Nuanced approaches to families in five countries: Quality and practice

Early childhood educators (ECEs) work in highly regulated environments due to the push for regulation and standardisation, often in the name of quality improvement. Despite this, our study showed educators used a nuanced approach to involving families in their services that was influenced by their settings, values and service culture.  

 

Research background

 

Educators usually work closely with parents to benefit children’s education and care. In recent years, there has been a recognition of the importance of these partnerships which has been reflected in government documents, such as standards, frameworks and curricula increasingly commonplace in many countries. These quality agendas have often supported compliance rather than ECE’s agency. Few studies have explored the effects of these quality agendas on the work, professional identity, job satisfaction and wellbeing of educators across various countries. 

 

Our study

 

To address this gap, our study used a mixed methods online survey to gather the voices of 1356 ECEs from Australia (number=82), Canada (n=145), Denmark (n=228), Italy (n=251), and Georgia (n=568). Using closed- and open-ended questions about their work, we asked a variety of questions, including their notions and their government’s notions of quality learning and quality services. Additionally, we asked, “What is unique about the service/program where you work? (e.g., setting, families, diversity, curricula, the way learning is facilitated, cultural context, community etc.)”. 

 

Using a parent-educator partnership framework (Figure 1), we analysed educator’s responses. 

Figure 1: Parent-educator partnership framework (Adapted from Hajula et al., 2009)

 

Results

 

Using this framework to explore the a) dimensions, b) categories and c) outcomes of the relationships, educators reported on their partnerships with parents in relation to their notions of quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. This article focusses on the Australian data. 

 

1. The dimensions of the partnership were more likely to have an informal structure with less defined roles. Power within the partnership was more likely to be shared horizontally, rather than a top-down approach.
2. The categories revealed nuanced approaches within the four domains of parent involvement, professionalism, parenting and shared responsibilities.

 

Australian educators gave examples of their ideas of parent’s involvement in ECEC services: 

 

• Education that is both child-led and child family-informed.

 

• Programs are designed to suit families’ social-cultural contexts.

 

• Services that cater to the holistic development of the children and work collaboratively with families and the community.

 

• When children’s sense of agency is respected and children, their families, our community and staff work collaboratively to create an environment that is rich in experiences that promote curiosity, connection to each other and country, wonder and self-esteem.

 

Australian educators discussed their ideas about family-centred professionalism: 

 

• A responsive approach stems from quality communications and interacts with all stakeholders.

 

• Being responsive to your children’s families and community.

 

• Builds a sense of community. Incorporates families and their strengths.

 

• One that retains and values their educators as well as children and families through community partnerships.

 

• Play based, immersive, holistic. Stemming from child’s interests, family values and culture as well as community culture

 

Australian educators remarked on the way they thought services should support parenting:

 

• The children should be your number one priority as well as supporting the families attending the service.

 

• Knowledgeable, passionate and caring educators who are working with families to provide an adaptive curriculum to meet the developmental needs of all the children in their care.

 

• A service that puts the children, educators and families first.

 

Australian educators also communicated their notions of shared responsibilities of educating children:

 

• Holistic learning that is a partnership with child, their family and community.

 

• Developing positive relationships with the children and families so they can learn within a trusting and comfortable environment.

 

• The outcomes showed that the Australian partnership was generally dynamic, with relationships evolving in response to feedback. Partnerships tended to feature informal, horizontal and dynamic relationships resulting in high quality relationships. 

 

Conclusion

 

All countries demonstrated the value educators place on these relationships with parents and family members. Although partnerships varied in how they were initiated and maintained, reflecting cultural and system differences, educators viewed parents as integral and expert. 

 

The relationships took different forms due to local values and expectations. Therefore, despite a push for standardisation in the name of quality, educators were led by their personal values and local cultural norms showing their individuality, professional identity and agency.