How policies created without early childhood educator input create toxic working environments that objectify educators

Ontario's Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector is in the midst of a transition to universal child care (via the Canada Wide Early Learning and Child Care [CWELCC] agreement) and a concurrent workforce crisis (Crawley, 2023; Powell and Ferns, 2023). This crisis has manifested in Ontario as a sector-wide retention and recruitment problem due to consistently low wages and working conditions (Powell and Ferns, 2023). The government has been actively recruiting educators to staff positions in the ECEC workforce through government reimbursement tuition for early childhood education diploma studies (Ontario, 2024). However, staffing retention has not been as successful. While this differs from other countries, it is essential to note that the ECEC sector has struggled to maintain a quality workforce globally due to a global lack of professional recognition (Van Laere et al., 2021). In 2021, the federal government signed agreements (CWELCC) with each province and territory to universally subsidize the cost of early learning and care for families (Government of Canada, 2022). While this has transformed the ECEC landscape for guardians, it has also highlighted the detrimental effects of the market-based system that dominates the ECEC sector (Moss, 2019). Both for-profit and not-for-profit centers face recruitment and retention issues in the workforce, leading to a struggle to staff additional and current classrooms to have childcare spaces available for families that can now afford care (Crawley, 2023; Powell and Ferns, 2023).

While “experts” (politicians, economists) like to highlight “poor wages” as the underlying cause of the recruitment and retention issues in the ECEC sector, it should be noted that this is only one area that licensed, qualified, or registered early childhood educators (RECE) and the ECEC workforce highlight as a deterrent for working in the sector (Boyd, 2015). The “poor wages” discourse dominates public conversations on ECEC and appears to gloss over many insidious practices that have dominated the profession for years (AECEO, 2016a, 2016b). When ECEC labor conditions are positioned as primarily an issue of wage and compensation, the RECE and the ECEC workforce becomes an additional component in a capitalist system that reduces humans to economic units rather than recognizing their dedication and passion for their work, thus hindering the creation of a quality universal early education sector (Roberts-Holmes and Moss, 2021). It reinforces a dominant understanding of the RECE and the ECEC workforce as part of a service offered, easily overlooked, and devalued in a caring role (Akbari and McCuaig, 2022).

As I will argue throughout this article, figuring the RECE through a capitalist service paradigm directly contributes to the poor working conditions plaguing Ontario’s ECEC sector. Using the lens of objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997) and the theory of toxic workplace cultures (TWC) (Cannon, 2022; Rasool et al., 2021), this paper will examine the existing research and the early years regulations and legislation in Ontario to highlight how and why RECEs are not considered in creating government regulations, how individual centers and organizations can interpret the current rules to continue to devalue the contributions of RECEs to the sector, and how and why this continuation of devaluation is effecting the well-being and working conditions of RECEs. This array of conditions, I argue, has led to the current retention and recruitment crisis. I then transform this analysis into actionable pathways for RECEs to dismantle the ECEC system and replace it with one based on cooperative networks and universal public care. This, I suggest, is critical for viewing RECEs as part of a larger collective, not as economic units for monetary gains (Roberts-Holmes and Moss, 2021).

Current (capitalist) conditions informing ECEC in Ontario

When I refer broadly to “policy” in this discussion, I am naming legislation (from the provincial or federal government), regulations (from professional bodies), and curriculum/programming frameworks (produced by education ministries in government). When appropriate, I will be specific about which type of policy I am referring to. In Ontario, RECEs must be registered with the College of Early Childhood Educators (CECE) to practice in early childhood education (CECE, 2017). As such, they must abide by a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice that often exceed any conditions outlined by their workplace, frameworks, or legislation (CECE, 2017). Additional practitioners in the ECEC workforce (e.g., Early Childhood Assistants) work alongside the RECE to support classroom and daily expectations. These skilled contributors to the ECEC are not required by legislation to hold post-secondary credentials, nor are they required to become members of the CECE. This situates them outside of the Ethics of Care and Standards of Practices, creating a division of the RECE from other co-workers in the ECEC sector. Moreover, the registration requirement of the RECE is mandated by government control, which has led to infeasible and unsustainable expectations. ECE centers use the provincially legislated Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA) and the Ontario Early Year Framework (EYF) to ensure quality across the sector (Ontario, 2024). The Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA) was enacted on August 31, 2015. The CECE and the CCEYA often create a complex policy landscape for RECEs to navigate. For example, the CCEYA allows for mixed-age ratios and situations where older children might share the same space as younger children. In multi-age classrooms, the CCEYA (provincial legislation) designates the RECE's responsibility “to plan for and create environments and experiences that respond to the varied abilities and each child's unique characteristics of children enrolled” (MoE, 2024: 61). At the same time, the CECE's (professional college) Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice states, “Standard III: Safety, Health and Well-Being in the Learning Environment C. Practice 5. Provide safe and appropriate supervision of children based on age, development and environment” (CECE, 2017: 13). The lack of congruence in these two documents might create a complex situation for a RECE, where, for example, the multi-age classroom composition allowed by legislation does not align well with the mandate for utilizing age and environment to set standards for safety. My intention here is not to mount an argument against or in favor of multi-age classrooms. However, I want to highlight how RECEs might find themselves navigating very complex situations where, because it is sanctioned through the legislation, RECEs have no choice but to work and create inviting environments amid contradictory or unclear policy and governance expectations.

Moreover, disconnects such as the one mentioned above make it difficult for parents and advocates to recognize when RECEs are experiencing working environments that consistently undervalue or objectify them because the environment must—to fulfil responsibilities to policy—always appear to be an inviting, thriving place despite the additional responsibility of navigating complex situations amid contradictory governance. For example, RECEs are expected to present an idealized image of what early education should look like. Within the current system, the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice: Code of Ethics Responsibilities to Children states that “RECEs foster children's joy of learning through child-centered and play-based pedagogy” (CECE, 2017: 7). This “truth” (the idea of a thriving, productive classroom), which mandates that an educator present a pleasing environment, is enforced by the overreaching code of Ethics and Standards of Practice and means RECEs are constantly expected to please everyone while putting aside their concerns (Roberts-Holmes and Moss, 2021: 90). This mandatory joyfulness is in their workplaces’ best interest, built around expectations of an enriched, safe, happy environment—expectations that purposefully make it challenging for outsiders to see the objectification of RECEs. Neoliberalism and global capitalism have created happiness myths: the false belief that the system designed for a few is meant for everyone (Ahmed, 2017).

These contradictory workplace expectations and obligations often lead to RECEs experiencing burnout, mental and physical health stressors, and, ultimately, leaving the profession altogether (McCuaig et al., 2022). Moreover, the entire ECEC sector in Canada follows a system governed by multiple pieces of legislation mounted by different levels of governing bodies with other political priorities. The division of governing bodies creates a confusing landscape for RECEs and the ECEC sector workforce to navigate and can contribute to environments with less-than-ideal working conditions. This current service-based neoliberal system is making as many demands as possible on RECEs, with as few clear channels for activism as possible, exploiting RECEs and the workforce for capitalist purposes. For example, most RECEs are not unionized, and those unionized are part of small independent organizations where RECEs are bargaining for better working conditions with private parent boards unwilling to negotiate for conditions that would reduce profits and raise costs (Peters, 2022).

Most research on early childhood working conditions highlights RECE's major struggles in pursuing fair wages and has indicated the need for further research into educator working conditions (Boyd, 2015; McCuaig et al., 2022; Powell and Ferns, 2023). I begin by reviewing how the ECE legislation in Ontario devalues RECEs by excluding them from participating in articulating government regulations, analyzing how individual organizations can deploy legislation to devalue the contributions of RECEs, and illustrating how this relentless devaluing of RECEs impacts working conditions and educator well-being and culminates in the current retention and recruitment issues plaguing the field.

Context: CCEYA legislation and licensing and Ontario early year framework

As mentioned above, the Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA) is the province's provincial legislation governing child care (Ontario, 2024). This legislation replaced the Day Nurseries Act and was considered a more “modern approach” to early learning and care (Ministry of Education (MoE, 2024). This act applies to all licensed child-care centers, licensed home child-care agencies, unlicensed child-care providers, and home child-care providers overseen by a licensed agency. The CCEYA sets the standards, rules, and regulations, and all licensed childcare providers must meet all the provincial requirements. For example, providers must maintain staff-to-child ratios; ensure compliance with health and safety standards and building codes; provide nutrition, health and medical supervision, and programs for children; ensure staff qualifications and screenings; and coordinate emergency preparedness and administration (MoE, 2024). To re-emphasize the context in which this Act enacts power, with the introduction of the federal CWELCC program, all licensed childcare programs registered under CWELCC will receive funding to reduce parent fees for all children under six (Government of Canada, 2022; MoE, 2024).

While the CCEYA has laid out all the provincial regulations that must be adhered to, the Ontario Ministry of Education oversees the licensing requirements of each center, with program advisor inspections that have three main objectives: (1) through observation, a program advisor watches and listens to the program activities and staff; (2) through a review of the written documentation, (3) data are collected through interviews with licensees and staff (MoE, 2024). The role of an outside program advisor (employed by the Ministry of Education and, per current legislation, not required to hold RECE credentials) is to evaluate programs based on governance developed without the involvement of the RECE. This supervisory/compliance structure, where non-RECEs use policy developed without RECE input to evaluate how RECEs enact a policy imposed upon them, is a clear example of the contradictory and disempowering workspace culture that RECEs must navigate to work in Ontario. This policy environment sends the intentional message that the knowledge and qualifications of the RECE are not necessary or required by the provincial government when it comes to quality in the ECEC sector. As I will continue to argue, this devalues RECEs in public discourse and does not allow for a shared recognition of their skills, knowledge, and contribution.

Despite these rules and regulations being framed as pathways to ensuring a healthy ECEC system, RECEs and the ECEC workforce continue to face poor working conditions, low wage scales, and a lack of professional recognition outside the ECEC sector (Richardson et al., 2023). In Ontario, employee regulations are not included in early year frameworks, acts, or manuals. Instead, employee regulations are the focus of the Ontario Labour Board (Ontario, n.d.). This divide in governance occurs because some RECEs (and other stakeholders in the ECEC workforce) are members of various union organizations, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and some public school settings. Each of these falls into different sections under the Employee Standard Act. Some centers’ RECEs and ECEC workforces are included under the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), and others are not; instead, they are regulated through guidelines of privately operated insurance companies and standards (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) | HealthandSafetyHelp.ca, 2023; Ontario, n.d.). These governing bodies create different standards for each workplace, confusing labor standards for RECEs and the ECEC workforce. This widens the gap between collaborators within the ECEC sector, leading to difficulties in creating collective workforce agreements and consistent employer accountability structures. It also limits RECEs from coming together to advocate and negotiate for better working conditions, fair wages, and professional recognition. Here, the message communicated by policy is that RECEs are not worthy of the labor standards protections afforded to skilled professionals, nor are RECEs seen as a powerful political force with the right to organize and advocate for their employment conditions. As I will argue in later sections, this contributes to creating a toxic workplace environment where RECEs are rendered as objects without agency, voice, or power.

In Ontario, government-created curriculum and pedagogy frameworks have been introduced as a guideline to enhance quality throughout the field. These frameworks are created to include the latest accepted scientific theories that support normative ideas of healthy child brain development and the importance of healthy relationships with caring, responsive adults (Ministry of Education (MoE) & Government of Ontario, 2014). In Ontario, these frameworks highlight active learning through play, exploration, and inquiry (Government of Ontario, 2014). While childcare frameworks are purported to ensure government-mandated conceptions of quality practice and the safety of families and their children, the governing documents do little to protect the well-being of RECEs and the ECEC workforce or to acknowledge diverse and culturally supported ideologies (Akbari and McCuaig, 2022). The educator is positioned as a commodity or technician who implements the programming framework mechanically. Further, the licensing requirements and curriculum frameworks set out by the province of Ontario only include provisions from the CECE's Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice concerning professional misconduct or in the case of suspected abuse or neglect of a child (MoE, 2024). Here, Ontario uses policy and a programming framework to communicate that RECEs and their professional obligations are only necessary if they are accused of professional misconduct or if they feel a child is endangered. The focus is on discipline and regulation, not supporting RECEs to provide meaningful learning and care for all children and families. I will return to this argument in a later section as I continue to argue that this positions RECEs as objects or commodities and not as skilled, knowledgeable professionals.

The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice (from the CECE) are not considered elsewhere in the licensing manual (legislation), pitting workplace expectations outside the CECE requirements and contributing to unnecessarily complex working environments. The stress from this divergence reduces the ethical responsibilities of the RECE only to follow the rules and regulations. At the intersection of the legislation, policy, and learning frameworks outlined above, a RECE's performance is measured, monitored, and standardized under a constant narrative of quality improvement through standardization, surveillance, and measurement. As I will elaborate later, this contributes to the objectification of RECEs (Stronach, 2023).

Previous research has revealed the detrimental effects of stressful workplaces on educators’ well-being (Boyd, 2015). Therefore, I propose that a more robust understanding of RECEs’ perspectives and experiences in the workplace is necessary and urgent in addressing the retention and recruitment challenges in the Ontario ECEC sector. I will now offer objectification theory and toxic workplace theory as important lenses for understanding and proposing how current working conditions for RECEs can be transformed to acknowledge their invaluable human contributions to practice (Moss, 2019).

Objectification theory and toxic workplace cultures (TCW)

To provide an unfamiliar perspective on the current conditions that RECEs contend with as they work within intentionally confusing regulatory legislation and policy, objectification theory will be used to analyze the Ontario ECEC landscape. It will then connect the formation of RECEs via objectification theory to discussions of how TWCs are created, perpetuated, and disrupted (Cannon, 2022; Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997; Rasool et al., 2021). These two theoretical propositions—objectification and TWC—are important because they open up significant opportunities to highlight the often hidden, insidious practices in early childhood workplaces that gloss over working RECE experiences in the Ontario ECEC sector (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997; Rasool et al., 2021).

The objectification theory lens I draw upon comes from Euro-Western feminist movements, including research on women's workplace barriers and their experiences during the fight for empowerment and equality (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). Mainly, the focus has been on the sexual objectification of women's bodies. At its most basic, objectification theory asserts that through various practices and structures, a dominant group positions a less powerful group of humans as objects, where objects are framed as inhuman or less human beings and are understood through discourses of use-value, ownership, commodity, and exploitation. It is important to note that there are other ways, beyond only using less powerful humans to satisfy their aims and needs, that people (and legislation) treat others as objects (Belmi and Schroeder, 2021; Nussbaum, 1995, 1999). When Belmi and Schroeder (2021) cite Immanuel Kant, who defined objectification as “the lowering of a person, a being with humanity, to the status of an object” (Kant, 1797/1996: 209), they are making clear that objectification is about ordering humans in hierarchical ways. Objectification in the workplace is associated with more antisocial, counter-collective, and even harmful behavior than in non-work contexts (Belmi and Schroeder, 2021). Belmi and Schroeder (2021) also suggest that objectification weakens people's sense of belonging, affecting how they feel, act, and behave in ways that negatively affect organizations and society. Crone et al. (2021) highlight that objectification can quantify labor when an individual performs an activity that is constantly repeated and broken down into several basic units that are performed separately, with execution and planning dependent on another individual or a technical system rather than the employee. In this iteration, objectification removes agency, power, and relationality from employees’ work, positioning them as strictly an unthinking arbiter of technical implementation (Crone et al., 2021).

I argue that such modes of objectification are overtly present in ECEC in Ontario. Take, for example, the ratio requirements for RECEs and the ECEC workforce. The CCEYA outlines the requirements for the number of staff, such that the number of qualified staff must correlate with the number of children present at any given time throughout the day at an early learning and care center (Ministry of Education, 2024). While this ensures the safety of the children, it reduces RECEs and the ECEC workforce—the skilled humans who work with children—to mere numbers, thus understanding these professionals as objects to be counted and valued for only their presence, not their education-oriented skills or intellectual contributions. Further, the CCEYA outlines that, at times, qualified educators’ (RECEs) are not required. As long as the required ratio numbers are followed, who fulfills these requirements is unimportant. Here, RECEs are objectified as their experience and knowledge are erased. Seen only as an object to fill a ratio, it does not matter which RECE is present in which space, thus devaluing RECEs’ relationships and expertise. Their value is measured only through the language of commodity and use-value: RECEs fill the ratio and ensure regulatory compliance. Additionally, all early learning and care centers maintain daily ratios, a fundamental aspect of early learning and care. As a result, the focus is often placed on meeting ratio requirements rather than emphasizing the quality of staff–child interactions (Dalgaard et al., 2022). This could lead to prioritizing structural measures over educational quality.

Objectification theory can also be applied to examine broader societal issues, such as labor relations (e.g., economic objectification, slavery, and social activism; Belmi and Schroeder, 2021). In this context, objectification theory argues that ongoing neoliberalism and capitalism largely operationalize labor as an object: labor is an inert commodity to be traded (Moss, 2019). It becomes separate from the humans who perform that labor. One such example in the Ontario ECEC sector is the treatment of RECEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. RECEs and the ECEC workforce, except designated early childhood educators (DECE) who worked in school boards that remained closed, were considered essential for frontline workers to continue working (Powell and Ferns, 2023). Frontline workers, like doctors and first responders, received an emergency pay increase (Archived—Eligible Workplaces and Workers for Pandemic Pay, n.d.; Powell and Ferns, 2023). However, RECEs and childcare workers who cared for the children of frontline workers did not receive this wage compensation. Centers and organizations chose to open to accommodate the need for child care but did so at the expense of their workers and RECEs (Powell and Ferns, 2023). Accordingly, RECEs and the ECEC workforce were positioned as objects whose existence was necessary only to facilitate the ability of valued frontline workers to perform their work. Through government labor regulations and the public discourses that stem from capitalistic valuations of different labor forces, RECEs and the ECEC workforce were made invisible as secondary or foundational objects—and not as talented, dedicated humans who were also navigating the uncertainties and risks of engaging with children and families during a pandemic—who mattered only for how they allowed for the labor of other professionals to occur. These decisions created additional stress for RECEs, and while they highlight how RECEs and the ECEC workforce are objectified, they also tie into creating a toxic working environment where human health and well-being are secondary priorities.

Toxic workplace theory analyzes workplace structures and how they can lead to a toxic culture in working environments. Researchers have identified two types of workplaces: collaborative and toxic (Rasool et al., 2021). Traditionally, in a toxic workplace environment, workers and the organization are in a relationship that is detrimental to employees’ health. In contrast, a collaborative workplace is supportive, enjoyable, and characterized by organizational citizenship behavior (Rasool et al., 2021). While this binary between toxic and collaborative workplaces might be reductive in that many workspaces combine these experiences, this distinction is instructive for understanding how RECEs experience their practice amid contemporary legislative structures. For example, a TWC often results in physical, psychological, and emotional fatigue. It increases stress and strain, which are alarming due to the deep-rooted grounds for high levels of stress burnout and psychological strain on employees (Government of Canada, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2024; Rasool et al., 2021). In the current ECEC sector in Ontario, countless studies by advocacy groups such as the Association of Early Childhood Educators (AECEO) and the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care (OCBCC) have highlighted the stress and burnout experienced by RECEs and the ECEC workforce (AECEO, 2016a, 2016b; McCuaig et al., 2022). While legislative structures must make clear that early learning and care centers’ ECEC programs should strive for warm, welcoming environments, the current intentions of such contradictory policies ensure that this atmosphere is meant for families and children to experience compulsory joy, access, and safety. This non-toxic environment does not always extend to the treatment of educators, childcare workers, RECEs, and the staff they work alongside.

Contributing further to a TWC, I argue that legislation has reduced the RECE from the role of educator to caregiver. Positioning the educator as a technician of custodial care creates a clear divide in the ECEC sector and contributes to workplaces and organizations that undervalue the role of the RECE. For example, the division of education and care has affected the public view of RECEs for decades (Cumming et al., 2020). The idea originates in the discourse of dividing school from daycare; the school's focus is educative, while caring is the focus of daycare. This binary further divides the RECE from the educative component of their role and creates the negative connotation that caring is the main focus in early education and care. “Education” is irrelevant since it does not (as the logic goes) happen in an ECEC setting (Cumming et al., 2020).

Within this dual context of objectifying RECEs as cogs in a capitalistic machine and devaluing RECEs as unskilled caregivers, collaborating with diverse stakeholders in ECEC becomes challenging due to the many different definitions of care, including many dominant conceptions of care and the difficulty of creating a standard definition that does not include an acknowledgement of education as essential to the quality of an early learning and care program (Nolan, 2020). The impact of these care/education divisions on the ECEC sector division creates a TWC because policymakers’ values and shared beliefs are often used to justify decisions that dismiss the RECE's needs (Cannon, 2022). Organizations are instead motivated by market-based values, and early education and care are viewed as investments and profitable services that place value on resources, following policies that do not recognize professional contributions, time, and commitment to children and families. Instead, conflict arises because individual RECEs and the ECEC workforce are reduced to fulfilling predetermined frameworks that do not align with flexible pedagogies or include others’ viewpoints (Cannon, 2022). For example, government curriculum and pedagogy frameworks stress that RECEs critically reflect and collaborate with others to “test long-standing views and taken-for-granted practices” while at the same time incorporating the “six principles of ELECT,” a document of predetermined “ages and stages goals” for child development, overriding the need for RECEs and their professional knowledge (Ministry of Education, 2024: 20, 23). Examples of these conflicting narratives dominate the ECEC sector, creating working environments that create conflicting relationships, viewpoints, and workloads that break down organizational structures and roles without a clear leadership direction, leading to toxic cultures without collaboration that cause RECEs to burn out and leave for other professions.

Political, economic, and cultural factors shaped by gender, class, and race also influence the notion of devaluation in early learning and care (Nolan, 2020). For example, McCuaig et al. (2022) highlight that the ECEC workforce is “dominated by women, many of whom are racialized” (p.18). However, while the government announced measures to introduce support for retaining and recruiting qualified RECEs, governments also count on the women-dominated field not changing professions for better wages or working conditions since they—as the discourse purports—are willing to burn themselves out for a job they love (Peters, 2022). All of these dismissive attitudes towards the RECE and ECEC workforce have enabled organizations to create TWCs that continue to objectify and devalue the professional workforce and take advantage of a large group of often racialized, caring women.

Influencing policy to effect change

While the RECE and the ECEC workforces have an insurmountable number of barriers to overcome to have an influential voice and improve working conditions, there are actionable pathways for RECEs to begin to dismantle the ECEC system and replace it with one based on cooperative networks and universal public care that places value on the RECE working in environments were there is a healthy culture and where they are not objectified. I propose that a collective support system can empower the often-silenced RECEs in their quest for change. It must, I argue, become a collective responsibility to prioritize RECEs’ often-overlooked narratives in our pursuit of systemic changes (Moss, 2019). Towards this, I offer two initial pathways to interrupt the nexus of contemporary conditions that objectify RECEs while creating a toxic workplace environment.

The first pathway is to hold policymakers, organizations, and legislation accountable to RECEs. Moss (2019) encourages the ECEC sector to “become less accepting and ask more questions” (p. 2) of dominating narratives. He refers to this as a “resistance movement.” While Moss highlights that RECEs would benefit from using this strategy to combat dominant narratives of neoliberal markets and child development frameworks, I argue that collective resistance can also counter the objectification of RECEs and their surrounding TWCs. For example, RECEs can continue to reject low wages and leave childcare spaces open without a qualified RECE to fulfill government regulations by their refusal to work in the sector. While this may not benefit the RECEs because they cannot use their training in their chosen profession, it sends a loud message to policymakers and the public: respect or do without us. Unfortunately, the current legislation has provisions that allow unqualified workers to fulfill the regulation requirement, and this strategy will not be effective until the unqualified workers also find conditions untenable, until there is the possibility that they will have reached the point where they can let go (Ahmed, 2017). This appears to be happening, as documented by the inclusion of support workers in the ECEC workforce in many research studies and news articles that highlight the working conditions in the sector (AECEO, 2016a, 2016b). Additionally, RECEs can continue to advocate for unqualified workers to become trained as professionals. The government recruitment strategy to fill open childcare spaces has made this option more accessible with government grants and tuition forgiveness (Jones, 2023). While this pathway may seem to support a plan that is a temporary solution to the recruitment and retention crisis and does not address the working conditions that objectify and devalue the current workforce, it will expose future RECEs at post-secondary institutions to alternative perspectives and enable them to recognize their actual human value within the ECEC sector. These future RECEs, with knowledge of their value, can strengthen the current evidence of the ECEC sector's poor working conditions. Stakeholders in this current neoliberalism market-based system will have little choice but to recognize the ineffective legislation that continues to create a contradictory space where RECEs and the ECEC sector are objectified and working in TWCs.

Another pathway that RECEs can utilize to combat the legislation that supports the objectification of RECEs and the ECEC workforce is to reevaluate policies within the current legislation. Ahmed (2006) describes in her analysis of nonperformative documents that legislation for the sake of legislation does not support proof of quality or of environments that have the best interest of all parties. Therefore, to ensure the translatability of policy, governments should examine—and re-create—the CECE's Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice, CCEYA, and curriculum framework for their alignment with the transition to universal early learning and care legislated by CWELLC. Governments must consider additional measures to strengthen the sector by removing regulatory inconsistencies that trap RECEs in confusing situations due to contradictory mandates. Such change can be implemented by creating a collective organizational structure with only one governing body. This might streamline governance within the sector and reduce the layers RECEs have to navigate. Most importantly, RECEs must be actively and meaningfully involved in this central governing body to recognize the human value of quality, educated professionals with a voice that has true power. Here, RECEs become more than just objects/bodies immersed in a government-mandated TWC where their knowledge and skills are profoundly devalued within a relentless capitalist system. As more than mere bodies to fulfill regulations, RECEs can shape an ECEC sector where they wield influence, fostering a system where they actively engage in the process of professional accountability, ethics, and practice that underpin meaningful and sustainable working conditions. This approach creates opportunities for talented RECEs to remain in the ECEC sector. It enables them to co-create meaningful curricula with children and families, instilling a sense of hope and inspiration in the sector.

Conclusion

The objectification of the RECE and the toxic workplace culture (TWC) created by the many levels of legislation, regulation, and curriculum/programming frameworks that conflict and rely on individual organizations and employee standards that do not align with various policies have created unsustainable conditions of precarity devaluation, and regulation for RECEs and the ECEC workforce in Ontario. The wider capitalist and governmental context of ECEC has led to the current retention and recruitment crisis, and existing legislation/policy/frameworks have offered no support to RECEs and the ECEC workforce in creating collective workforce agreements and consistent employer accountability structures. Such conditions limit RECEs from coming together to advocate and negotiate for better working conditions, fair wages, and professional recognition. Moreover, the objectification and toxic workforce cultures that hold great power reduce the talented professional workforce to less than human objects who solely fulfil standardized regulations without regard for their influence in fostering a system where they could be actively engaged in the process of professional accountability, ethics, and practice that underpin meaningful and sustainable working conditions. The collective pathways I have proposed would interrupt these contemporary conditions and bring RECEs together to make meaningful choices that intervene in the divided, devalued, and commodity-oriented sector that currently governs ECEC.

The two pathways I propose are the first step in a larger collective project toward reconfiguring ECEC in Ontario. The RECE and ECEC workforce will still face significant challenges as they continue to voice the need for changes. The objectification of the RECE and the ECEC workforce and the TWC created by these attitudes in the ECEC sector require RECEs and the ECEC workforce to be strong and brave and highlight the injustices of dominant groups. We must fight against objectification in the workplace and our position as a less powerful group of humans. We must demand a change in the attitudes and discourses of use-value, ownership, commodity, and exploitation. RECEs will continue to suffer and work in centers with insidious practices under the guise of mandatory joyfulness built around expectations of an enriched, safe, happy environment for children while sacrificing their health and well-being in the process (Ahmed, 2017). I implore others to continue to critique and analyze to reveal the working conditions in the ECEC sector and to keep resisting policies and legislation that reduce us to less than human objects. Find ways to make us heard by policymakers because failure to address these issues will continue to lead to a retention and recruitment crisis, making it hard for families to access affordable and quality childcare. Let us take action now and ensure that the ECEC sector is a safe and fulfilling place for all.