulatory gaze leads professionalism be distort a form of technical practice to attain superficial outcome. It ignores that the emotional labor attribute of ECE workforce is a crucial factor to develop inner professionalism, which is urged by 'life history and gendered, raced and classed subjectivities'.
It's necessary to recognize 'ethic of care' play the same influential role through emotional labor compared with teaching capability, in emotional labor, there is an expectation to display specific positive emotions, such as care and loving (Hochschild, 2012). The ethic of care is to recognize and address difference and diversity in practice rather than just perform the 'professional standards' (Sevenhuijsen,1998, p60). But Monrad (2017) emphasizing the intrinsic professional trait of emotional labor can potentially indulge exploitation among practitioners. However, the discourse of professionalism in England entirely omits the ethical language associated with care (Taggart, 2011). Urban (2008) claims that the discourse of ECE professionalism is shaped by hierarchical knowledge and mode of practice without considering of contexts, it's effective and good for promotion. However, it results in some vocational habitus of teacher which even conflict with the essence of early years education. And some scholars suggest that curriculum autonomy is the key index of teachers' inner professionalism, and teachers take the responsibility to critique and evaluate the curriculum to demonstrate their professionalism (McCulloch, Helsby, Knight 2000, p59). In addition, teachers' inner professionalism is also eroded by marginalizing teachers in curriculum development process, because they don't have chance to appraise and determine their own teaching (Howells 2019). In Finnish context, professionalism has not been explicitly defined and elaborated upon. The professionalism of teachers does not just depend on precise standards, specific knowledge and theories as criteria. Standards is just the basic requirement of practitioners. Instead, it can encompass the teacher's own phronesis with every whole child (Karila, 2008). This model of professionalism also responds to the concept of the 'social pedagogue' from continental European, which emphasize a professionalism that the adult builds relationship with the child as a whole being and support all aspects of children's development (Moss & Petrie, 2002; Surel et al, 2011). Hargreaves (2000) asserts that teachers' professionalism ought to be recaptured by autonomous practice, which is to address uncertain educational context rather than accept stiff curriculum recipe. These arguments take a postmodern perspective to critique how the tension between individual practice and government management affects professionalism of teachers. Professionalism shouldn't be constructed by hegemony of government narrative which delivered by national curriculum but also need to be leave space for individual experience and uncertainty (Doll 1993). These debates delve into the concept of professionalism as a construct that is shaped through negotiation from perspective of frontline teachers (Osgood 2010). Dyer (2018) find that practitioners tend to fulfill emotional needs of children rather than adhere to hierarchical professional requirements. Although they grasp the intrinsic rationale behind policy-driven professionalism and recognize its significance. Their practice is more guided by ethic and instinctive. They also experience a sense of being constrained by external professional frameworks and often compromise their practice, even when they believe it benefits children's development.
But there are also politic discourses try to defend the rationality of the centralization of teachers' professionalism, it is viewed as the form of responsibility for the public, compromising with personal practice leads to a confusing situation or theriacal chic (Watson 2005). Campbell-Barr (2018) argues, to avoid this dichotomy of modernist and postmodernist approach, it's necessary to provide autonomy to ensure teachers' social production of knowledge based on experience and utilize top-down theoretical knowledge and bottom-up practical knowledge to construct professionalism. This cliché predicament of paradigm is effortless to realize theoretically, even from this perspective, the reflective role reflects this convergence of paradigms to some extent, but there is no clear pathway or mechanism guarantee to link practice effectively, reduced to some fragmented, informal, random attempt eventually. To sum up, the introduction of EYPs sharply imply this contradiction of developing the ECE teachers' professionalism within the national curriculum framework.
Critically discuss equivocation of practical leadership
The practical leadership within EYTs is clearly defined as EYTs could provide concrete evidence to demonstrate they can lead and support other colleagues' work (CWDC 2012). According to Hargreaves (1994), one characteristic of professionalism is the recognition of a sense of accountability towards colleagues. It is essentially a pedagogical leadership rather than leadership in general (Boardman 2020). Pedagogical leadership is defined as supporting colleagues to accomplish common teaching works by offering good personal practice model, and it's a leader of practice, while formal leadership usually refers to the leadership of setting who is a leader of management, which is associated with accountability and hierarchy (Northouse & Lee 2016, Whalley 2011). But from praxeology perspective, some scholars argue that the result of praxis is not to produce specific paradigm of acting, but rather to increase sensitivity to right and values in context and thus to give professional responds (Goodfellow, 2001). Therefore, the current assessment of pedagogical leadership is controversial. In addition, it's highlighted that the reflective practice and practical leadership are not separable but interwoven, which means personal reflective practice is realized in teamwork, and leading others based on personal reflective practice rather than concrete position, formal leadership has an individual position even they don't need to be a practitioner (CWDC 2008, 7). This criterion will be contested that whether this informal leadership could be implemented effectively in practice, because it means EYPs are settled in a nebulous situation in which does not rest on the authority or specifical position but are accountable to making decisions and outcomes. Clark's (2012) study finds that the EYPs usually lacks confidence to lead others, because they assume the leadership role is to take responsibility and conduct others, but they don't be authorized formally to lead others. This study shows educators are prone to have a misunderstanding of pedagogical leadership and formal leadership, or even if understand but have difficulty in avoiding crossing power line of position. However, these two forms of leadership are hard to practice separately, and just assuming EYPs exercise a form of informal leadership without managemental responsibility in policy text is a paradox, because leadership without accountability leads to irresponsible and management without leadership (based on leading practice) is unprofessional (Hall 1996). Pascal & Bertram (2012) go on to argue that the prerequisite for reflective practice in group is to recognize the existence of power (politics) and value (ethic), Therefore, the construction of professionalism on reflective leadership is devoid of inner rationality and momentum. What's worse, due to the absence of adequate administrative positions in PVI settings, EYPs are burdened with management and administrative work. Consequently, they are unable to fulfill their role as pedagogical leaders (Roberts-Holmes, 2013). However, this interpretation of policy text indicates that the construction of professionalism can't be implemented individually but need to be situated in context and acting dialogically (Freire & Ramos,1972). Spillane (2001) maintain that human activity is not a container of individual skill and knowledge but extend to social context or 'nature habitat'. And Lofthouse (2019) contend that there is a trend to develop a collaborative professionalism, it means educator's professionalism goes beyond effective individual practice to work together with other colleagues to respond to challenges of their students, society and culture, eventually fulfill a meaningful life.
Part 3 Professionalization issue of ECE teacher
The status issue
This EYTS reform leads us to quest why it's so challenging to raise ECEs status and attain the same recognition as other education sectors? Through EYFS stipulates that EYTs undertake legal duties to make sure all the children reach Key Stage, and the entry requirement of EYTs and QTS is same. One reason is stated as EYTs' training focus on EYFS, but EYFS is independent of National Curriculum (NC), NC is the main content of QTS training and doesn't include any curriculum of Early Years. Therefore, the inequal status of Early Year curriculum indirectly leads to inequality in the status of ECEs (Hudson, Brammer & Witton 2022). But why EYFS as an Early Years curriculum can't be introduced into National Curriculum and Early Year education sector is always inferior to other educational sectors? Adamson & Brennan (2014) take a social investment perspective, suggest the one of the reasons is the United Kingdom's ECE service highly rely on private provision which based on the common assumption of increasing consumers' choice and utilizing tax income effectively. UK government's (2022) data supports this argument and shows majority (over 80%) of ECE provision are PVI sectors in England. Therefore, the government adopt demand-side social investment strategy by providing funding to hands of parents to assist their purchase of private childcare, resulting in Early Years education sector nominally exists as an independent sector but has the limited functions, compared to childcare public service and other education sectors. Moss (2010) also argues that the ECE service in England is divided into 'childcare' and 'early education', 'childcare' is placed within the realm of market, while 'early education' as a public resource, is situated within the school-based system. 83% of practitioners in the maintained or school-based nursery are QTS holders, but practitioners in PVT sectors don't need a teacher status (gov.uk, 2022). There is an evident inequality of ECEs and QTS and a clear split between Early Year stage and school stage. Indeed, recently OECD data (2019) shows UK government's public spending on ECEC (including childcare and pre-primary) is lower than OECD average (0.8% of GDP) which is 0.5% of GDP, while the investment of other education sectors (including tertiary) is 6.1%. In addition, there is a severe imbalance of expenditure between the childcare and pre-primary, and the investment of childcare is almost destitute. Low investment of Early Year stage leads English parents need to spend six times as much for ECEC service compared with Nordic parents and poor ECEC workforce, and PVI settings dependent on cheap labor, the turnover of employee is increasing (Moss 2010). PVI settings have a profit-driven objective and fail to prioritize educational quality and guarantee the payment and status of teachers (Wild, Silberfeld & Nightingale, 2015). Beyond the context of EYTS qualification, there are also some general reasons for status issue of teachers, especially early years teachers. Some scholars suggest that early education is founded on the premise of class-based inequality, wherein the labor of working-class women is exploited to enable middle-class mothers to pursue socially esteemed professions. As a result, early childhood teachers become a default career path for women who lack the adequate education and resources to pursue alternative vocations. Consequently, the professionalism of ECE is dominated by the ideology of middle-class to ensure the development of children who meet the expectations of middle-class families. However, policies completely overlook the circumstances of employed mothers and their own children. The policy approach to constructing professionalism among practitioners and improving their occupational status is reduced to a gimmick aimed at attracting working-class women to continue entering this exploitative labor market (Osgood, 2009; Gewirtz, 2001).
Gender Issue
The status and income of a profession are often associated with high skill requirements and specialized service, in addition, profession status is related to autonomy of professional practice with less external regulation, status influence the dominant ideology in some way (Larson, 1977). Although Dayan (2008) argues that the definition and construction of a profession should not only be determined by professionals themselves, but also place value on the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. The elevation of professional status necessitates purposeful and organized group action, guided by a specific ideology based on expertise (Kinos, 2008). Obviously, ECEs under a patriarchy society is far from these assumptions mentioned above. Teaching gradually becomes a female occupation (Lawton, 1996,119). But it's not women take up teaching but 'teaching took up and control women', because teaching is dominated by a patriarchal ideology, and schooling creates a pathway 'from domestic and maternal nurturance to public institution and patriarchal identifications', and the woman play an agent to deliver child to this perpetual patriarchy (Grumet,1988). Teaching training is also subjected to patriarchal discourse by curriculum framework, teacher standards and behavior requirements, which represents a power relation of who define and who imply, who transcend practice who reproduce. Teaching is devalued to technical means to service a disciplinary system which dominated by patriarchy (Cannella,1997). Based on a unstated gender assumption, the female-dominated work (such as teaching, nursing and social work) is usually considered low-value, less skilled, and is excluded from major social resources and power, which is associated with women's gender virtues, such as caring and nurture, therefore, their work, both in term of knowledge and skills, cannot from a monopoly of expertise and lacks scarcity, it's considered to require minimal additional training and investment, as a result, it's hard to shape their position into a specific profession (Apesoa-Varano,2007). It's suggested that teaching is a semi-profession and hard to gain a social status like the doctors or lawyers (Etzioni, 1969). Professional status is derived from the acknowledgement by the public of the inherent value present in the services being provided (Evetts, 2003). In addition, females as the employees of school are also under the assumption that woman only needs to be responsible for her own life maintain don't have an obligation of family life, so it's reasonable to pay them lower salary than men (Sklar, 1973). By utilizing the gender assumption of motherhood for granted, the women are required to provide maternal nurturance and dedication for children in an invisible and unpaid way, this sexual division of labor has imposed numerous invisible or overly inequalities on women in term of payment and status (Popkewitz, 1994). However, these feminine traits are usually regarded as irrational and emotional expressions, and displaying irrational traits in the work can undermine professionalism (Fournier, 1999).
Identity Issue
Professional identity stems from a desire for dispositions required of a profession culture, which gradually structures people's faith and practice (Colley, 2003). The development of professionalism is seen as the process of professionalizing individuals and constructing their identity (Sorel & Wittorski, 2005). Moreover, professional identity is also structured by the usage of professional language, which means teachers have the chance and ability to use professional terms or theories to articulate their practice effectively within inner communication (Colnerud & Granström 1993). Foucault's (2002) theory of discourse argues that the usage and processing of specific concepts shapes new subject identities and new discourse. The imagination of a profession and the discourse of professional language within working setting are recontextualized and manifested in practice. As individuals immerse themselves in these contexts, their professional identity undergoes continuous construction (Fairclough, 2003). McGillivray's(2008) research on policy texts of ECE workforce reveals that the terminology used to define the professional identity of ECEs has undergone a shift from emphasizing caring attributes, maternal attributes and personal qualities to gradually incorporating professional training attributes, management and leadership attributes. The discourse system exhibits a clear gender bias towards femininity, but these terms have always maintained a high degree of inclusiveness and ambiguity, deliberately avoiding specific titles and lead ECEs are under siege and under-valued. The emphasis on professional status paradoxically reinforces the low status of early childhood teachers, indicating that the construction of their professional identity is in a state of confusion, ambiguity, and contradiction in policy text. It's a language of inferiority and conflict for practitioners. The policy discourse of EYPS has also proven to be unsuccessful in shaping professional identity. Teachers question the professional identity defined by policy texts and argue it lacks clear characteristics of professionalization and fails to provide evident improvements in payment and working conditions. Instead, it exacerbates the inequality in professional status (compared to teachers in other stages), narrows their career path, and creates a division within the early childhood education workforce. This division hinders the integration of social services for children, and as a current dominant policy, it restricts the discourse system of professional construction, potentially leading to significant negative consequences (Lloyd & Hallet, 2010). Professional identity is a result of social discourse negotiation, influenced not only by the construction of macro-level policy texts, but also by the perspectives of the professionals themselves (Britzman 1992). The study of Kuisma and Sandberg (2008) find that ECEs define professionalism as professional knowledge and effective practice, professional knowledge not only comes from pre-service training but also from teaching experiences. Effective practice is to consider the context and have a well understanding of curriculum framework's fundamental value, and it claims that practitioners with different levels qualifications undertake the same work and have equal competence in practice, this is a factor of why the status and professionalism of ECEs is challenged. However, the study of Dalli (2008) shows that teachers' understanding of professionalism goes beyond professional knowledge and appreciate practice, the intrinsic personal pedagogy, such as teaching strategies and style, also play a significant role in developing a sense of professional identity. It's related to the individual sensitivity and responsiveness of children and context and take a children's perspective to interact with children. Adams (2008) investigates BA students of early years education, finds that the graduates in lecturing positions believe that they can gain respect and professional status, whereas those who directly work with children felt that their degree did not necessarily earn them more respect from others. And the promotion of position and have access to working party also influence teachers' professional identities. But the students also perceive that professional qualification results in a split within ECE workforce and to apply some practitioners don't hold professional qualification is not professional. However, the students also recognize that obtaining a professional qualification creates a division within the ECE workforce, and some practitioners who do not possess professional qualifications are not seen as professional. The research of Vincent and Braun (2011) finds that during teaching training, teachers tend to perceive the acquisition of professional knowledge in the field of early childhood education as something resembling common sense, rather than knowledge that has significant professional barriers. In additional, mothers have the natural skill of naturing or can get children developmental knowledge easily from various channels. Therefore, they struggle to develop a strong sense of professional identity in this area. Instead, they prefer to focus on the training content of external behavioral expectations and some practical teaching actions. In fact, the teaching training has been reduced to training for 'vocational habitus'. However, this behavior-oriented professionalism is lack of appeal for trainees to get a professional identity (Evetts, 2006).
Conclusion
The entire reform process of EYTS and its associated policy documents continuously try to address the professionalism issues and professionalization issue of Early Year profession based on technocratic ideology and give different solutions on initial teacher training and forge of professionalism framework within the realm of curriculum, at least in policy texts. This solution is a discursive 'collage' of diverse professional discourses to create an ideal political rhetoric in PVI ECE contexts, which irreconcilably leads to inner contradictions and mess in practice. It chooses to overlook the attributes of ECE workforce with a patriarchal assumption, therefore, it can't truly tackle some tough issues and even make some issues more transparent and complicated, such as gender issue and class issue. The application of top-down construction of professionalism seeks to objectify the subject and achieve an efficient and predictable mode of human resource management and regulation. However, within the context of early education, it lacks inherent rationality and struggles to identify clear pathways for practice. This phenomenon sharply showed the rhetorical analysis theory, which argues policy just play a particular role in perpetuating inequality but can't change it thoroughly, and it is just a form of policy text rhetoric which just propose some ideal solutions to nuanced practical issues (Winton 2013).