Order 1029111: Family-centred practices

Early_Childhood_Intervention_Working_with_Families...Reading2.2.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Order 1029111: Family-centred practices

This chapter aims to deepen understanding of the impact of significant disad- vantage and risk factors on families with young children and how this might affect their capacity and or willingness to participate in universal education and care services. The chapter includes descriptions of practical strategies to support educators responding ethically to families and children living with complex and often intergenerational disadvantage and risk factors. At the heart of this chap- ter lies a belief that reimagining partnerships with families recognises that they are the most important people in their children’s lives. Through engaging with and empowering families and children, educators acknowledge them as active holders of rights.

Contemporary contexts for families and children

Australian society experiences significant and continuous social, economic, and cultural changes. These changes impact on the life experiences and life chances of children and families and on education and care services, including school-age care programs, long day care, family day care, and preschools. Over the past dec- ade there have been identified increases in:

• domestic violence, • child protection reports, • homelessness for families with children, • the cost of housing and rental costs, • addiction or abuse of alcohol and drugs, • mental health diagnoses, • settlement of refugee families, and • the number of women with young children who are working.

(Australian Council of Social Services, 2014; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012; Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing, 2014;

Refugee Council of Australia, 2013)

6 Reimagining family partnerships Shifting practice from a focus on disadvantage to engagement and empowerment

Anne Kennedy

Sukkar, H., Dunst, C. J., & Kirkby, J. (Eds.). (2016). Early childhood intervention : working with families of young children with special needs. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from csuau on 2018-05-07 18:37:05.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Reimagining family partnerships 97

Snapshot of poverty in Australia

The rise in the number of families living below or close to the poverty line pro- vides a context for significant disadvantage and risk. The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS, 2014) defines poverty as being in receipt of 50% of the median income level, which is around $AU640 per week for a single parent with two children. ACOSS statistics highlight additional contexts for poverty in Australia:

• 17.7% (603,000) of children live below the poverty line. • 13.8% of people in capital cities live below the poverty line with slightly

higher rates in rural communities. • Over 30% of people living below the poverty line are working and are not on

social security benefits.

Research and statistical data also show that people from particular demographic categories are at much higher risk for living below the poverty line. Single par- ents, people with disabilities, refugees, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are included in the “at greater risk” for poverty category.

Risk factors for families and children interact with each other in complex ways to increase the challenges people experience in their daily lives. For example, domestic violence increases the risk of homelessness, especially for women and children, and poverty increases a range of health risks. The combination of several significant risk factors such as poverty, homelessness and mental illness impacts on people’s capacity to participate in their community, socially, economically or educationally. Evidence suggests that families and children with the most com- plex risk factors are less likely to participate in universal services such as preschool or child care (Centre for Community Child Health, 2010).

Research also shows that protective factors can reduce the negative impact of risk factors. Protective factors for a child at risk might include extended fam- ily support, engagement in a quality education and care setting, and access to services such as a maternal and child health nurse or a family-focused general practitioner (Walker et al., 2011).

The statistical data and research evidence on the contexts that impact on the lives of children and families, and especially the contexts related to risk factors, reveal implications for governments, services, and professionals. The complexity and inter-connectedness of these risk factors requires well-resourced, collabora- tive, integrated response systems and ways of working. As the data indicate, a “one size fits all” or a siloed approach by professionals will not reduce entrenched or intergenerational disadvantage and vulnerability. A further implication from the statistical evidence is the need for educators to recognise the diversity of fami- lies and children who may be at risk. Mental health or domestic violence issues, for example, occur within families from across the economic spectrum.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

98 Kennedy

Research foundations and theoretical contexts

Research evidence and three theoretical frameworks inform the discussion in this chapter:

1 feminist, “ethics of care” theories and frameworks (Tronto, 1993; Nuss- baum, 1999),

2 principles of family-centred practice (Allen & Petr, 1998; Dunst, 2002), and 3 social ecology theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005).

The common threads of respect for human rights; commitment to equity and redressing disadvantage; the importance of relationships; and responsiveness to the rights, agency, choices and strengths within families, children and communi- ties are evident in the theoretical informants for this chapter. These connecting threads are powerful theories for educators interested in working in ethical ways with families, children and communities (Moss, 2014).

Bronfenbrenner’s social ecology model (1979, 2005) supports understanding the interconnectedness and interdependency between individuals, families, com- munities and the settings or systems in which they live or work and with the wider society. The model identifies how different systems or settings both influence and are influenced by people over time. As Hill and Nichols (2004) explain:

Systems operate on a number of levels: there are the immediate settings in which a person is situated, termed ‘micro-systems,’ such as the family, the neighbour- hood and the school; there are larger multi-site institutions such as churches and corporations; and there are even broader and less tangible groupings of knowl- edge and practices such as cultures and ideologies (macro-systems).

(p. 164)

The social ecology model acknowledges the interrelationship between different settings in which a child or family participates and the importance of the qual- ity of the interrelationships and interconnectedness between different settings in the micro-system. If the interrelationship between a family and settings such as a school or a child care centre is respectful and based on a collaborative partner- ship approach, the quality of the connection is high and positive outcomes for a family, child and educators are more likely to be achieved (La Placa & Corlyon, 2014; Scott, 2013).

The principles of “family centred practice” advanced by Allen and Petr (1998) and Dunst (2002) provide a further layer of understanding in relation to how and why professionals engage with families and children within the different settings or systems identified by Bronfenbrenner (Espe-Sherwindt, 2008). The four core principles of family centred practice identified by Allen and Petr are:

1 the centrality of the family as the unit of attention, 2 an emphasis on maximising family choice,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Reimagining family partnerships 99

3 a strengths rather than a deficits perspective, and 4 cultural sensitivity.

Similar family-centred practice principles and values are evident in the Principles and Practices of the national Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009; EYLF 2009) and the My Time Our Place: Frame- work for School Age Care (DEEWR, FSAC, 2011). These include the practice of cultural competence and the principles of secure, respectful and reciprocal relation- ships; partnerships; high expectations and equity and respect for diversity, which resonate with the principles of family-centred practice.

Feminist theories on the “ethics of care” also focus on the quality of connections between the different systems or settings where children and families participate. Nuss- baum’s (1999) argument on human rights and our obligations to each other, for exam- ple, connects with the principles of family-centred practice and the social ecology model:

But the goal should always be to put people in a position of agency and choice, not to push them into functioning in ways deemed desirable. I argue that this is no mere parochial Western ideology but expresses the joy most people have in using their own bodies and minds.

(p. 11)

In a similar way, Tronto’s theorising on the “ethics of care” defines caring as a “habit of mind” combined with practical acts of caring that are attentive, respon- sible, competent and responsive to the other and the particular contexts of their lives (1993). Caring relationships in this approach are not like a warm blanket that surrounds others or a mere backdrop to the work of educators (Malaguzzi, 1993). Ethical caring demands a willingness to recognise the centrality of build- ing relationships that respect and respond to difference and diversity in non- judgemental and responsive ways.

The principle of respecting people’s agency, choices and difference is challeng- ing for professionals working with families and children living with complex risk factors. Finding ways to support families and children, using our professional expertise without diminishing the expertise and authority of families and chil- dren, requires deep sensitivity to the ethics of our work (Moss, 2014).

Terminology

This chapter uses the terms “vulnerable,” “disadvantaged” and “at risk” to describe the life contexts for certain children and their families. Vulnerability and disadvantage are not the entire story for a child, just as the term “disability” is not the entire story for some children. Every child and family has agency, strengths and interests that are important aspects of their story and lives. In order to rec- ognise a more holistic, positive and accurate image for children and families, this chapter does not refer to “vulnerable children” or “at risk children,” but rather,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

100 Kennedy

talks about children living with risk factors, disadvantage or with vulnerabilities. In using these terms, it is important to note that how we name people influences how we interact, treat and respond to them in our practice. Using the term “dis- advantaged children” may inadvertently limit our expectations for them (Dahl- berg, Moss, & Pence, 1999).

Practice strategies from the education and care sector

A range of ethical strategies to support meaningful engagement and partner- ships with children and families living with significant and complex risk factors is identified through ongoing conversations with several education and care ser- vices. Many of the children in these services are known, or are at risk of being known, to child protection services. Poverty, refugee status, unemployment, addiction, mental health problems and homelessness further complicate these families’ lives.

Evidence indicates that participation and engagement in education and care settings are less likely or less regular for children living with significant disad- vantage or vulnerabilities (Centre for Community Child Health, 2010). While affordability and availability of places are relevant to this matter, there are other issues to consider. Families living with multiple complexities or risks may find an affordable place for their children, but the setting might not offer the welcome and support necessary for their continued participation and engagement. Unless families feel a sense of belonging and welcome, they are likely to disengage or have irregular attendance (La Placa & Corlyon, 2014).

Process matters of quality focus on relationships, pedagogy, partnerships and collaboration (Huntsman, 2008). These processes link to the quality standards in the Australian National Quality Standards (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, NQS, 2011) and the learning frameworks. The following theoretically and research-informed engagement strategies include practices in relation to children, families, pedagogy, educators and other professionals.

Primary carer approach

A misunderstood and under-utilised strategy for supporting children and families is to use a primary carer or primary contact approach. This approach recognises that entering a new service can be overwhelming for a child and family, especially when a family is unsure or defensive because of previous negative experiences with other organisations, agencies or institutions. The primary carer approach aims to:

• reduce the number of staff that families develop trusting relationships with during the settling-in phase especially,

• support a partnership with families in educating and caring for their child, and

• ensure that every child and family is acknowledged and supported.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Reimagining family partnerships 101

As a primary carer, an educator takes special responsibility for:

• monitoring and supporting the child and family orientation and transition into the setting process,

• meeting with the family regularly to identify shared aspirations or goals and to develop shared strategies to support those goals,

• talking with families on how the strategies are working in the centre and at home, and

• taking main responsibility for daily care practices, such as nappy changing or toileting, especially during the transition period.

Adopting a primary carer approach does not mean that educators are only aware of or support their primary care children and families. Every staff member is expected to be supportive of all the children and families they encounter each day. This expectation is important because educators working different shifts or tak- ing holidays, for example, would not be available for their primary care children. One strategy to support educators knowing about the children and families in the centre is to have focused discussions about a child’s learning, development and wellbeing with the primary carer leading the discussion. Other educators contrib- ute their perspectives to support the development of shared understandings and action plans for each child.

Focusing on family strengths

The following is an example of focusing on family strengths implemented in one setting. Margaret, an experienced coordinator of a child care centre in what is described as a ‘highly disadvantaged’ community, reflects on working with fami- lies using a strengths-based approach that nurtures respectful relationships:

We try to remain open-minded and to suspend judgements. We don’t assume or presume or pre-judge which is difficult when family values, priorities and practices are different from your own. Educators need to be well informed about keeping their judgements in check so that we build trusting relationships with every family. We focus on family strengths including their resilience, adaptabil- ity and capacity to recognise genuineness and authenticity in our relationships and interactions with them. Small things are praised and affirmed.

This example also reinforces the importance of understanding your own values, beliefs and life experiences and how they influence the way you respond to fami- lies and children. Margaret reminds us about not making assumptions or being judgemental about a parent’s literacy skills, for example:

We have to remember to consider a parent’s literacy levels. For example, we don’t just talk about the sign in book and where it is located. I might go to the book and put my finger on the child’s printed name and say this is where you sign your

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

102 Kennedy

child in each day. We watch for clues about a parent’s capacity to write their name and the time of departure and sometimes I will say, ‘Would you like me to sign in for you?’

Education and care services committed to the ethics of care and family-centred practice hold high expectations for every family and child by valuing and believ- ing in every child and family’s strengths and capabilities. High expectations are also about equity and equal opportunity matters. Every child and family has the right to access and participate in education and care services (equal opportunity), and some will require additional support to enable their access and participation (equity).

Parent-professional partnerships

Families have a right as the most important people in their children’s lives to be respected, consulted and supported. The Early Years Learning Framework (2009) talks about “genuine partnerships” with families where we value each other’s knowledge, roles, experiences, perspectives and contributions. Shifting from viewing parents as ‘helpers’ or the beneficiaries of our niceness, to a posi- tion of sharing power with them as partners in educating and caring for children requires serious thinking and responsive actions. Having conversations with fami- lies about difficult issues is easier if educators have established respectful partner- ships with them. As one educator explains:

The parents we work with rarely get praise from others. We look for positives and give praise. Sometimes we have to talk about issues that arise in their parenting that are not in children’s best interests. If a child arrives at the centre in their night nappy several times in a week, we will talk with the parent about this by asking how we can support them to change this practice. Because we build respectful relationships with parents from enrolment, we can have these types of conversations because they trust us, and they know we always acknowledge good aspects of their parenting.

Communicating with families

Rinaldi (2006) reminds us that genuine and meaningful partnerships require new tools (how we communicate), new content (what we communicate about), and new methods (where and when we meet to communicate). Staff working with families in the Pen Green Centre in the United Kingdom use communication strategies to support families feeling valued, equal and active partners in their children’s learning (Whalley, 2006). Staff and families make, watch and discuss video clips of children’s play in the centre or at home in order to develop shared learning and development intentions and practices.

Home visits at the family’s invitation also support new ways of communicat- ing and building partnerships. For example, an educator working in a child care

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Reimagining family partnerships 103

centre explained how she builds trust and learns more about a family, and they about her, through visiting families in their home. Home visits with one family included cooking dinner with the parent and then sharing the meal with her and the children. On other visits, the educator brought games they could play together or a video to watch with the children and their parent. A positive out- come from these visits is the strengthening of relationships between the children and the parent from the shared enjoyment of home based experiences.

Reducing risks for families and children

Partnerships with families living with complex issues often requires services to respond to urgent problems, as Margaret identifies:

Sometimes we are responding to urgent needs. We have to be prepared for the urgency involved or that is necessary. Recently three families with two or three children told us that they would be homeless in three weeks’ time. We referred the families to housing and welfare agencies in our community and encouraged them to keep bringing the children to the centre as this would support the chil- dren through a difficult time of change. I also copied paperwork for them so that they had the necessary information to provide to other agencies.

Service providers have identified increased risks for children and families when a centre is closed over extended holiday periods. One education and care service has achieved improvements in families’ capacity to cope when the service is closed. They use a range of strategies to reduce the risks for families and children including:

• providing families with verbal reminders about the closure for several weeks prior to the holiday period,

• letting families know which local agencies or community services are open over the holiday period, including where food vouchers are available,

• calling local agencies and services and reminding them that families might be needing additional support during the holidays because the centre is closed, and

• letting families know about community services and activities they can access with or for their children such as children’s playgrounds in local parks or local vacation care programs.

Intentional pedagogy strategies

. . . pedagogy must be understood as ‘a relation, a network of obligation,’ and the pedagogical relationship is one which requires ‘infinite attention to the other.’

(Brooker, 2009, p. 107)

The national vision for children’s lives as being characterised by “belonging, being and becoming” (Early Years Learning Framework, 2009, p. 7) underpins

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

104 Kennedy

pedagogy enacting respect for the uniqueness of and complexities present in chil- dren’s and families’ lives. The framework emphasises that curriculum in educa- tion and care settings is enacted from the time of children’s arrival to the time of their departure, including daily routines and learning experiences, both planned and spontaneous. A child care centre shows “infinite attention” to children and families through careful attention to child and family transitions into the centre each day, as Kate’s reflection reveals:

Families and children experience a strong sense of welcome and belonging in the centre. Every day, we convey a purposeful greeting of waiting with pleasure for them and their child to arrive. We are genuine in our welcome, so that families and children get a sense that we really care for them and their child, and that what is being provided is not just a care environment, but also a learning envi- ronment. For example, in promoting a sense of belonging for the children we supported them in designing, drawing and sewing of their own cushions which they use every day.

Kate recognises the importance of knowing the children’s interests, strengths and abilities in order to intentionally build on and extend what they know and can do. She makes some interesting observations and practical suggestions.

I have found that many of the preschool-aged children we work with have missed out on sensory play experiences as babies and toddlers. They enjoy having regu- lar access to those experiences and they need intentional support to explore sensory materials in basic ways, touching, smelling, or moving things around, for example, before they are ready to progress in how they play and learn with these materials.

Language, literacy and concept skills are often delayed, so we are very pur- poseful in how we plan and support improving children’s understandings and skills in these areas of learning. We purposefully focus on experiences that pro- mote learning about everyday living, such as shopping, the days of the week and the sequence of routines such as dressing or meal times and developing shared rules for living and playing together. We believe that every interaction with a child is important. We provide literacy and language enrichment experiences through music, stories, play and conversations. We model clarity in articulation, and we listen carefully and allow unhurried wait times for responses from the children. We model the language of empathy by acknowledging children’s feel- ings – “I know you feel cross when you have to wait” and offering our support – “Would you like me to help you with that?” We also respect a child’s right for time away from others or for individual time with one of us.

Teamwork is necessary when educators are engaged in meaningful conversations with children to extend their thinking and learning, as Kate explains:

Teamwork is very important. For example, when one educator is deeply engaged with two children, the other educators respect the importance of this and take

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Reimagining family partnerships 105

responsibility for working with the other children. As a team we hope to convey a sense of enjoying learning together with the children and their families.

Focusing on attachment

While all the children have experienced or continue to experience trauma or stress for different reasons, we notice that some of the children are independent in self- help skills and are good observers. We understand those skills might come from the need to be hyper-vigilant to avoid harm or because adults are not always able to meet their physical needs. Being physically and emotionally available to the chil- dren for comfort and to support their sense of being safe is important. We sit with them rather than hovering over them as that adds to their anxiousness. When children feel safe, they are ready to explore, play and to enjoy learning with others.

Kate’s reflections and practical ideas indicate her understanding of attachment theories and the impact of stress and trauma on children’s wellbeing, learning and development. McLean (2014, p. 195) argues for “conceptual clarity and rigour in applying the concept of attachment to the care of vulnerable children.” Attachment theories identify different attachment styles and different attachment patterns. Young children filter their life experiences through their sense of safety, the reliability of the adults who care for them and their feelings of self worth (McLean, 2014, p. 197). Attachment with caring others is central to children’s sense of safety and their sense of self worth.

The Early Years Learning Framework recognises the importance of attachment in both the Principles and Practices. Principle 1. Secure, respectful and recipro- cal relationships states, “Babies’ first attachments within their families and within other trusting relationships provide them with a secure base for exploration and learning” (Early Years Learning Framework, p. 12). Identifying the type of rela- tionships, environments, routines and pedagogy that supports every child to feel safe, secure and valued is an ethical responsibility for educators.

Supporting educators’ wellbeing

Educators working with children and families living with complex risk factors, including trauma or significant disadvantage, often face ongoing challenges in their workplace that require targeted or specific strategies to ensure their wellbe- ing is not compromised. Research indicates that educators whose wellbeing is compromised or who are depressed themselves are less likely to be emotionally available or attuned to the needs of children and their families. They are also more likely to take stress or sick leave or to leave the service, which impacts on continuity of provision for children and families (Hamre & Pianta, 2004; Mor- rison, 2007; Shonkoff, 2011).

While vicarious stress or trauma is recognised in the welfare sector in particu- lar, it is not widely understood in the education and care sector. Recognising the nature of vicarious stress or trauma and its impact on staff is an important issue

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

106 Kennedy

for management and leadership teams working in the education and care sector. Vicarious stress or trauma is a normal response to the impact of working con- stantly and closely with children and families who are traumatised and stressed by their life experiences. Vicarious stress or trauma impacts on staff mental, physical and emotional wellbeing (Morrison, 2007).

Research and evidence-based practice identify organisational and personal or self-care strategies to support the management of vicarious stress and trauma (Bell, Kulkarni, & Dalton, 2003; Morrison, 2007). Self-care strategies, including regular exercise, maintaining outside interests or hobbies and debriefing with trusted others, can support educators in managing their stress levels at work.

Organisational strategies, including providing staff with regular access to quali- fied reflective supervisors for debriefing and support, building a culture of peer support in the service and providing ongoing professional learning on related topics to increase the shared and individual professional knowledge base, are important practices. Margaret, a coordinator of a child care centre, comments on how she recognises and responds to stress in staff:

As the coordinator, I support staff to recognise there are limits to what the centre can do and provide. We do what we can and we also need to have a break, to rest and recover from our complex work during the holiday period.

Regular staff meetings with a focused agenda and respect for every member’s contribution support reflection, reviewing and changing practice in response to shared discussion on significant issues.

Collaborative practice strategies

Education and care services engaging with families and children living with sig- nificant risk and disadvantage understand the value of collaborating with fami- lies, other professionals, agencies and community members. They recognise that some families and children require more comprehensive and coordinated sup- port networks and services. The principles of family-centred practice and inclu- sion affirm the value of collaborative partnership approaches (Dunst, 2002).

The following examples for supporting families and children show collabora- tive practice in action.

• books available free to families through a community group that collects books from local schools and then distributes them to local education and care services,

• free fresh fruit and vegetables organised by a local church-based charity and made available for families in a child care centre,

• clothing “swap” stall in the foyer maintained by families with support from the centre coordinator,

• a partnership with a local high school and garden nursery supported the development of a vegetable garden in a preschool. Food is grown, harvested, cooked and shared with families,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .