Enrolling the child in private early childhood education and care in the context of universal service provision

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Enrolling the child in private early childhood education and care in the context of universal service provision © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Alasuutari, Maarit; Ruutiainen, Ville; Karila, Kirsti Alasuutari, M., Ruutiainen, V., & Karila, K. (2024). Enrolling the child in private early childhood education and care in the context of universal service provision. Education Inquiry, 15(1), 126146. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2282792 2024 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=zedu20 Education Inquiry ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/zedu20 Enrolling the child in private early childhood education and care in the context of universal service provision Maarit Alasuutari, Ville Ruutiainen & Kirsti Karila To cite this article: Maarit Alasuutari, Ville Ruutiainen & Kirsti Karila (22 Nov 2023): Enrolling the child in private early childhood education and care in the context of universal service provision, Education Inquiry, DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2023.2282792 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2282792 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. View supplementary material Published online: 22 Nov 2023. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Enrolling the child in private early childhood education and care in the context of universal service provision Maarit Alasuutari a , Ville Ruutiainen a and Kirsti Karila b a Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere Univeristy, Tampere, Finland ABSTRACT Finland has traditionally had a universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) system like the other Nordic countries, but in the last 15 years this system has undergone considerable marketisation and privatisation suggested to enable parental choice of ECEC. Much of the existing research on parental ECEC decisions has been conducted in contexts where ECEC systems differ considerably from the welfare and educational regimes of the Nordic countries. Moreover, parents’ views of private ECEC have scarcely been studied in the context of universal service provision. This study examined the frames the parents of a four-year-old child use to justify the selection of a private ECEC centre for their child. The data comprised qualitative interviews with eight Finnish parents. By applying discourse analytic tools, four frames were differentiated: accessibility, pedagogy, ECEC facilities and security. The findings demonstrated that while the accessibility of the services in terms of location and opening hours was the basis on which “choice” of ECEC was possible, the parents acted as active agents in the ECEC markets looking for services that would correspond to their values and perceptions of good childhood. The study raises the question of how well public policies and services can meet parents’ expectations and adjust to increasingly prevalent ideals of individualisation in society. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 30 January 2023 Revised 7 November 2023 Accepted 8 November 2023 KEYWORDS Parental early childhood education and care decision; marketisation; privatisation; Finland Introduction In the Nordic countries, universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) has been an essential part of the welfare policies, and the services have been mostly provided by municipalities (e.g. Béland, Blomqvist, Goul Andersen, Palme, & Waddan, 2014). However, since the turn of the millennium, the Nordic ECEC has undergone considerable marketisation and privatisation (Béland, Blomqvist, Goul Andersen, Palme, & Waddan, 2014, Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2020, Valkonen & al., 2021). In Finland, the context of this study, this development has occurred rapidly in the last 15 years. While in the year 2000, around 11% of ECEC services were provided by CONTACT Maarit Alasuutari [email protected] Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2282792 EDUCATION INQUIRY https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2282792 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. private providers, in 2020, the private sector’s share was roughly 19% (FIfHaW, 2021). Furthermore, Valkonen and colleagues (2021) show that between 2015 and 2019, the share of children enrolled in public ECEC decreased, while the share of children in private ECEC increased. Through marketisation, ECEC policies have aimed to increase parental choice and competition between service providers, whereas privatisation has entailed that an increased share of ECEC services is provided by private organisations (Anttonen & Meagher, 2013; van der Werf et al., 2021). While the market-oriented reforms have shaped the Nordic ECEC systems (Naumann, 2011, Ruutiainen, 2022, Westberg & Larsson, 2020), how universalism is understood has changed. Instead of approaching universalism as families’ equal rights to equal services, the “marketised interpretation” of the concept underlines families’ equal opportunities to choose the services they prefer (Ruutiainen, 2022). Indeed, marketisation and privatisation of ECEC have meant a significant change for parents of young children, as these processes have turned ECEC services into a commodity (Vandenbroeck et al., 2022). The commodification of ECEC positions parents as consumers who purchase services from the market (Brennan, Cass, Himmelweit, & Szebehely, 2012, Yuen & Grieshaber, 2009). According to general market logic, these parent consumers are expected to compare different services and make rational choices for their children based on their needs, values, and other preferences. Thus, parents’ position as consumers is tightly related to the language of choice. Parents are also assumed to be responsible for the selection of ECEC and to make choices in the best interest of their child (Vandenbroeck et al., 2022). They are assumed to assess what is good or bad, or right or wrong, for their child. Therefore, even though what is valued varies across cultural-historical contexts, in markets both parents’ ability to discern the good and the right and the very act of ECEC choice become moral acts of good parenting (Karlsson, Löfdahl, & Pérez Prieto, 2013). For Finnish parents – depending on where they live (see Ruutiainen, Paananen, & Fjällström, 2023) – marketisation and privatisation have meant a quick change in their ECEC service options. With the increase in the number of privately provided ECEC places (FIfHAW, 2021), municipalities have introduced new demand-side subsidies that are supposed to enable parental choice (Laiho & Pihlaja, 2022, Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2020). In this article, we are interested in the parents who have taken advantage of the “choice” provided by the marketisation and privatisation of the Finnish ECEC. We consider how those parents who have enrolled their child in a private ECEC centre describe the ECEC decision they have made. However, in this study, we do not draw on the assumption of “choice”, as existing research indicates that parents are not in an equal position in terms of choosing an ECEC provider for their child. Instead, their choices are restricted by, for example, their social, cultural, and financial resources (e.g. Fjellborg & Forsberg, 2021, Drange & Telle, 2020, Grogan, 2012, Kampichler, Dvořáčková, & Jarkovská, 2018, Ruutiainen, Räikkönen, & Alasuutari, 2023, Vincent et al., 2008) and by contextual conditions such as the geographical availability of services (e.g. Meyers & Jordan, 2006, Vandenbroeck et al., 2008, van der Werf et al., 2021). Although much of the existing research has been conducted in countries and contexts where ECEC systems differ considerably from the welfare and educational regimes of the Nordic countries (see 2M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. Esping-Anderssen, 1990; West & Nikolai, 2013), there is some evidence that private services may not be equally available for every child in Finland (Heiskanen et al., 2021, Ruutiainen, 2022, Ruutiainen, Paananen, & Fjällström, 2023, Räsänen & Österbacka, 2023) or in other Nordic countries (Fjellborg & Forsberg, 2021, Drange & Telle, 2020). Research also suggests that Finnish parents in different socioeconomic positions value different aspects of ECEC (Hietamäki et al., 2017, Sulkanen et al., 2020) and use different kinds of capital in their school choices (Kosunen, 2014). However, as far as we know, no qualitative research exists about how parents using private ECEC rationalise their decision to choose a service provider in the context of universal ECEC provision. This is the gap that this study aims to fill. By analysing research interviews with parents of four-year-old children, this study examines the frames the parents use to justify the selection of a private ECEC centre for their child. Based on the findings, we discuss whether enrolling one’s child in private ECEC can be seen as a choice in the context of universal ECEC and, if so, what type of choice. The results increase understanding of the position of private ECEC in the Nordic welfare and education regimes, which are characterised by high-quality, affordable, and accessible public service networks regulated by legislation that imposes the same structural quality standards and statutes on both public and private ECEC institutions. Parents and ECEC: not a free choice, but a decision Parents’ ECEC choices are shaped by many contextual, child-related, and family factors (Degotardi, Sweller, Fenech, & Beath, 2018). Therefore, it is suggested that, rather than being the exercise of free choice, parents’ decisions should be understood as an accommodation of prevailing conditions, including family and employment demands, social and cultural expectations, available information, and financial, social, and other resources (Meyers & Jordan, 2006). This suggestion is supported by a contextual model of childcare use (Sylva et al., 2007) which argues that parental childcare decisions take place in a socio-historical and socio-cultural context, which includes, for example, national ECEC and family policies, availability of ECEC, and employment opportunities. Moreover, the model proposes that parents’ ECEC decisions vary based on their demographic characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, age, and ethnicity, and the child’s characteristics, such as temperament, age, and gender. Finally, parental beliefs and attitudes are both influenced by the aforementioned factors and associated with the decision parents make (Sylva et al., 2007). Archambault, Côté, and Raynault (2020), in turn, describe abilities that could be understood as resources that parents need in decision-making and to access ECEC in each context. These resources include an ability to perceive (awareness and confidence), to seek (autonomy and social support), to reach (stable working conditions and planned need for ECEC), and to pay for and engage in (positive experiences and regular attendance) ECEC. Vandenbroeck and Lazzari’s (2014) framework for understanding unequal access to high-quality ECEC is also informative when considering parents’ ECEC decisions. According to the framework, parents’ decisions are shaped and restricted by issues related to the availability, affordability, accessibility, usefulness, and comprehensibility EDUCATION INQUIRY 3 of ECEC services. Availability refers to the quantitative and geographical adequacy of services. Previous research suggests that one of the main factors on which parents base their ECEC decision is whether the location of ECEC services is convenient (Jacobsen & Vollset, 2012; Naumann, 2011; Nisskaya, 2018; Sulkanen et al., 2020. For example, they select a service at a short commuting distance from home (Pennerstorfer & Pennerstorfer, 2021). However, existing research indicates that private ECEC, especially for-profit services, tends to be overrepresented in urban areas with thick demand and in areas characterised by high socioeconomic status (e.g. Fjellborg & Forsberg, 2021, Noailly & Visser, 2009, Lee & Jang, 2017). This also seems to be the case in Finland: a recent study suggests that private ECEC services might be less available for families living in rural areas or neighbourhoods with lower socioeconomic status than in urban areas and neighbourhoods with higher socioeconomic status (Ruutiainen, Paananen, & Fjällström, 2023. Affordability, in Vandenbroeck and Lazzari’s (2014) framework, includes the economic and symbolic costs of ECEC. Economic costs refer to families’ customer fees but also to other costs caused by, for example, commuting to and from the services. The symbolic costs are related, in particular, to targeted programmes, whose use may label families as, for example, “at risk” or force them to give up part of their privacy to demonstrate their eligibility for the service (Vandenbroeck & Lazzari, 2014). In Finland, private services are heavily subsidised by the public sector. Customer fees in public ECEC centres and in many private centres, in particular those subsidised by vouchers, are income-related and relatively low, ranging from 0 to around 300 euros per month plus possible add-ons in private centres (Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2020). In some private centres, however, often subsidised through the so-called private home day care allowance, customer fees may be quite high; therefore, lowand middle-income families are less represented than high-income families in the clientele of such services (Ruutiainen, Räikkönen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2022, Ruutiainen, 2022). In addition to availability and affordability, the accessibility of ECEC services may restrict parents’ decisions. Accessibility may be limited, for example, due to language barriers, parents’ lack of knowledge of bureaucratic procedures, and the enrolment policies of service providers (Vandenbroeck & Lazzari, 2014). In Finland, municipalities’ ECEC service guidance may not direct certain families, such as immigrant families or those whose child has special educational needs, to private services (Heiskanen et al., 2021; Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017; Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2021; Vainikainen et al., 2018). Private providers’ enrolment policies may also form an obstacle to certain families’ access to ECEC. Private providers may, for example, prefer children in need of whole-day care at the expense of those children who need only half-day care (Mäntyjärvi & Puroila, 2019; Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2021). They may also decide not to offer special educational support (Heiskanen et al., 2021, Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017, Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2021, Vainikainen et al., 2018). In contrast, private services may offer services in different languages, which may increase their accessibility for certain families (see Kumpulainen, 2018). The usefulness of ECEC services is another issue that may shape parents’ ECEC decisions (Vandenbroeck &Lazzari, 2014). Usefulness refers to how well the services are attuned and correspond to families’ differing situations and needs (Vandenbroeck & Lazzari, 2014), opening hours being one example of such needs. In mixed economies 4M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. with split systems, like the UK, parents who work full time may be forced to search for childcare from private providers, which offer more full-time places than the public sector (Chen & Bradbury, 2020). In the Finnish integrated ECEC (see Kumpulainen, 2018), the public sector is obliged to provide ECEC services for all under-school-aged children whose parents have irregular or untypical working hours. The private sector, however, has no such obligation; therefore, children in need of flexibly scheduled ECEC are highly underrepresented in private ECEC centres in Finland (Ruutiainen, Räikkönen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2022, Ruutiainen, 2022). Finally, Vandenbroeck and Lazzari (2014) propose the comprehensibility of ECEC as an issue that impacts parents’ use of ECEC services. In other words, they suggest that the values, beliefs, and educational practices of ECEC should match or correspond to the meanings that parents give to the services. Existing research demonstrates that the meanings or values that guide parents’ ECEC decisions are often related to their socioeconomic characteristics. In particular, parents with high cultural and social resources are more inclined to engage in an active decision process (e.g. Fjellborg & Forsberg, 2021, Ball & Vincent, 2005, Kampichler, Dvořáčková, & Jarkovská, 2018, Kosunen, 2014, Vincent et al., 2008). Differences in decision processes may originate from parents’ differing socioeconomic statuses or ethnicity-related rationalities (Kampichler, 2021). While some parents, perhaps more typically but not exclusively from the working class or ethnic minorities, perceive ECEC participation as supporting their child’s adaptation to society, other parents, especially middle-class or elite ones, underline ECEC’s capability to meet the individuality of the child or enforce the child’s competitiveness (Kampichler, 2021). A survey study suggests that Finnish parents may differ in how they consider the comprehensibility (see Vandenbroeck & Lazzari, 2014) of private and public ECEC (Sulkanen et al., 2020). Those parents – more often highly educated than low-educated – whose child is in private ECEC are more likely to report that the specialisation and values of ECEC, diverse pedagogical activities, a home-like ECEC setting, and the number of children in the group are important criteria for their ECEC decision than those parents whose child is in public ECEC. Customers of public ECEC, in turn, more often value flexible opening hours and the fact that the ECEC centre is conveniently located (Sulkanen et al., 2020). Moreover, recent research suggests that parents using private ECEC in Finland assume that their child’s individual needs are better attended to in a private setting than they would be in public services (Ruutiainen, 2022). These attitudes or beliefs do not, however, relate to parents’ socioeconomic status. Public and private ECEC in Finland As mentioned earlier, the Finnish ECEC system, first enforced in the legislation in 1973, is based on the idea of universalism (Kildal & Kuhnle, 2005, Ruutiainen, 2022), which refers, for example, to parents’ – and, since 1996, children’s – universal entitlement to ECEC, affordable and accessible services, and municipalities’ responsibility for service provision. For decades, Finnish municipalities have provided most ECEC services themselves in ECEC centres and family day care. Alongside public services, some private services have been provided by non-profit organisations and small for-profit providers (Kumpulainen, 2018). However, following the development seen in other EDUCATION INQUIRY 5 Nordic countries (Dovemark et al., 2018, Trætteberg et al., 2021, Westberg & Larsston, 2020), since the late 1990s and during the 2010s, in particular, larger, growth-oriented, for-profit chains have also started to provide ECEC services. As a result, the private sector’s share as an ECEC provider has grown considerably, standing at around 19% in 2020 (FIfHaW, 2021). In the year 2022, around 77% of private ECEC centres were forprofit, and 23% were non-profit organisations. 1 In contrast to some other Nordic countries, parents’ cooperatives are very rare. The private sector’s growth has been supported by national and municipal policies. At the national level, the profit-seeking allowed within the ECEC sector and the introduction of new demand-side subsidies (vouchers and a private day care allowance) to support families’ ECEC choices have particularly paved the way for the increase of private provision (Laiho & Pihlaja, 2022, Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2020). Municipalities, in turn, can decide whether they provide ECEC services themselves or purchase them from the private sector through purchase contracts or by adopting demand-side subsidies enabled by legislation (Act on ECEC, 2018). Municipalities can also support private provision, for example through zoning policies or “starting grants” (Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2020). In the late 2010s around half of municipalities, especially bigger ones, had private services available (Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2019; Lahtinen & Svatsjö, 2022). Public and private ECEC are likewise regulated by central and municipal governments in Finland. For example, private providers are obliged to comply with the national core curriculum of ECEC (FNAFE, 2022) and national statutes regarding staff qualifications and child – adult ratios (Act on ECEC, 2018). The legislation also emphasises parents’ right to influence and participate in the planning and evaluation of ECEC and the recognition of children’s individuality. Even though the regulatory framework aims for uniformity in terms of the quality and content of ECEC in private and public services in Finland, private ECEC providers often strive to differentiate themselves from the bulk of ECEC services. Some private services represent a specific pedagogical approach (e.g. Montessori or Steiner) or religious ideology, and some offer ECEC in a foreign language or emphasise a particular educational content area (e.g. sports, nature, arts, science). In addition, many private ECEC centres are smaller than public ones (Kumpulainen, 2018; Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2021. However, larger ECEC chains, in particular, may represent their services as quite similar to those offered by public ones (Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2021. To date, research findings on parents’ views on private ECEC in Finland seem to be contradictory. One study indicates that, in parents’ perceptions, quality and staff competence are higher in public ECEC than in private ECEC (Pihlaja & Warinowski, 2018). In contrast, parents with children in private ECEC appear to be more satisfied with the service they receive than those whose children are in public ECEC (Saranko, Räikkönen, Makkonen, & Alasuutari, 2021). Moreover, it appears that even though parents in general estimate public and private ECEC to be of the same quality, some parents using private services appear to be critical of public ECEC and the quality of ECEC in general (Ruutiainen, Räikkönen, & Alasuutari, 2023). In other Nordic countries, research on parent’s views on private and public ECEC is scarce. However, Swedish research suggests that parents using private preschool are more satisfied with the services than parents using public preschool (Hanspers & Mörk, 2011, pp. 55–56) 6M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. and that the service users of preschools run by parents’ cooperatives perceive the quality of the services higher than the service users of other ECEC facilities (Vamstad, 2007). Data and methodology The data comprise qualitative interviews with the parents of eight children four and five years old. The interviews were conducted in 2019 in the CHILDCARE Project, funded by the [Funding Agency #1], and they comprise part of a bigger data corpus including interviews with the parents of 53 children. The interviews with all the parents who had enrolled their child in a private ECEC centre were included in the data of this study. Thus, this study analyses interviews with seven mothers and one father living in different parts of Finland, mainly in cities with over 150,000 inhabitants. The interviewees were well educated, as recent research suggests of the users of private ECEC in Finland (Ruutiainen, Räikkönen, & Alasuutari, 2023). One of the parents was a university student; others had a degree from a university or polytechnic and worked, for example, in education and nursing. Two were single parents, while others were part of dual-parent families (see the Appendix). All the families can be considered as belonging to the middle or upper-middle class. The focus children attended a private ECEC centre. Six had been enrolled in ECEC at the age of 12–20 months and two when they turned three. One child had moved from a private ECEC centre to another private centre due to the family moving home, but the other children had attended the same private ECEC centre since enrolment. Seven of the children had a sibling or siblings. The research protocol was pre-reviewed and accepted by the Human Sciences Ethics Committee of the University of [anonymised]. The interviewed parents had participated in a survey carried out by the research project. In the survey, they had given permission to be contacted in relation to interviews. The invitations to participate in the present interviews were sent by email with a privacy notice for the research as an attachment. Before the interview, the interviewees gave informed consent to the research. The interviews concerned the care and education arrangements of the focus child, work – family reconciliation, division of parenting responsibilities, and the organisation of the family’s daily life. They lasted between 49 minutes and 1 hour 57 minutes. Typically, at the beginning of the interview the interviewees were asked about the child’s “care and ECEC history” and how/why they had made the decisions regarding the child’s care arrangements. More detailed questions were asked based on parents’ responses, for example, if they had considered some other care options. In particular, the discussions following these questions in the interview comprise the data of this article, although the same topics frequently recurred later in the interview. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and the transcriptions were pseudonymised. The analysis started with a careful reading of the interviews, and all talk related to private ECEC was differentiated. Drawing on the starting points of discourse analytic thinking in social psychology (Wood and Kroger, 2000)), we focused on differentiating patterns of talk in the interview data. We applied discursive tools presented by Tannen (1993), which she suggests as means to examine frames; thus, we paid attention, for example, to negatives, modals, evaluative language, omissions, the order in which explanations of the ECEC decision were presented, and the use of metaphors and other vivid descriptions of the selection process. EDUCATION INQUIRY 7 by issues that, in the analysis, were categorised as representing the frame of accessibility. In particular, the frame pointed out the relevance of the location of the services, which is in line with previous research (Chen & Bradbury, 2020, Pennerstorfer & Pennerstorfer, 2021). Furthermore, suitable opening hours were an important aspect of accessibility for some parents whose working hours varied (see also Vandenbroeck & Lazarri, 2014). As the location and opening hours were pragmatic issues that had to correspond to the parents and family’s overall situation, they comprised the basis on which “choice” of ECEC was possible. If the services were not accessible in terms of location and opening hours, choosing them would have been unrealistic. However, the costs of private ECEC were not described as decisive in selecting private ECEC for a child. On the one hand, this finding can be related to the interviewed parents’ socioeconomic background, as they were middleor upper-middleclass and had a steady income. On the other hand, it is noticeable that Finnish municipalities commonly compensate the costs of private ECEC through considerable demand-side subsidies (see Ruutiainen, Alasuutari, & Karila, 2020. The “choice” of ECEC was most salient in a few interviews where parents presented a particular pedagogical approach or specific pedagogical values as the first criterion/ criteria for their ECEC decision. Still, the decision of these parents was conditioned by accessibility: the parents had chosen a specific type of ECEC centre, but the service had also been accessible to them. Even when the frame of pedagogy was not used as the main justification for the parental decision, it was presented as one dimension of parental reasoning. This frame can be related to what Vandenbroeck and Lazzari (2014) characterise as the comprehensibility of ECEC or, in other words, the similarity between the values, beliefs, and educational practices of ECEC and the meanings that parents give to the services. This similarity was shown in the present data to be one of the commodities the parents looked for in the ECEC market. In comparison to the pragmatic aspects of parental ECEC decisions described in the frame of accessibility, the frame of pedagogy turned the gaze onto the child. Even more explicitly, the child was addressed in the frames of ECEC facilities and security. The frame of ECEC facilities illuminated what parents appreciated in the physical (e.g. environment, architecture) and social environment that ECEC centres provided for children. A good ECEC centre was near a natural environment, had well-designed premises, was well built, and, finally, was small. In this frame, parents commonly made distinctions between the characteristics of public and private facilities and based on those evaluations, assessed what made a good environment for their child (see Karlsson, Löfdahl, & Pérez Prieto, 2013) or what corresponded to their worldviews or way of living (Vandenbroeck & Lazzari, 2014). Finally, in line with earlier research, this study indicates that parents who have selected private ECEC consider issues related to children’s emotional security (Chen & Bradbury, 2020, Degotardi, Sweller, Fenech, & Beath, 2018, Sylva et al., 2007). In the frame of security, parents paid attention to the turnover and stability of staff, which have also been publicly debated in Finland in recent years. Children’s enjoyment was presented as a criterion or indication of their feeling secure in ECEC, even when there had been a turnover of staff in the centre. This study demonstrates how the interviewed parents adopted their role as active market agents, that is, consumers (Vandenbroeck et al., 2022; Yuen & Grieshaber, 2009). The active decisions of parents paid off, enabling them to differentiate from 14 M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. the bulk of ECEC and find more satisfying services. In some cases, active decisionmaking meant giving up a place in a public ECEC centre, which the parents had first applied for. However, it is noticeable that this position is only possible for parents when there are service options available, and this is not case in all parts of Finland. Overall, the parents in this study expressed satisfaction with the services their child received in private ECEC centres. Survey studies conducted among Finnish parents demonstrate that those parents who have enrolled their child in private ECEC are more satisfied with the services they obtain (Saranko, Räikkönen, Makkonen, & Alasuutari, 2021) and more critical of the quality of ECEC, in general, than parents with a child in public ECEC (Ruutiainen, Räikkönen, & Alasuutari, 2023. However, research also suggests that parents for whom the childcare decision is pressing due to the end of parental leave period consider the quality of public services to be slightly higher than that of private services (Pihlaja & Warinowski, 2018). However, some scholars have questioned parents’ abilities to evaluate the quality of ECEC (e.g. Peyton, Jacobs, O’Brien, & Roy, 2001). Still, it is undeniable that parents’ encounters and involvement with ECEC and their children’s descriptions and behaviour related to ECEC give parents grounds to evaluate the services. While this article has not aimed at studying the quality of private ECEC, it has demonstrated that parents’ evaluations of ECEC may have relevance for their ECEC decisions. During recent decades, marketisation and privatisation have shaped the Nordic ECEC systems; while the form and extent of the market-oriented reforms vary between countries, the discourses justifying the reforms are congruent in highlighting economic efficiency and parents’ freedom of choice (see Anttonen, Häikiö, Stefánsson, & Sipilä, 2012; Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir, 2016; Laiho & Pihlaja, 2022). This study has demonstrated that the private sector has the potential to offer ECEC solutions that answer parents’ differing tastes, values, and views of what makes a good childhood; thus, private ECEC can respond to families’ individualised preferences and decrease welfare state fatigue (Vamstad, 2016). This result raises the question how well public policies and services meet people’s expectations and adjust to increasingly prevalent ideals of individualisation in society. For example, in Finland, new public ECEC facilities are often larger than they used to be, and the biggest can house over 300 children. This study suggests that this development may not be acceptable to all families. While the discrepancy between parents’ expectations and perceptions of the ECEC system can drive some resourced parents to seek alternatives, it may also undermine the legitimation of a universal system. In other words, parents with high cultural, social, and financial resources can benefit from the market conditions (see Ruutiainen, 2022. Consequently, the commodification of education can reproduce existing inequalities by hiding them behind the mask of “free choice” (e.g. Kampichler, 2021; Vandenbroeck et al., 2022; Wilson & Bridge, 2019). Moreover, in the market an ECEC decision becomes increasingly an individual issue and the ECEC decision itself a moral act of good parenthood (Karlsson, Löfdahl, & Pérez Prieto, 2013). This individualised view of ECEC decision-making, whether it reflects adaptation or free choice, differs remarkably from the traditional Nordic perception (Ruutiainen, 2022). While the Nordic universalist model, based on collective responsibility, emphasises social cohesion, equality, and uniformity of services, the individualised ECEC decisions may increase the diversification of the services, competition between the service providers, and (re)produce hierarchies and inequalities between families. EDUCATION INQUIRY 15 This article is based on a case study in the context of a national ECEC system. As described above, the frames presented in the study are, in many respects, supported by or in line with previous research. Thus, they may have relevance in other contexts (see Goodman, 2008). Still, one must be careful in transferring the findings to other contexts, particularly regarding the more detailed aspects of the results. Notes 1. The calculation is based on information available in the national VARDA dataset maintained by the Finnish National Agency for Education. 2. The symbol (. . .) indicates that part of the talk has been cut from the quote. Commonly, these are repetitions or talk that digresses from the main topic of the turn of talk. Notes on contributors Maarit Alasuutari is Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her field of study includes early childhood education policy, documentation in early education, home-school cooperation, and children’s participation. Ville Ruutiainen (PhD) works as University Teacher at the Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His research topics concern early childhood education and care policy, especially, marketization and privatization of early childhood education and care. Kirsti Karila is Emerita Professor of Early Childhood Education and Care at Tampere University, Finland. Her research areas include professionalism, institutional cultures, and local policies of ECEC. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding The work was supported by the Strategic Research Council, Academy of Finland [SA314317]. ORCID Maarit Alasuutari http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4881-632X Ville Ruutiainen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2241-9270 Kirsti Karila http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6233-2615 References Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 540/2018. [Finland] Anttonen, A., Häikiö, L., Stefánsson, K., & Sipilä, J. (2012). Universalism and the challenge of diversity. In A. Anttonen, L. Häikiö, & K. Stefánsson (Toimittajat) Eds., Welfare state, universalism and diversity (pp. 1–15). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Anttonen, A., & Meagher, G. (2013). Mapping marketisation: Concepts and goal. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely Eds., Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: A research report on legislation, 16 M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. oversight, extent and consequences (pp. 13–22). Stockholm Studies in Social Work 30. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Archambault, J., Côté, D., & Raynault, M.-F. (2020). Early childhood education and care access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds: Using a framework to guide intervention. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(3), 345–352. doi:10.1007/s10643-019-01002-x Ball, S., & Vincent, C. (2005). The “childcare champion”? New labour, social justice and the childcare market. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 557–570. doi:10.1080/ 01411920500240700 Béland, D., Blomqvist, P., Goul Andersen, J., Palme, J., & Waddan, A. (2014). The universal decline of universality? Social Policy change in Canada, Denmark, Sweden and the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 48(7), 721–933. doi:10.1111/spol.12064 Brennan, D., Cass, B., Himmelweit, S., & Szebehely, M. (2012). The marketisation of care: Rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), 377–391. doi:10.1177/0958928712449772 Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed.). Hove, East Sussex & New York: Routledge. Cantarutti, M. N. (2022). Co-animation in troubles-talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 55(1), 37–5810.108. doi:10.1080/08351813.2022.2026169 Chen, H., & Bradbury, A. (2020). Parental choice of childcare in England: Choosing in phases and the split market. British Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 281–300. doi:10.1002/berj.3564 Degotardi, S., Sweller, N., Fenech, M., & Beath, A. (2018). Influences on parents’ child care choices: A comparative analysis of preschool and long day care users. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47(5), 683–700. doi:10.1007/s10566-018-9452-3 Dovemark, M., Kosunen, S., Kauko, J., Magnúsdóttird, B., Hansen, P., & Rasmussen, P. (2018). Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: Social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 122–141. doi:10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768 Drange, N., & Telle, K. (2020). Segregation in a universal child care system: Descriptive findings from Norway. European Sociological Review, 36(6), 886–901. doi:10.1093/esr/jcaa026 Dýrfjörð, K. & Magnúsdóttir, B. R. (2016). Privatization in early childhood education in Iceland. Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745499916631062 Esping-Andersen, G.(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, FINEEC. (2019). Tilastoraportti varhaiskasvatuksen järjestämisestä [Statistical report on the organization of early childhood education]. https:// karvi.fi/app/uploads/2019/09/Karvi_vaka_tilastoraportti_2019-1.pdf Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare [FIFHAW. (2021). Varhaiskasvatus 2020: Varhaiskasvatukseen osallistuneista lapsista enemmistö osallistui kunnan kustantamaan päiväkotitoimintaan. Tilastoraportti 32/2021. Helsinki: Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos. https://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/143153 Finnish National Agency for Education [FNAFA]. (2022). Core Curriculum Framework. https:// www.oph.fi/fi/tilastot-ja-julkaisut/julkaisut/varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman-perusteet-2022 Fjellborg, A., & Forsberg, H. (2021). Commuting patterns of preschool children in metropolitan Stockholm. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 14(4), 960–980. doi:10.1111/rsp3.12401 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay of the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Goodman, S. (2008). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(4), 265–275. doi:10.1080/14780880802465890 Grogan, K. (2012). Parents’ choice of pre-kindergarten: The interaction of parent, child and contextual factors. Early Child Development and Care, 182(10), 1265–1287. doi:10.1080/ 03004430.2011.608127 Hanspers, K., & Mörk, E. (2011). Förskola. In L. Hartman (Ed.), Konkurrensens konsekvenser. Vad händer med svensk välfärd? (pp. 32–65). Stockholm: SNS Förlag. Heiskanen, N., Neitola, M., Syrjämäki, M., Viljamaa, E., Nevala, P., Siipola, M., & Viitala, R. (2021). Kehityksen ja oppimisen tuki sekä inklusiivisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa: Selvitys nykytilasta kunnallisissa ja yksityisissä varhaiskasvatuspalveluissa sekä esitys kehityksen ja EDUCATION INQUIRY 17 oppimisen tuen malliksi. Opetusja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja, 2021, 13. http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-952-263-829-8 Hietamäki, J., Kuusiholma, J., Räikkönen, E., Alasuutari, M., Lammi-Taskula, J. . . . Eerola, P. (2017). Varhaiskasvatusja lastenhoitoratkaisut yksivuotiaiden lasten perheissä: CHILDCAREkyselytutkimuksen 2016 perustulokset. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FIFHAW). Working paper 24/2017. Helsinki. Jacobsen, K. & Vollset, G. 'Publicly available and supported early education and care for all in Norway1', In E. Lloyd & H. Penn (Eds.), Childcare markets: Can they deliver an equitable service? (Bristol, 2012; online edn, Policy Press Scholarship Online, 24 January). https://doi. org/10.1332/policypress/9781847429339.003.0007 Kampichler, M. (2021). Parallel worlds? Parental rationalities of governing children in the context of the diversifying Czech pre-school system. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(2), 250–260. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2021.1895266 Kampichler, M., Dvořáčková, J., & Jarkovská, L. (2018). Choosing the right kindergarten: Parents’ reasoning about their ECEC choices in the context of the diversification of ECEC programs. Journal of Pedagogy, 9(2), 9–32. doi:10.2478/jped-2018-0009 Karlsson, M., Löfdahl, A., & Pérez Prieto, H. (2013). Morality in parents’ stories of preschool choice: Narrating identity positions of good parenting. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(2), 208–224. doi:10.1080/01425692.2012.714248 Kildal, N., & Kuhnle, S. (2005). The Nordic welfare model and the idea of universalism. In N. Kildal & S. Kuhnle (Eds.), Normative foundations of the welfare state: The Nordic experience (pp. 13–33). London: Routledge. Kosunen, S. (2014). Reputation and parental logics of action in local school choice space in Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 443–466. doi:10.1080/02680939.2013.844859 Kumpulainen, K. (2018). A principled, personalised, trusting and child-centric ECEC system in Finland. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage 1: Early childhood systems that lead by example (pp. 72–98). New York: Teachers College Press. Lahtinen, J., & Svatsjö, M. (2022). Kotihoidontuen ja yksityisen hoidon tuen kuntalisät ja palveluseteli [the municipal supplements for home care allowance and private daycare allowance, and vouchers). Helsinki: Kuntaliitto. https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/julkaisut/2022/2182-koti hoidon-tuen-ja-yksityisen-hoidon-tuen-kuntalisat-ja-palveluseteli Laiho, A., & Pihlaja, P. (2022). Is Finnish early childhood education going private? – legislative steps and local policy actors’ representations of privatisation. Policy Futures in Education, 20 (8), 941–959. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221074474 Lee, J., & Jang, Y. J. (2017). Equal access to early childhood education in South Korea using the geographic information system. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(2), 171– 189. doi:10.1080/09669760.2017.1287559 Mäntyjärvi, M. & Puroila, A.-M. (2019). Has something changed? Leaders’, practitioners’ and parents’ interpretations after renewed early childhood education and care legislation in Finnish private centres. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(1), 7–22. https://doi. org/10.1177/1463949119828158 Meyers, M. K., & Jordan, L. P. (2006). Choice and accommodation in parental child care decisions. Community Development, 37(2), 53–70. doi:10.1080/15575330609490207 Naumann, I. (2011). Towards the marketization of early childhood education and care? Recent developments in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 2, 37–53. doi:10.7577/njsr.2049 Nisskaya, A. (2018). What modern parents think about preschool education: What makes a preschool attractive? Russian Education and Society, 60(7), 601–622. doi:10.1080/10609393. 2018.1527165 Noailly, J., & Visser, S. (2009). The impact of market forces on child care provision: Insights from the 2005 child care act in the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy, 38(3), 477–498. doi:10.1017/S0047279409003109 18 M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. Pennerstorfer, A., & Pennerstorfer, D. (2021). Inequalities in spatial accessibility of childcare: The role of non-profit providers. Journal of Social Policy, 50(1), 122–147. doi:10.1017/ S0047279419000990 Peyton, V., Jacobs, A., O’Brien, M., & Roy, C. (2001). Reasons for choosing child care: Associations with family factors, quality, and satisfaction. Early Childhood Research Quaterly, 16(2), 191–208. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00098-9 Pihlaja, P., & Neitola, M. (2017). Varhaiserityiskasvatus muuttuvassa varhaiskasvatuksen kentässä. Kasvatus & Aika, 11(3), 70–91. Pihlaja, P., & Warinowski, A. (2018). Yksivuotiaiden lasten päivähoito: äitien toiveita ja valintoja. Kasvatus, 49(2), 122–136. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:ELE-2525920 Räsänen, T., & Österbacka, E. (2023). Subsidizing private childcare in a universal regime. Review of Economics of the Household, Early online. 10.1007/s11150-023-09657-7 Ruutiainen, V. (2022). Marketization and privatization of early childhood education and care in Finland: Shifts within and from universalism. JYU dissertations. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän ylipisto. Ruutiainen, V., Alasuutari, M., & Karila, K. (2020). Rationalising public support for private early childhood education and care: The case of Finland. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(1), 32–47. doi:10.1080/01425692.2019.1665497 Ruutiainen, V., Alasuutari, M., & Karila, K. (2021). Selectivity of clientele in Finnish private early childhood education and care. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 7(2), 91–105. doi:10.1080/20020317.2021.1911161 Ruutiainen, V., Paananen, M., & Fjällström, M. (2023). Yksityiset päiväkodit kartalla: Alueellinen näkökulma segregaatioon. Submitted for publication in the journal Kasvatus Ruutiainen, V., Räikkönen, E., & Alasuutari, M. (2023). Socioeconomic and attitudinal differences between service users of private and public early childhood education and care in the Finnish context. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 17(1). doi:10.1186/ s40723-023-00119-2 Ruutiainen, V., Räikkönen, E., Alasuutari, M., & Karila, K. (2022). Palvelunkäyttäjien valikoituminen varhaiskasvatusmarkkinoilla. In P. Eerola, K. Repo, M. Alasuutari, K. Karila, & J. Lammi-Taskula (Eds.), Lastenhoidon ja varhaiskasvatuksen monet polut: lasten, perheiden ja politiikan näkökulmia (pp. 50–71). Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Saranko, L., Räikkönen, E., Makkonen, M., & Alasuutari, M. (2021). Äitien palvelutyytyväisyyden rakentuminen ja yhteistyökokemukset varhaiskasvatuksessa. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 10(2), 1–27. https://jecer.org/fi/aitien-palvelutyytyvaisyyden-rakentumi nen-ja-yhteistyokokemukset-varhaiskasvatuksessa/ Sulkanen, M., Närvi, J., Kuusiholma, J., Lammi-Taskula, J., Räikkönen, E., & Alasuutari, M. (2020). Varhaiskasvatusja lastenhoitoratkaisut neljävuotiaiden lasten perheissä. CHILDCAREkyselytutkimuksen 2019 perustulokset. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, FIFHAW. Working papers 28/2020. Helsinki. Sylva, K., Stein, A., Leach, P., Barnes, J., Malmberg, L.-E., & FCCC-Team. (2007). Family and child factors related to the use of non-maternal infant care: An English study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 118–136. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.003 Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford, New Yourk & Toronto: Oxford University Press. Trætteberg, H. S., Sivesind, K. H., Paananen, M., & Hrafnsdóttir, S. (2021). Private early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the Nordic countries: Development and governance of the welfare mix. Institutt for samfunnsforskning: Rapport – Institutt for samfunnsforskning. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2831519 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683 Vainikainen, M.-P. Lintuvuori, M. Paananen, M. Eskelinen, M. Kirjavainen, T. & Hotulainen, R. (2018). Oppimisen tuki varhaislapsuudesta toisen asteen siirtymään: tasa-arvon toteutuminen ja kehittämistarpeet [Educational support from early childhood to the transition to upper secondary education: Actualisation of equity and needs for development]. Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 55/2018, Helsinki. EDUCATION INQUIRY 19 Valkonen, S., Pesonen, J., & Brunila, K. (2021). Varhaiskasvatuksen markkinat - Näkökulmana yksityistyvät palvelut. Kasvatus, 52(2), 223–234. doi:10.33348/kvt.111446 Vamstad, J. (2007). Governing welfare: the third sector and the challenges to the Swedish welfare state. Doctoral dissertation, Mid Sweden University. Vamstad, J. (2016). Bottom-up childcare in a top-down welfare state: Explaining cooperative organization among Swedish parents. International Review of Sociology, 26(1), 69–81. doi:10. 1080/03906701.2016.1148345 Vandenbroeck, M., & Lazzari, A. (2014). Accessibility of early childhood education and care: A state of affairs. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), 327–335. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2014.912895 Vandenbroeck, M., Lehrer, J., Mitchell, L., Alasuutari, M., Cadart, M.-L. . . . Yuen, G. (2022). Resisting the consumentality of parents. In M. Vandenbroeck, J. Lehrer, & L. Mitchell (Eds.), The decommodification of early childhood education and care: Resisting neoliberalism (pp. 81– 146). London: Routledge. Vandenbroeck, M., Visscher, S., Nuffel, K., & Ferla, J. (2008). Mothers’ search for infant child care: The dynamic relationship between availability and desirability in a continental European welfare state. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 245–258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecresq.2007.09.002 Van der Werf, W. M., Slot, P. L., Kenis, P. N., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2021). Inclusive practice and quality of education and care in the Dutch hybrid early childhood education and care system. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1). doi:10.1186/s40723-02000079-x Vincent, C., Braun, A., & Ball, S. (2008). Childcare, choice and social class: Caring for young children in the UK. Critical Social Policy, 28(1), 5–26. doi:10.1177/0261018307085505 Westberg, J., & Larsson, E. (2020). Winning the war by losing the battle? The marketization of the expanding preschool sector in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 37(5), 705–722. doi:10. 1080/02680939.2020.1861338 West, A., & Nikolai, R. (2013). Welfare regimes and education regimes: Equality of opportunity and expenditure in the EU (and US). Journal of Social Policy, 42(3), 469–493. doi:10.1017/ S0047279412001043 Wilson, D., & Bridge, G. (2019). School choice and the city: Geographies of allocation and segregation. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3198–3215. doi:10.1177/0042098019843481 Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. New Delhi, London & New York: SAGE. Yuen, G., & Grieshaber, S. (2009). Parents’ choice of early childhood education services in Hong Kong: A pilot study about vouchers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(3), 263–279. doi:10.2304/ciec.2009.10.3.263 20 M. ALASUUTARI ET AL. Appendix Table A1. Background information of the interviewees. Interview Number Interviewee Educational Level Family Form Number of Children 1 Mother University Single parent 2 2 Mother University Dual parent 2 3 Father University Dual parent 1 4 Mother University Dual parent 2 5 Mother University Dual parent 2 6 Mother University student Dual parent 2 7 Mother Polytechnic Dual parent 2 8 Mother Polytechnic Single parent 4 EDUCATION INQUIRY 21