Keywords

Introduction

In this section, that also functions as our theoretical frame, we will take a closer look at parental professional collaboration from two perspectives. We will first describe previous studies conducted on FPC and after that take a closer look specifically at the UK context in this matter.

Previous Studies on Family-Professional Collaboration

Children’s learning is happening within an ecology of home and early childhood education context. The sociocultural theory suggests that social interaction plays a fundamental role in an individual’s life, and our cognitive functions are formed based on our interactions with others around us (Vygotsky, 1978). The parental collaboration has been highlighted in recent research (Garvis et al., 2021; Garvis et al., 2019; Purola et al., 2021). This is due to the fact that parental professional collaboration in early years has been identified to have a positive outcome on multiple aspects of a child’s development. However, this collaboration is not always easy in practice. According to Alasuutari (2010) one challenge in this collaboration is to agree on the interpretation of partnership and participation for all partners (see also Cheatham & Santos, 2011). Mahmood (2013) agrees and states that teachers can also find this collaboration challenging. Therefore, teachers on all levels need expert skills in collaborating and engaging with the parents of the child (see for instance Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Mahmood, 2013; Uusimäki et al., 2019). According to Xu and Gulosino (2006), teacher quality is one of the important factors affecting this teacher-parent partnership and therefore the teacher education should focus more on teacher behavior attributes (see also Mahmood, 2013). In parental professional collaboration, parents are not equally equipped to support their child, to find the needed support or know how to support. According to Burke et al. (2014, 2016) in a special education context, parents might need advocates to help them to receive the needed support for their child in a complex educational support system. Therefore, it is important to note that both professionals and parents need support to have a successful collaboration. Due to this, Chan and Ritchie (2016) highlight a need to move from hegemonic safe zones of traditional teacher-dominated practices toward opening up spaces of dialogic, fluid engagement with families. This is important in an era of increasing super diversity and especially with families whose background differs from the teacher’s own (Bergroth & Palviainen, 2016; Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Cheatham & Santos, 2011; Garvis et al., 2019; Garvis et al., 2021; Uusimäki et al., 2019). Parents’ expectations regarding parental professional collaboration also vary (Laloumi-Vidali, 1998). In a study conducted by Laloumi-Vidali (1998), parents had high expectations for collaboration with teachers about solving their personal problems with their child, ensuring the best care for their child, and keeping their child happy at the preschool with fun activities while the parents work. In another study conducted by Pianta et al. (2001) parental perspective of the teacher was in general positive and preschool staff was seen as an important and helpful source of support for the parents (see further Uusimäki et al., 2019; Purola et al., 2021).

Teachers have different ways to implement parental participation in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) according to Venninen and Purola (2013). For example, they can take a professional perspective and an expert role in the discussion with parents. In the customer approach the teachers take a role that is liked with keeping the parents satisfied regarding the services. This can be highlighted especially in contexts where the parents are paying high fees for their child’s educational services. And finally, professionals can take a partnership perspective that combines these two previous perspectives, and this perspective has a possibility to overcome difficulties within the co-operational context. Teachers in general are found to have a positive attitude toward parental co-operation and parents’ involvement in early childhood education (Hakyemez-Paul et al., 2018). Mahmood (2013) suggested that teachers serving their first years observed challenges in their social interaction with parents and emotions regarding the nature and power issues of social interaction with parents. These challenges were identified to be caused by lack of reciprocity, difficulties of building relationships, power-dependence, and social identity of early childhood teachers. Further, Hakyemez-Paul et al. (2018) revealed that even though teachers expressed positive emotions regarding the collaboration with parents that these positive attitudes were somewhat superficial and ECEC educators wanted to restrict education to institutions and regard parents as passive. Both Mahmood (2013) and Hakyemez-Paul et al. (2018) found also that teachers felt some parents were not interested to participate, and poor motivation and lack of time of both teachers and parents caused difficulties in interaction.

It is important to note, that different learning spaces in different cultures define partnership with the parents from different perspectives. The contemporary challenges of the parent-teacher partnerships in early childhood education were identified from a cross-cultural perspective in the research of International Parent-Professional Partnership study (Hujala et al., 2009). There were differences in teachers’ approaches to parent-teacher partnerships between countries as well as within each country based on the level of public versus private services, level of educational policies and binding documents guiding the practices of ECEC services, and social understanding of the role of ECEC. The differences in the professional teacher status in each country were connected to the parents’ role and power issues in the parent-teacher partnerships in ECEC services. In the UK the parental co-operation and partnership was found to be one of the key development points in early childhood services including ECEC through the Sure Start program (Lewis, 2011). Sure Start was started for parental and family services with the aim to “help to ensure that children, particularly those at risk of social exclusion are ready to learn when they arrive at school” where strong involvement of parents was in the central goal (Lewis, 2011). How the partnership between families and service providers is structured and understood is dependent on the political, societal, and cultural changes in the national context (see also Laloumi-Vidali, 1998). Also, according to Vlasov and Hujala (2017), a significant role in supporting families with young children lies with the ECEC services where families meet teachers and staff daily basis. Therefore, the parents’ nor teachers’ interpretation of the collaboration is not the only determinant, but other societal and cultural factors are premises for the success of this collaboration (Hujala et al., 2009).

Family-Professional Collaboration in the UK

In the UK (see also Chap. 4) early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework (2021) sets the standards that all school and childcare providers must meet when it comes to learning, development, and care of children from birth to five years. The EYFS seeks to provide the following for every child attending the early years’ education:

  • “Quality and consistency in all early year’s settings, so that every child makes good progress, and no child gets left behind;

  • a secure foundation through planning for the learning and development of each individual child, and assessing and reviewing what they have learned regularly;

  • partnership working between practitioners and with parents and/or carers;

  • equality of opportunity and anti-discriminatory practice, ensuring that every child is included and supported” (2021, p. 5).

EYFS also states the reasons for this partnership as follows (p. 7): “providers must work in partnership with parents and/or carers, to promote the learning and development of all children in their care and to ensure they are ready for year 1,” and further it clarifies somewhat the role between the providers and parents: “Parents and/or carers should be kept up to date with their child’s progress and development. Practitioners should address any learning and development needs in partnership with parents and/or carers, and any relevant professionals” (p. 18). The EYFS definitions for parental involvement (PI) and collaboration provided by EYFS are very inexact, giving providers different possibilities to interpret the text. However, for EYFS there is also supporting material available by Foundation Years (2022) which provide the latest news, policies, and resources for early years professionals. It is important to note, that these are non-statutory.

As stated before, there is research evidence that parental involvement in their child’s education leads to better academic attainment for the child in school (Clarke, 2010; Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Epstein, 2001; Lewis, 2011). While supportive parents who come along well with education services and teaching staff can scaffold children’s cognitive and social development, it is also shown that parent having lack of resources or suffering social problems can prevent children’s socialization and development. The concern with parental engagement, or lack of it, stems from a number of different motivations: reach those families and children who are “hard to reach” and being at risk of social exclusion; ensuring that ECEC services reflect and respond to parents’ and children’s needs; ensuring that services are genuinely universal and available in order to avoid possible stigma associated with child care and education services; and building social capital and communal capacities especially in socially excluded areas by reducing the costs associated with social exclusion (Clarke, 2010). This has been recognized by the government of the UK already decades ago (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). For instance, in 2003 the department for education and skills (2003, p. 39) published an important policy document called Every Child Matters and Sure Start program reflected the focus on parents as much as children (Lewis, 2011). In Every Child Matters program (2003), the government acknowledged that the bond between the parent and their child is the most crucial influence on a child’s life. In the Sure Start program parents’ involvement was shown to emphasize on children’s cognitive development (Lewis, 2011). Further, it highlighted parents have an important impact on their child’s behavior, mental health, and educational outcome. The Sure Start program also involved parents’ participation in ECEC services and put efforts to increase parental self-esteem and confidence through partnership and social interaction with teaching staff in ECEC but also with other social care services (Lewis, 2011). In Scotland a national program called Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), founded in 2006, endorses new thinking and best practice for professionals working with families to promote a positive shift in the working culture. The program unifies and coordinates policies, services, and programs for children and young people. GIRFEC is based on children’s rights, and its principles reflect the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Their approach:

  • is child-focused;

  • is based on an understanding of wellbeing of a child in their current situation;

  • is based on tackling needs early;

  • requires joined-up working.

This approach is also linked with governmental policies, and it has been highlighted as an important influencer for the UK as well (Cheung, 2018, p. 61). Despite these programs and policy guidance, there is a gap between rhetoric and reality, creating barriers for parental involvement (PI) (Bercow, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Further, the Bercow (2018) Report points out toward a system in the UK of fractured services and high levels of inequality for children. The support you get depends on where you live or where you go to school. According to Hornby and Lafaele (2011), there are multiple reasons for the gap between what is said and what is done. These barriers include (Fig. 11.1) (a) parent and family factors like parents’ beliefs about PI, parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement, and parents’ current life contexts, class, ethnicity, and gender; (b) child factors like age, learning difficulties and disabilities, gifts and talents, behavioral problems; (c) parent-teacher factors like goals and agendas, attitudes, language, and (d) societal factors like historic and demographic factors, political factors, and economic factors. This model is developed to help in identifying barriers within parental involvement. Further, a recent adaptation has been presented to the model to reflect the interactions among the different factors as well as to include the broader context of the society (Fan et al., 2018).

Fig. 11.1
A block diagram lists 4 sets of factors as follows. Individual parent and family which includes parents' beliefs about P I, class, ethnicity, and gender, child factors like age, learning difficulties, and disabilities, parent-teacher factors like differing goals and agendas, and societal factors.

Model of factors acting as barriers to PI (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011, p. 39)

Full size image

This sociocultural-oriented research is largely influenced by latest empirical research connected to FPC. The aim of this chapter is to take a closer look at how, on practice level, teachers describe in one preschool their implementation of FPC as well as with children with SEN. This is done to highlight the professional’s view on collaboration, which has received less of research attention in the recent years. Our research question is “What practices based on the EYFS have been implemented regarding parental engagement in the case study preschool?”

Method and Participants

In this study we engage with a single case study. Case study is in this research used to generate an in-depth understanding of what type of practices are implemented in a preschool context, in real-life. This type of design is used extensively, especially in educational sciences. According to Cousin (2005), a case study aims to explore and depict a setting with a view to advance our understanding. Further, Merriam (1998) gives a more in-depth explanation of the method. According to Merriam (1998, p. 27) the “single most defining characteristic of case study research lies in delimiting the object of study: the case” that can be “fenced in” and studied within the boundaries determined by the researcher or the research team. From these premises, in this research, our aim is in line with Brown’s (2008, p. 10) views as following:

The in-depth focus on the particular within a bounded system can help provide a holistic view of a situation. It is a view that includes the context as well as the details of an individual. Case studies do provide a humanistic, holistic understanding of complex situations, and as such are valuable research tools. (2008, p. 10)

When it comes to a case study, there are no specific data collection methods, rather than strive for holistic descriptions and explanations on the studied phenomenon; however, interviews can be considered as the most used (Merriam, 1998). Also, the sampling of the people within the case can be conducted in multiple ways. It can be typical, be unique, show maximum variation within the group, and so on (Merriam, 1998). In this study, we used an expert sampling. We chose to interview a preschool director with multiple years of leadership experience within the field, including his/her team that already had a clear understanding of the EYFS and other policy documents guiding the field of early education in the UK. The researcher team has been in contact with the preschool previously in developmental projects. Therefore, the setting as well as the personnel was well known. The email interview was conducted online, due to the distance between the research team and the preschool. Multiple questions were delivered to the working team of the preschool, and they were collectively studied and answered by the team. The collective answers were then emailed to the researchers, and the research team was able to ask clarifying questions if needed. The textual data was then studied with the help of thematic content analysis. This refers to a method of analysis that allows us to draw reproducible and valid inferences from texts to their contexts of use (Krippendorf, 2018; Patton, 2002). Then the research team thematized the data according to the model of factors acting as barriers to PI (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011, p. 39). These categories were (a) parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement, parents’ current life contexts, class, ethnicity, and gender; (b) child factors like age, learning difficulties and disabilities, gifts and talents, behavioral problems; (c) parent-teacher factors like goals and agendas, attitudes, language; and (d) societal factors like historic and demographic factors, political factors, and economic factors.

Results

The research question of this study was “What practices based on the EYFS have been implemented regarding parental engagement in the nursery?” The results of this study will be analyzed and presented with the help of Hornby and Lafaele (2011, p. 39) model’s four factors working as barriers toward the parent involvement. These four factors are (1) individual, parent, and family factors; (2) child factors; (3) parent-teacher factors; and (4) societal factors. In the next section, we will explain our findings in these factors closer.

Individual, Parent, and Family Factors

According to the teachers the individual, parent, and family factors were visible only a few times in the parental engagement activities that were implemented. These factors included statements of parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement, and parents’ current life contexts, class, ethnicity, and gender. The nursery invited parents for events multiple times during the year but did only in a few statements take into consideration what type of thought the parents had about the nursery. For instance, the preschool sent feedback forms to parents to get their views on the settling-in process and the preschool sent out questionnaires to parents to receive their feedback on their experiences. The preschool stated this as follows: “We send parents feedback forms post settling in to get their views on how the process went” and “Twice a year we send out a questionnaire to parents on their overall experience of the nursery.” These all are communication that easily becomes one way, while the parents nor the personnel do not receive a possibility for a mutual discussion that creates mutual understanding.

Child Factors

Child factors are stated as important in both policy documents and across research literature. These factors include the child’s age, learning difficulties and disabilities, gifts, and talents as well as behavioral problems. Much of the information that the parents received, according to the nursery, was educative to its essence, and the communication was one way, going from nursery toward parents. The parents did receive information through a document at the begging when their child started his/her early education path. This document was created based on the feedback from the parents and included much of other information regarding child development:

We have a pre-settle guide for parents with lots of advice and what to expect for parents during their child’s settling at nursery…The pre-settle guide was created based on parents’ feedback on what they thought their child would be doing initial when starting nursery and with lots of issues with parents about their children experiencing sleep and food regression. This guide is such a useful tool for parents and has helped with parents being able to use this as a go to guide to measure their expectations.

Parents were also guided in health and educational questions by the nursery. They organized monthly classes for parents and worked with professionals to support the children.

Monthly parent classes which give parents the chance to meet and talk and the theme of the talks is based on parents’ requests (Occupational therapy, sleep therapy etc.) and Working with health professionals to support children with seizures and creating health care plans for the children who attend.

Contact was kept with the family through an app, which made a more individual approach possible. This was seen as very helpful by the personnel for them to support the child in the best way possible.

Daily messaging on our parents’ app to adjust their child’s routine based on how they slept at home or if they are under the weather.

Therefore, much of the child factors were connected to educating the parents. The nursery’s perspective on child development was seen as a very important one regarding, and they would hope that the parents would agree on that. This was stated by the personnel as follows:

I would like to see parents truly understanding what is really important for their children to be learning in their first 5 years—and to see a shift in parents’ knowledge on what core skills the children should be supported with rather than just reading and writing.

Parent-Teacher Factors

Parent-teacher factors include goals and agendas, attitudes, and language-related factors. The nursery personnel did not actively, at least in their statements, advocate for parent-teacher factors in other statements than by organizing parental evenings and council meetings. These were mentioned only two times throughout the answers. However, the nursery organized bi-monthly parental meetings and parental council meetings three times per year, which can be considered often. Therefore, there are possibilities for personnel and families to meet; however, it is unclear if this leads to discussions about goals and provides opportunities to strengthen the mutual understanding. This was stated as following:

We have a parent’s council which meet three times a year and bring the voice of the parents to the senior management.

Societal Factors

Societal factors include factors like historic and demographic factors, political factors, and economic factors. Some of these are factors that are sometimes impossible to change. However, it is possible for instance to support parents in the societal support and governmental funding. The teachers specifically highlighted their role in applying for funding for the child with special needs for the child to receive the support needed. This was stated as following:

Working with parents to create robust reports based on child’s needs, learning growth in order to receive government funding to support their child and costs associated with additional support for their daughter who had autism. Accurate, factual report keeping was paramount in order to show that there child needed additional funding in order to make progress and supporting them through the statementing process.

As a summary of the results, the focus in nursery care parental involvement in this case study was in educating parents in child-related factors. Less mentions were found in individual, parent and family factors, parent-teacher factors, and societal factors. The communication, as stated in the descriptions provided by the nursery, was often one way. Leaving less room for mutual communication, discussions, and joint questions. Therefore, much of the implementations were traditional teacher-dominated practices without opening spaces for dialogic and fluid engagement with families.

Discussion

FPC has been identified to have a positive outcome on multiple aspects of the child’s development. It is therefore important that good professional collaboration with parents is highlighted through the child’s educational path. Thus, it is important to understand that different countries define as well as implement family professional partnership from different perspectives. In the UK, the early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework (2021) sets the standards for this work throughout the country. The aim of this chapter was to take a closer look at how, on practice level, teachers describe in one preschool their implementation of FPC as well as with children with SEN. In this study we engage with a single case study. This case study generated a more in-depth understanding of what type of practices are implemented in a nursery context, in real-life. However, the results are also very limited to teacher perspective and raised multiple further questions, that we will take a closer look at toward the end of this section. Our interpretation of the results is that the communication was stated as very much as “one way” and educative, going from the nursery toward the parents. According to Alsuutari (2010) the professional collaboration with parents can sometimes be challenging. One challenge in this collaboration is to agree on the interpretation of partnership and participation for all partners (see also Cheatham & Santos, 2011). Finally how in prantal co-operation for instance power issues, social exclusion, and inclusion is structured and understood is dependent on the political, societal, and cultural context of the country (Clarke, 2010; Laloumi-Vidali, 1998). Therefore, there needs to be enough of space also for joint discussion and interpretations of the partnership and moving away from teacher-dominated actions.

Despite policy guidance, there is a gap between rhetoric and reality, creating barriers for parental involvement (PI) (Bercow, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Further, Hornby and Lafaele (2011) argue that there are multiple reasons for the gap between what is said and what is done to exist. In this study we were able to identify multiple gaps, at least in the statements. As stated by Venninen and Purola (2013), these different perspectives the ECEC teachers use when they approach parental co-operation shape the forms of partnership and involvement the ECEC centers offer for parents. For example, teachers with the customer approach might understand the parent satisfaction as the driving force especially when parents are paying high fees for the education services and exclude parents with social or economic challenges while teachers with professional approach might use social power over the parents’ needs and wishes. Venninen and Purola (2013) suggest that participatory partnership that combines these two perspectives and has an opportunity to overcome difficulties in co-operation.

This study was a first attempt for our research group to take a closer look at the parental collaboration in the UK context. After analyzing the results, it is evident that further research is needed. For instance, to see what the reality is in the nurseries. Therefore, a further observational study would be an option. Also, it would be important to take a closer look at how the parental collaboration is conducted in practice according to the parent. Therefore, we suggest that further studies would be aimed at the different partners in collaborative networks in nurseries. This, to get a broad view of the phenomenon. In this study, according to the results, the existing gaps were related, purely and simply to communication and to teacher-dominated actions. This is something that Chan and Ritchie (2016) also highlight. They argue for a need to move from hegemonic safe zones of traditional teacher-dominated practices toward opening up spaces of dialogic, fluid engagement with families. This is important in an era of increasing super diversity and especially with families whose background differs from teacher’s own (Bergroth & Palviainen, 2016; Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Cheatham & Santos, 2011; Garvis et al., 2019; Garvis et al., 2021).