Introduction

“Free day-care centres start today. Some children still without placement” (^{Santos, 2023}, s/p); “The government claims to have created 9,000 new free day-care places in two months” (^{Silva, 2023}, s/p); or “More children per room, less bureaucracy in conversions: Government rushing to address the shortage of places in day-care centres” (^{Carvalho, 2023}, s/p), these are three newspaper headlines among many more depicting the current state of policies concerning early childhood care and education, particularly since 2020 when the socialist majority government prioritised this issue.

With democracy nearing its 50th anniversary, a set of social policies related to day-care centres has been rapidly developed and implemented over the past three years, affirming the principle of free access to day-care (Decree 271/2020, of 24 November 2000), launching the ‘Creche Feliz – Network of Free Day-Care Centres’ programme, and extending its scope to the for-profit private sector (Decree 304/2022, of 22 December 2022a, and Decree 305/2022, of 22 December 2022b). Finally, in response to the shortage of day-care centres and available places, the number of children per existing room was increased (Decree 190-A/2023, of 5 July 2023), as reflected in the last headline.

This opens a new pathway for the expansion and democratization of access to day-care for the youngest children day-care, which has constituted part of the process of institutionalization of contemporary childhood in Western societies (^{Näsman, 1994}; Zeiher, 2009) preceding school – specifically the expansion and near-universalisation of kindergarten as an educational context for children aged 3 to 6 years. Attention is now increasingly directed towards children under the age of 3 and day-care, conceived as a service where social functions of care, custody, and education coexist, responding both to the needs of working families and the holistic developmental needs of children.

This focus on the provision of day-care for children reflects international and European appeals and recommendations that have been made since 2000. The European Council, at the Barcelona Summit, advocated for “care structures for at least 35% of children under 3 years of age by 2010” (CE, 2002). Likewise, General Comment No. 7 “Implementing Children’s Rights in Early Childhood Education” (UN^{CRC, 2005}) asserts the right to education for all children, their holistic development, and their participation, including policies for young children. Furthermore, ^{UNESCO (2010)}, at the World Conference on Early Childhood Care and Education, advocated for “Early Childhood Education (ECE)” as the foundation for social, human, and economic development, encompassing services for care, education, health, nutrition, and protection for children up to 8 years of age.

The World Bank (WB), perceiving children as the ‘human capital’ necessary for a prosperous economy, has advocated since 2000 for early education to achieve better and more sustainable outcomes, a stance also supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2006). Recently, the European Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 reiterated the importance of high-quality early childhood education and care systems. Within the context of globalization, this involves re-evaluating a “global and structured agenda for education” (^{Dale, 2004}, p. 424) under the aegis of the principle of equal opportunities, which is paramount to capitalist democracies.

In Portugal, concerning day-care, this development occurs through legal regulation and the transfer of state funds in social benefits, responding to the urgency of reconciling market needs with those of families, particularly considering the feminization of employment and the deregulation of working conditions and hours. Structuring the cost-effectiveness of this long-term state investment in a competitive economy, therefore, supports childbirth, parenthood, and social inclusion. This is achieved through the provision of care for the children of working parents; combating poverty and social inequalities; the early integration of migrant populations; timely identification of risk and danger situations; intervention with children with specific needs; and the improvement of service quality, among other aspects (^{Moss; Pence, 1994}; ^{Moss, 2007}; Vandenbroeck; Lehrer; Mitchell, 2022).

Education is understood as a common and public good, as well as a universal right for children, including those up to three years of age (UN, 1989). Thus, the provision of free day-care centres in Portugal, alongside the increase in the number of rooms and the rise in the number of children per room, leads us to question: how does the right to education relate to children up to three years old and the functions assigned to day-care centres? In what ways do the traditional functions of day-care – care and supervision – and the right to education manifest in the policies that have been developed concerning these children since the establishment of democracy in Portugal?

Drawing on insights from the sciences of education and the sociologies of childhood, family, and education, and following previous works (Ferreira; Tomás; Rocha; Nazário, 2024), we selected five foundational documents of social policies for day-care – Normative Dispatch 131/84 (Portugal, 1984); Normative Dispatch 99/89 (^{Portugal, 1989}); Order 262/2011 (^{Portugal, 2011}); Order 271/2020 (^{Portugal, 2020}); and Order 190-A/2023 (Portugal, 2023) – to be analysed with the aim of: i) identifying the conceptions of child, care, and education; ii) understanding their continuities, changes, and tensions; and iii) problematising the social and/or educational response that is advocated.

A critical reflection on the presence of ambiguities, tensions, and contradictions in the conceptions found of day-care, care, and education opens space for a debate aimed at challenging and overcoming the dichotomy of care/education to ensure greater quality, justice, and equity in the lives of children and adults.

Methodology

The online documentary research concerning policies for early childhood produced in democratic Portugal between 1974 and 2023, conducted on public and accessible websites, has allowed for the reconstruction of the process of institutionalising day-care centres (Ferreira; Tomás; Rocha; Nazário, 2024). It has also enabled the identification of a specific corpus for analysis, representative of the legislative framework governing day-care centres, based on five documents: i) Normative Dispatch 131/84, dated 25 July 1984; ii) Normative Dispatch 99/89, dated 27 October 1989; iii) Regulatory Order 262/2011, dated 31 August 2011; iv) Regulatory Order 271/2020, dated 24 November 2020; and v) Regulatory Order 190-A/2023, dated 5 July 2023.

These official texts, produced in specific national socioeconomic, political, and educational contexts and influenced by international factors, are understood as cultural and ideological artefacts and as political discourses that are not neutral. By privileging and prioritising certain ideas and options while excluding other possibilities (^{Ball, 2008}), they employ an objective and transparent language necessary for the “engineering” of consent (^{Codd, 1988}), consensus, and compromise among potentially conflicting groups and forces, thus generating specific realities whose meanings are neither explicit nor literal. Therefore, the analysis of policy documents, as discursive constructions, cannot be reduced to the application of a set of technical and nomothetic procedures; instead, it requires a process of textual deconstruction capable of combining the unspoken, divergent meanings, contradictions, and structured omissions, clarifying the ideological processes behind the production of the text (^{Codd, 1988}), thereby allowing for a critical examination of policies.

In this text, such purposes focus on the corpus for analysis and, in line with the legal framework of policies for day-care centres in Portugal, aims to: i) identify the conceptions of the child, care, and education; ii) understand their continuities, changes, and tensions; and iii) problematise the social and/or educational responses advocated.

Conceptions of care and education

The objective of the nursery is to promote the development of children, considering multiple dimensions – physical, emotional, intellectual, and social – while considering both the individual and the group, and in accordance with their needs (Portugal, 1984). However, this reverts to a generalised language singularly focused on the child and their overall development, which emphasises “individualised care” within an environment of “emotional and physical safety” (^{Portugal, 1989}), to the detriment of group relationships (cf. Table 1).

It appears that there is a shift from focusing on children and their multidimensional and holistic development (Portugal, 1984) to a perspective where, behind the seemingly consensual language of individualisation and the abstract reference to global development, central dimensions of protection emerge. This focus on emotional and physical safety points to a logic of care (^{Portugal, 1989}) that continues into 2011 (cf. Tables 1 and 3). Here, the objectives related to the nursery and the child unfold into two clauses that combine and reaffirm “individualised care” and “integral development” (^{Portugal, 1989}) but maintain the same matrix of protection characterised by a “physical and emotional safety environment”. The novelty lies in the personalisation of care, although it is based on the idea of the specific needs of each child, which was already present in 1984 (cf. Tables 1 and 3).

The conceptions of care and education within nursery legislation, although not always explicit, have also been identified and inferred from the analysis of its spatial organisation. Beginning with the nursery (cf. Table 3), in the “crib room” and the “transition room”, a conception of care for children emerges, characterised by constant adult supervision, where routines of feeding, sleeping, and hygiene are central.

In the first instance, which entails specific conditions regarding location, accessibility, sound, and lighting, the emphasis is on providing safe and individualised care for rest. In the second, hygiene care stands out (Portugal, 1984, 1989, 2011) along with its details (^{Portugal, 1989}). It was in 2011 that the “transition room” began to integrate educational functions into the active times of children: in addition to safety considerations related to physical mobility and the acquisition of walking – such as cushioned and washable flooring – material conditions for observation and interaction with others, such as resting chairs, and stimulating play activities, like various toys and mirrors, are mentioned, thus contributing to their holistic development. These conceptions remained consistent from 1984 to 2023.

The concept of education in the context of childcare encompasses the development of an educational project (Portugal, 1984, 1989) and a pedagogical project (Portugal, 1984, 1989, 2011, 2020, 2023). These projects are focused on the planning and monitoring of the socio-pedagogical activities conducted by the nursery across all its facilities, from the nursery to the activity room. These educational actions aim to promote the holistic development of children, including motor, cognitive, personal, emotional, and social growth (2011, art. 6).

However, it is important to note that in 2011, the number of children in each room increased by two (art. 7), and staffing could include “volunteer collaboration” (art. 10, n.º 3) – two factors that create tension regarding the concepts of care and education for children.

In the activity and dining rooms, the coexistence of care and education concepts has been present since 1984, but became more explicit and detailed starting in 2011, now also encompassing recess (cf. Table 4).

As in the nursery, the dimension of care continues in the activity room, with a focus on maintaining conditions of cleanliness, safety, and comfort to create a healthy environment. This space can also serve multiple functions by accommodating routines for rest and meals. The educational dimension, which has been present since 1984, becomes clearer with the recommendation to meet children’s play needs by providing games, activities, materials, and outdoor spaces like the playground (^{Portugal, 2011}). This playground, which can also be shared with infants, combines elements of care focused on the safety of the children using it – such as being covered, fenced, separate, illuminated, and equipped with drinking fountains and waste bins – with educational aspects regarding the type and diversity of equipment and toys suggested based on an interpretation of the interests of children aged between one and three years. It particularly emphasizes promoting motor skills in several ways, such as pedalling, climbing, sliding, and running (^{Portugal, 2011}).

In the dining room, care concerns are present through the hygiene and safety routines during meals, alongside educational considerations such as wall decorations and designated spaces for celebrations or indoor play.

These concepts of care and education were affirmed until 2011 and have remained consistent since then. However, the increase in the number of children per room and their length of stay, including overnight and weekend periods starting from when they can walk (Order 190-A/2023, 5 July, arts. 7 and 8), introduces a bias that contradicts any concept of education within the nursery, rendering it instrumental in addressing an urgent social problem.

Indeed, in the Portuguese context, particularly in urban areas where the lack of day-care centres has already been identified as a problem (Peralta; Carvalho; Fonseca, 2023), the opportunities created by the legislation on free access (^{Portugal, 2020}, 2022) quickly became a difficult promise to fulfil due to the disconnection between high demand and low supply. Under these conditions, greater access to day-care centres for children facilitated by the principle of free access (^{Portugal, 2020}, 2021, 2022, 2023) would imply that they are receiving care and education.

Thus, it is precisely this aim that is being called into question with the recent changes, whose remedial and palliative nature threatens the quality of these services – overcrowding of children, and full-time operation (Portugal, 2023) – representing a setback. In other words, the increase from 14 to 16 children between the acquisition of walking and 24 months, and from 18 to 20 between 24 and 36 months, in a minimum area of 2 m² per child, which can be reduced to 1 m² under the pedagogical supervision of an educator, undermines any quality of care/education.

Final considerations

Between 1974 and 2023, there has been a process of institutionalisation of day-care centres in mainland Portugal within the framework of the MSS, albeit in a zigzag manner, where a balanced relationship between care and education – EDUCARE – appears fragile, leaning towards care. This emphasis on care intensified in 2023, with an increase in the number of children per room and extended hours. This division between care and education has probably also been influenced by issues of professionalisation, as the recognition of the professional role of early childhood educators in day-care centres only occurs explicitly after children acquire the ability to walk, as noted in 2011. In this sense, one might question whether financial considerations underpin this dichotomy, given that babies, due to their high dependency, are highly demanding in terms of necessary work time, while the cost of assistants is significantly lower than that of early childhood educators. Thus, social and financial distinctions compound the care and education dichotomy.

In this context, and considering the ambiguities, tensions, and contradictions present in the concepts of day-care centres, care, and education, there arises an opportunity to challenge the care/education dichotomy in favour of the EDUCARE perspective, which advocates for quality, justice, and equity in the lives of children and adults. Authors such as ^{Coelho (2004)}, ^{Correia (2018)}, Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999), ^{Moss (2007)}, and ^{Vasconcelos (2014)} underscore a comprehensive understanding of the role of day-care centres in society, which necessitates a reorientation of the structural perspective on reconciling family and work within the framework of rights to education and culture. This implies incorporating day-care centres within the educational system and conceptualising early childhood education as a continuum. From this perspective, EDUCARE requires not only physical/material conditions but also qualified professionals for the nursery. This means having multi-referenced theoretical training capable of understanding the diversity and bio-sociocultural inequalities of children, which should inform pedagogical practices based on the contextual observation of their relationships and a reflective intervention that is simultaneously protective, challenging, and ethical. The aim is for day-care centres to transition from spaces for children and their families to spaces for children themselves. The challenge lies in breaking away from normalising care and a school-centric education in favour of broadening children’s social and cultural repertoires.