EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Preparing For Life€¦ · Mean Wave 1 Mean Wave 2 Mean Wave 3 Setting A 3.9...

S T R E N G T H E N I N G F O U N D AT I O N S O F L E A R N I N G | E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 1

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Northside Partnership NS_Partnership Northside Partnership

N Ó I R Í N H A Y E S E M M A B Y R N E - M A C N A M E E T R I O N A R O O N E Y J U D Y I R W I N

S T R E N G T H E N I N G F O U N D AT I O N S O F L E A R N I N G | E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y2


Introduction:The Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL] project was originally conceptualised as a quality improvement programme, building on previous work undertaken by the Preparing for Life Initiative, in which early childhood services were supported through a mentoring programme, to meet quality standards. To create an identity for this new programme it was agreed to name it Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL]. This name captures the dual ambitions of the initiative to build the capacity and confidence of the early childhood educators [ECEs] and, through this, to create a solid base for enhancing the learning of the young children attending the early childhood settings.

The SFL Model:SFL was a collaborative, community level programme led by a dedicated team comprising a project manager, a quality mentor and a HSE seconded speech and language therapist. The programme was designed to impact on the ‘quality’ of early childhood education and care [ECEC] practices, in order to positively enhance pedagogy and the learning environment towards the broader ambition of influencing the early educational experiences of children, within the targeted communities. Located within the national curriculum framework Aistear (NCCA, 2009), this programme aimed to address and encompass both local realities and national priorities.

The team developed a pre-programme strategy to engage collaboratively with the local community and key stakeholders in order to design an implementation strategy that would fit with needs, expectations and capacity. This strategy was underpinned by six key principles:

+ Sustained Planning and Exploring

+ Iterative and Cumulative

+ Data Driven

+ Working with local resources/services

+ Informed by Policy Initiatives

+ Strengths-Based

The SFL model involved a sustained engagement with ECEC settings over a period of three years. At an early stage of planning a process of extensive consultation with potential participants was undertaken and the team set about designing an innovative, iterative Continuing Professional Development [CPD] programme. It comprises four primary components with a number of sub-elements [see Figure One]: Curriculum Foundations; Animating Aistear; Speech, Language and Communication and Effective Pedagogical Leadership [See Figure One]. The model was designed to be responsive to local capacity, building on existing strengths within the community determined by a pre-programme consultation.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Strengthening Foundations of Learning Model

The SFL Process:The quality of everyday experiences in early childhood environments has a profound influence on children’s early learning and development. Adults who are attuned, who are ‘watchfully attentive’ and who are mindful in their day-to-day practices with children can make an important and positive contribution to their learning and development. A central feature of effective ECEC relates to the quality of communication, which influences the quality of children’s communications skills, thinking and overall learning and development.

Effective professional development enhances quality practices and yield favourable outcomes particularly when CPD experiences are targeted to the needs of staff in a meaningful context. Key features common to effective programmes include:

+ The active involvement of early years practitioners

+ Locating the programme within practice

+ Availability of mentoring support during non-contact time

+ Situating the programme within a coherent curriculum framework (Peeters et al, 2014)

In keeping with international evidence the SFL model evolved from a recognised need in the community and so the evaluation had to occur in the context of programmes already underway.

StrengtheningFoundationsofLearning

Pre-ProgrammePlanning

SustainabilityPlanning

CurriculumFoundations

Speech,Language

and

CommunicationAnimatingAistear

ConsultationandDataCollection

CommunicationFriendlyEnvironm

ent

LearningEnvironment

LearningLanguage

andLovingIt(Hanen)

PlayonWords

ABCandBeyond(Hanen)

Planningand

Assessing

PedagogicalLeadership

CPD

Induction


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Strengthening Foundations of Learning Process

Eight early childhood settings were selected to participate in the programme. All were based in areas classified as ‘Disadvantaged’ or ‘Very Disadvantaged’ on the Deprivation Index (Haase and Pratschke, 2012). A decision was made to narrow the criteria for participation in the programme to staff working with children eligible for the Free Pre School Year (age 3-4 years).

The total number of individual participants who took part in one or more element of the SFL initiative was 97. Designed to run over the 3-year period of its existence January 2014 – December 2016 all elements of the programme were explicitly linked to the Aistear curriculum framework (NCCA, 2009).

9

• Locating the programme within practice

• Availability of mentoring support during non-contact time

• Situating the programme within a coherent curriculum framework (Peeters et al,

2014)

In keeping with international evidence the SFL model evolved from a recognised need in

the community and so the evaluation had to occur in the context of programmes already

underway.

Figure Two: Strengthening Foundations of Learning Process

Eight early childhood settings were selected to participate in the programme. All were based

in areas classified as ‘Disadvantaged’ or ‘Very Disadvantaged’ on the Deprivation Index

(Haase and Pratschke, 2012). A decision was made to narrow the criteria for participation

in the programme to staff working with children eligible for the Free Pre School Year (age


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Method:Evaluation Approach:

The evaluation used a blend of the formative and outcome/effectiveness approaches. It is a formative evaluation because it was conducted as this new SFL model of early childhood education CPD was being developed. In this context, formative evaluations can show whether the programme components are acceptable to the population. This is useful as it allows for modifications to be made as the process of the programme is still underway. The evaluation is also an outcome/effectiveness evaluation because it is measuring the extent to which it has impacted on the pedagogical practices and language of the participants. Such an evaluation can show the degree to which a programme is having an effect on a particular population – in this instance the early years educators. The combination of evaluation approaches allows for a deep consideration of the context within which a programme has been implemented and can provide rich explanation for impacts achieved or not.

Evaluation Instruments:

To capture the impact of all elements of the SFL programme on the eight settings the environmental quality of each setting was examined at three points [beginning, midpoint, endpoint] using the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales – Revised Edition [ECERS-R] (Harmes et al, 1998) and the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales – Extension [ECERS-E] (Sylva et al. revised edition, 2006). This was regarded as one method, which could offer an independent measure of service quality over time.

The impact of the Curriculum Foundations and Animating Aistear components on the quality of pedagogical practice was assessed through a variety of qualitative methods drawing on the data collected over the course of the SFL programme. Feedback from the participants was gathered in a variety of ways including interviews, questionnaires, evaluation sheets and team field notes.

A pre and post initiative interview was carried out with a setting participant in each of the eight settings. The interview schedule used was an adaptation of that used by Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) in the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years [REPEY] project.

The impact of the Speech, Language and Communication component was assessed using the Teacher Interaction and Language Scale [Girolametto et al. 2000]. This instrument provides a rating scale of 11 items relevant to appropriate language use in early years settings. The Pre-school Language Scales Fifth Edition UK (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond (2014) was also used.

Key Findings:Several important findings emerged from the evaluation of the SFL programme. It is clear that educators’ learning went beyond amending the learning environments, or enhancing their practice and pedagogical language towards achieving, and articulating, an enhanced sense of professional identity. During the variety of training workshops, coaching and mentoring sessions, educators were enabled to consider and reflect on their role in creating, maintaining and designing the learning environment and enhancing the language and learning of the young children attending the setting. Quotes from various written sources collected over lifetime of the project demonstrate an increased awareness of personal pedagogy, professional practice and oral language development and explicitly make references to the role of planning and assessment within the context of the Aistear framework. Respondents also acknowledged the importance of realising the rights of the children, the value of consultation (within staff teams and with children), the power of reflection, individually and in groups and of reviewing and evaluating setting-wide practices. In addition, the critical role of the ECE in the oral language development of children was acknowledged and development in their communication skills and knowledge led to enhanced language practices in settings.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the purposes of this report the sources analysed comprised both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings presented below draw mainly on the quantitative data with some reference to the rich qualitative evidence available in the main body of this report.

Setting Quality:Three waves of assessment were carried out in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The scale used was the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales [ECERS] where scores are interpreted according to the following -1 (Inadequate); 2; 3 (Minimal); 4; 5 (Good); 6; 7 (Excellent). The intention was to monitor changes in

Setting Quality

the quality of the early learning environments. The aggregate score for each setting across each of the three waves is outlined in Table One below:

Two settings (Setting D and Setting E) showed consistent improvement in their mean quality rating over time. Settings A, C and H showed a decline in their overall rating score with Setting A moving from an above Minimal rating at Wave1 to below Minimal at wave 3. Settings B and G declined slightly in Wave 2 and an overall (if slight) improvement by Wave 3. Setting C showed quality rating improvement at Wave 2, which declined at Wave 3, while Setting H showed a decline in Wave 2 and disengaged from the project around this time also.

12

according to the following -1 (Inadequate); 2; 3 (Minimal); 4; 5 (Good); 6; 7 (Excellent).

The intention was to monitor changes in the quality of the early learning environments. The

aggregate score for each setting across each of the three waves is outlined in Table One

below:

Table One: Setting Quality

Mean Wave 1 Mean Wave 2 Mean Wave 3

Setting A 3.9 2.9 2.8

Setting B

3.3 3.1 4.4

Setting C 3.7 3.5 3.3

Setting D

2.6 3.1 3.6

Setting E

3.9 5.2 5.3

Setting F

3.2 2.9 3.3

Setting G

3.8 3.4 4.1

Setting H

3.6 3.1 Disengaged

Two settings (Setting D and Setting E) showed consistent improvement in their mean

quality rating over time. Settings A, C and H showed a decline in their overall rating score

with Setting A moving from an above Minimal rating at Wave1 to below Minimal at wave

3. Settings B and G declined slightly in Wave 2 and an overall (if slight) improvement by

Wave 3. Setting C showed quality rating improvement at Wave 2, which declined at Wave

3, while Setting H showed a decline in Wave 2 and disengaged from the project around this

time also.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Curriculum Foundations:In the final stages of the Curriculum Foundations element, participants were asked to work in their setting groups to combine a visual representation of their agreed ideals and objectives and, using their own words, to describe the key elements of their setting curriculum and the outcomes they foresee for children. The work from each setting was then combined to produce a setting-specific ‘Curriculum Statement’.

Towards the end of the overall SFL initiative, project participants were invited to review their first Curriculum Statements and, in the light of the learning over the course of the project to make any alterations they felt necessary. Examples of before and after Curriculum Statements show evidence of enhanced understanding of the importance of Aistear and explicitly locate these more complex understandings within the second statement. Some also include a celebration of the children and developed more welcoming and inclusive Curriculum Statements than the original ones.

Animating Aistear:Learning Environment:

Drawing on feedback questionnaires on this element of Animating Aistear component respondents identified that the most useful knowledge/experience gained was their enhanced understanding and implementation of Aistear and its themes (n=30) followed by changes to the setting (n=6), sharing ideas with other early years groups (n=3) as well as the presentations, meetings, and cluster groups (n=6). Many of the answers given overlapped or intersected. Two settings in particular spent time discussing the children’s role in the change process and how they could be involved in decisions that would affect them. At a three-month review of this element findings indicated that the changes to settings had led to increased learning opportunities for the children especially in relation to imaginary play, both indoors and outdoors.

Planning and Assessment:

Over the course of the implementation period the SFL Team classified the level of engagement by individual settings at yearly intervals, according to the quality of involvement experienced by the team during the relevant timeframe. Level 1 indicates superficial engagement; Level 2, some meaningful engagement and Level 3 indicates full engagement.

The majority of settings (six out of eight) were somewhat meaningfully engaged in the first phase of the project (at Level 2), with two settings struggling in the earliest phase. By the following year (2014), one setting had reached full engagement, while five others had improved or maintained their level of engagement and two had decreased their level from 2 to 1. By 2015, all remaining settings (7 out of the original 8) were engaging well. 2016 emerged as the most engaged year for the majority of settings, with two settings (A and F) showing limited engagement.

The eight settings were interviewed at pre-programme stage [T1], however only seven were usable in the thematic analysis. Six post-programme completed interviews were analysed with room leader [T2]. In aggregate the T2 interview data indicated a notable shift in the complexity and focus of the answers reflecting a growing familiarity with the pedagogical language of early childhood practice. At T2 the impact of the SFL programme was evident in the reflective answers gathered as exemplified by the quote below in response to the question on using scrapbooks/learning portfolios as a form of documenting learning:

“Yes, we do. The kids take them home, they don’t tell us, but they take them home, they just own them, they are in shreds some of them, but they absolutely love them. Mammy’s and Daddy’s love them and they see what we do with them and say, “oh you do that with them, I didn’t realise you did that … So, the old observations they didn’t, they were very boring, but the picture tells a story …… the great thing about the book is that you can go back to it and even for dates because you are working fast on them at the time, so we do go back. We just went back on it at a staff meeting on Friday, so the staff went back and done their links.”


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Respondents were also aware of the challenges in applying their learning and utilising the possibilities of the Aistear framework to full effect. There was particular concern expressed about the absence of any non-contact time within their contract for reflection and review.

(i) Speech, language and communication:

To assess the impact of Learning Language and Loving It the Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale (TILRS) (Girolametto, Weitzman, & Greenberg, 2000) was used. Data was collected at 4 different time points and compared to a baseline [Time 1] of how consistently the participants were using the interaction and language-prompting strategies prior to the programme. Data was collected under a number of headings and statistical analysis was carried out to measure change over time.

Under the Child Oriented Strategies analysis showed that, for all 38 participants, each item was statistically different from the Time 1 measure at all the other 3 Time Points.

The Language Modelling Strategies analysis found some variation across strategies with some, such as Extend, improving significantly while others, such as Use a Variety of Labels or Expand, showed positive trends over time. For Interaction Promoting Strategies analysis found an increase over time with a slight decrease in use over time in evidence of Variety of Questions and Scan strategies.

The ABC and Beyond™ element of the Hanen Programme was assessed under three sections - Turns book reading into a conversation; Fosters print knowledge and Builds phonological awareness. Completed data analysis was available for 12 of the original 22 participants at the conclusion of the evaluation and findings show that there was an improvement in the frequency of use of all strategies assessed.

A small pilot study, Play on Words, was developed by the SFL speech and language therapist and carried out with a small number of staff and settings towards the end of the programme. 24 children were assessed using the Pre-school Language Scales (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond (2014). Initial assessments indicated small gains in language skills over the period of six months with significantly more children achieving language skills in the average range. In addition, the Early Childhood Educators were trained to use the Early Communication and Language Rating Scale from the National Strategies in the UK to rate language skills in children. Feedback from ECEs was that the rating scale was easy to administer, did not take very long and was useful for them to recognise children at risk of delay.

(ii) Effective pedagogical leadership:

Participant feedback on completion of the final element of the Animating Aistear component indicated that participants found the Workshops very valuable and reported feeling “empowered” and “supported” as well as “challenged”.

Their feedback on the individual visits was universally positive, with all participants articulating the benefits of having a “safe space” to be “solution focused” as well as expressing their belief that connecting to the Workshop content through follow up mentoring visits enhanced the “effectiveness of the input”. All participants expressed the need for “further follow-up” and an interest in being part of a “Leadership Network”. Further feedback, which was sought from participants in mid-2018 has emphasised the importance of the CPD. Over 80% of respondents found the opportunity for reflection and self-assessment to be the most beneficial aspect of this element, followed by the opportunity to meet other managers (67%) and engage with relevant research and content related to current policy and practice (50%). Most respondents indicated that the positive impact had been sustained and sometimes improved. Where the positive impact has not been sustained, this was described as “due to a lot of issues arising beyond our control”.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conclusion and Key Recommendations:The SFL model was designed to take account of the current evidence relating to the most effective CPD approaches in ECEC professional development. It was collaborative from the beginning, facilitating the active engagement of the early childhood educators throughout; the programme was located locally at both community and individual setting level, the project facilitated the participants in the timing of the workshops and the mentoring visits and all components of the SFL programme were located within the national curriculum framework – Aistear. In addition, the programme was designed to balance both the theoretical and practical elements of each component, guide participants through the links between the underpinning concepts of Aistear and their daily practices and identifying key leadership figures to assist in sustaining the gains made.

The key recommendations emerging from the evaluation are presented under the broad headings of Professional Development; Networking; Collaborative Practice; Policy; Research and Mainstreaming.

Professional Development:

In this study we found a positive relationship between management engagement, maintained uptake of the components of the SFL programme and improvements in pedagogical practice and language. In order to gain the maximum benefit from an intensive, integrated and community linked CPD programme such as SFL it is recommended that:

(i) Setting managers make a firm commitment to supporting staff in their ongoing engagement with the programme over its lifetime.

The extensive attention given to strengthening the language skills and strategies of the early childhood educators proved a very valuable component of the SFL model. Linking the emphasis on oral language development to the Aistear framework and the Animating Aistear component was particularly useful

as it reinforced learning from one component through the other. Including the whole team in the workshops across both components was also a crucial aspect of the programme. It is recommended that:

(ii) The whole team should be included in the planning, design and implementation of the workshops across all components of the SFL programme to give the project a clear and coherent identity.

Networking

A significant and recurring theme in feedback from participants at all stages, relates to the positive experiences they derive from interaction between settings, which appears to take place on a limited basis, if at all, in normal circumstances. For community level CPDs such as the SFL model it is recommended that:

(iii) Networking opportunities, visits and exchanges are facilitated, in order to maintain relationships between early years settings. Such a network, in addition to supporting local ECEs in their practice, would also act as a locus for building on and strengthening connections across the community.

Collaborative Practice:The SFL programme offers a valuable demonstration of the potential for collaboration between community [SFL and settings] and statutory agencies [the HSE] to improve both effectiveness and impact of work with children and families, within particular communities. Providing practitioner training and on-site coaching through the speech, language and communication component enabled more parental involvement and room-based intervention, leading to further improvements in the interaction skills of practitioners and enhanced oral language development in children. It is recommended that:


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(iv) HSE Speech and Language Therapy teams and management should receive information and presentations on the SFL project, to promote awareness of the effectiveness of directly resourcing the promotion of speech, language and communication skills and strategies among practitioners in early years settings within the context of the Aistear framework.

Policy Issues:

The experience of delivering the SFL model has highlighted a broader need which has been consistently identified within the ECEC sector in Ireland, for there to be increased opportunities for non-contact time to enable reflection and review within settings, in order for implementation of new learning across and within teams to impact on practice at all levels. The SFL model was designed and delivered during a period of intense policy activity, arising mainly from changing legislative, funding and qualification requirements. Such ‘competing priorities’ illustrate a substantial risk that the national quality agenda may actually displace beneficial interventions at local level. It is recommended that:

(v) Strategies be put in place to limit the impact of ECEC policy changes during the academic year to allow sustained CPD programmes to run their course:

(vi) Separate hours to be allocated to continuing professional development activities, such as SFL within funded working hours of Early Childhood Educators as a central quality enhancement initiative.

Research:

There has been a growth in attention at both policy and local level to the potential and development of CPD initiatives with a view to enhancing quality practice in early childhood settings. It is recommended that:

(vii) Specific research be supported, to explore if and how current national and local mentoring and support initiatives are addressing the professional development of staff in community ECEC services.

Mainstreaming:

In light of the promising findings from the evaluation of the SFL model and its potential for continued impact in the locality it is recommends that:

(viii) All the relevant materials and resources developed by the SFL team should be comprehensively collated and edited, in order to allow for and inform the design and development of SFL Programme Manuals.

To sustain the impact of the speech, language and communication component of the SFL model it is recommended that:

(ix) Sustainability be addressed by identifying and supporting volunteer practitioners who have completed the SFL programme, to continue to promote speech, language and communication within their setting, acting as Communication Champions.

In conclusion, the findings from this evaluation of the SFL model of CPD indicate that a collaborative community level programme, designed to link theory and practice through workshops and mentoring, sustained across an extended period of time, located within a clear curriculum framework and led by a small but expert team can have a visible and measurable impact on the pedagogical practice and language skills of early childhood educators and the early learning environments of the children with whom they work.


Northside Partnership NS_Partnership Northside Partnership

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Preparing For Life€¦ · Mean Wave 1 Mean Wave 2 Mean Wave 3 Setting A 3.9...

Documents

Transcript of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Preparing For Life€¦ · Mean Wave 1 Mean Wave 2 Mean Wave 3 Setting A 3.9...