1

National Síolta Aistear Initiative:

Review of the current NSAI

mentoring model

August 2018

Prepared by the Department of Education and Skills as part of the National

Síolta Aistear Initiative

2

Contents

Context for the development of the National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI) Síolta & Aistear implementation 2006-2016 Síolta & Aistear-the National Context The National Síolta Aistear Initiative The current NSAI mentoring model

3 3 4 4 5

The NSAI mentoring model review Overview of NSAI implementation to date Rationale for the NSAI mentoring model review Methodology for the review

8 8 8 9

Governance of the National Síolta Aistear Initiative NSAI Steering Committee National Coordinators Administration of the NSAI Quality Assurance NSAI Costs

10 10 10 11 12 14

National reach and implementation to date

16

Síolta Aistear Mentor CPD 24

Submissions from partner organisations

26

Síolta Aistear Mentor feedback on the NSAI

37

Feedback from Early Years Settings on NSAI supports

42

Effectiveness of the model

47

Review Summary and recommendations for future development and implementation of the NSAI

50

3

Context for the development of the NSAI

Síolta and Aistear implementation 2006-2016

Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education was developed by the

Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE) and published in 2006. Its purpose is to

provide a national quality framework for all types of early childhood education settings. Aistear is the Early

Childhood Curriculum Framework, developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

(NCCA) and published in 2009. It supports adults (parents and early childhood practitioners) to develop

and enrich learning experiences for all young children. Due to resource constraints implementation of

Síolta (including the QAP) & Aistear was limited during this time period.

Síolta implementation from 2006-2008 included provision of Síolta awareness raising workshops

on a limited basis. The Early Years Education Policy Unit (DES) took responsibility for Síolta from 2008.

Working collaboratively with the National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCOs) and some of the

Prevention and Early Intervention Programmes (now part of the Area Based Childhood [ABC] Poverty

Initiative), the EYEPU coordinated the pilot implementation of the Síolta QAP between 2009 and 2013 and

provided initial training and continuing professional development opportunities for Síolta Mentors who

supported settings through the QAP. Following an evaluation, a report on the development and

implementation of the Síolta QAP was published in December 2013

(https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/S%C3%ADolta-Final-Report.pdf). The Síolta

QAP Validation process was developed in 2012 and a number of validators were trained to conduct

external validation of settings who have completed the QAP. From 2013-2016 partner organisations

continued to support settings to engage in the QAP within the capacity of their own organisations, with

the EYEPU continuing to coordinate this work.

Since the publication of Aistear in 2009, two main developments have taken place. Aistear in

Action, a collaborative project between NCCA and Early Childhood Ireland took place between 2011 and

2013 and used on-site mentoring, cluster groups and workshops to support curriculum development in a

number of rural preschools. In 2015, the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide was made available to support

practitioners to use Aistear and Síolta together to develop the quality of their curriculum and in doing so

to better support children’s learning and development.

4

Síolta and Aistear- the National policy context

Síolta and Aistear have increasingly become the foundation for Early Education policy

developments. The ECCE (Early Childhood Care & Education) scheme was introduced in January 2010 to

support all children to access pre-school education prior to beginning formal Primary education. This

scheme is funded by DCYA and it is a contractual obligation for settings receiving funding for this scheme

to implement both Síolta and Aistear. Síolta and Aistear can support settings to meet and exceed

regulatory requirements set out in the 2016 Pre-School Regulations and are of particular relevance to

Section 19 ‘Health, welfare and development of the child’. The tool used by the Early Years Education

Inspectorate (DES) is strongly informed by Síolta and Aistear with these inspections having a particular

focus on the educational experiences of children attending settings operating the ECCE scheme. Finally,

both national frameworks underpin the work of the Better Start, National Quality Development Service

and other organisations offering training and mentoring supports. The prominence of Síolta and Aistear

in policy developments underpins the importance of both national frameworks and emphasises the need

for supports for the sector to implement these in practice.

The National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI)

A survey was conducted by DES in 2015 to seek the views of practitioners, employers and other

interested parties on the extent to which current early childhood care and education qualifications

provide early ears practitioners with the appropriate blend of knowledge and skills to support the

educational development of children in early years settings (https://www.education.ie/en/The-

Education-System/Early-Childhood/Early-Years-Practitioner-Survey-Findings-2016.pdf). This survey

indicated that the level of preparedness in implementing and delivering Síolta and Aistear was a concern

and was a very significant gap identified by practitioners in both further and higher education programs.

The findings of this survey alongside the developing national quality agenda led to the establishment of

the National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI) in 2016 to support the coordinated rollout of Síolta and Aistear.

5

Structure of the NSAI

The Early Years Education Policy Unit, DES has overall responsibility for the National Síolta Aistear

Initiative. The initiative is funded by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) and is being

developed in collaboration with the Department of Education and Skills (DES). The NSAI is overseen by a

steering committee, chaired by DES. Two national coordinators are in place to ensure the effective roll-

out of the NSAI: a Síolta Co-coordinator working within the EYEPU and an Aistear Co-coordinator based in

the NCCA. The coordinators have complementary but distinct roles.

Figure 1.1-Current structure of the NSAI (April 2018)

The current NSAI mentoring model

The NSAI mentoring model currently operates on a distributed basis, with Síolta Aistear Mentors

not directly employed by the initiative. In addition to the original cohort of Síolta mentors (trained in

2009/2010), a number of Síolta Aistear mentors, nominated by City and County Childcare Committees

(CCCs), NVCOs and ABC projects, have been working with the coordinators since 2016. This group received

mentoring training from the EYEPU in 2016, and participates in regular national and regional CPD, as well

as availing of informal supports from the national coordinators.

6

National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCO’s) support Síolta and Aistear implementation

within the NSAI as part of their core work. There is an arrangement in place with CCC’s to backfill Síolta

Aistear Mentors for their work within the initiative at a rate of €30 per hour. Approved and direct contact

only with settings is reimbursable and excludes travel, preparation, venues, subsistence etc. All Síolta

Aistear mentors are employed by and line managed by their individual organisations. National

coordinators provide support and guidance and coordinate the mentors work within the NSAI. Mentors

are only permitted to use their mentoring hours on ‘agreed activities’ which are explicitly focused on Síolta

and Aistear implementation and include introductory and awareness raising workshops, Síolta awareness

raising workshops, onsite mentoring, cluster groups and supporting settings to engage in the Síolta QAP.

Work plans are submitted by partner organisations and reviewed and an allocation of mentoring hours

approved by the National Síolta Coordinator. Partner organisations are required to submit a progress

report on a quarterly basis to EYEPU to ensure adherence with agreed activities, to track progress and

inform planning.

Breakdown of organisations involved in the initiative:

Number of partner organisations: 34

NVCO’s: 3

ABC’s: 2

Individual CCC’s: 29

Number of Mentors

NVCO’s 13

ABC’s 2

CCC’s 37

Total: 52*

*This number fluctuates as not all mentors are actively implementing. To date 67 individuals have been trained by

EYEPU as Síolta Aistear Mentors

Síolta Validators

A number of Síolta Aistear Mentors and Better Start Early Years Specialists have been trained as Síolta

validators and conduct external validations on behalf of DES of settings who have completed the formal

Síolta QAP. Dedicated CPD and training is in place for Síolta validators. Validation structures and processes

are coordinated and managed by the Síolta Coordinator. Revised Síolta validation resources were

7

provided in autumn 2017, in conjunction with training of additional validators and refresher training for

some of the existing validators.

8

The NSAI mentoring model review

Overview of NSAI implementation to date

The National Síolta Aistear Initiative was established in 2016 with national coordinators beginning

in post in autumn 2016. Training of additional Síolta Aistear Mentors (additional to the original cohort

trained in 2009) took place in 2016. The Aistear CPD pilot took place between February-June 2017 and

was reviewed in summer 2017 and a report published in February 2018

(http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Introduction/Latest-News/Siolta-Aistear-Initiative-Final-report.pdf) . In light of

the findings of this report a working group was established to review the Aistear CPD content and this

work will be completed in early Autumn 2018.

In relation to the allocation of hours for training and mentoring supports, backfilling arrangements

were agreed with Childcare Committees Ireland (CCI) in February 2017 with initial work plans submitted

by CCCs by March 2017. Revision and development of Síolta resources to support mentors in their

mentoring work were developed and made available from May 2017 when a small number of mentors

began implementation. The majority of mentors began implementing from September 2017. Each mentor

could apply to use a maximum of 10 hours per month from the period June 2017-January 2018. From

February-June 2018 the NSAI budget allowed for additional hours to be applied for by CCC’s (up to a

maximum of 20 hours, per mentor, per month) who had the capacity to use them and who have submitted

an acceptable work plan for this period.

Rationale for the NSAI mentoring model review

As the Aistear Pilot has been concluded and there is active implementation of the training and

mentoring hours since Q2 2017, it was deemed timely to consider the learning and experiences at this

point in time to inform future planning for the NSAI from Autumn 2018 and in the longer term. Specific

objectives of the review include:

To identify strengths and gaps in the current mentoring model

To gather the documented views of partner organisations and those in mentoring roles

To gather perspectives of early years settings who have participated in NSAI activities

To consider any challenges and plan strategies to address these

To consider quality assurance arrangements within the initiative

9

To consider cost effectiveness of the current model

To consider the NSAI within the context of other quality initiatives such as the Better Start

QDS/EYEI to ensure alignment with other initiatives

To inform ongoing planning for the NSAI from September 2018 and into the future

Methodology

A variety of approaches to data collection were utilised in order to gather rich and robust evidence

regarding implementation and experiences of implementation to date. Both quantitative and qualitative

methods of data collection and analysis were undertaken and included:

Analysis of written submissions from individual partner organisations delivering NSAI

supports

Telephone interviews with Early Years settings who had received training or mentoring

support as part of the NSAI

Telephone interviews with Síolta Aistear Mentors who deliver supports within the

initiative

Analysis of quarterly progress reports submitted by organisations for Q2-Q4 2017

Analysis of other NSAI data including coordinator records, CPD records and meeting

minutes.

Interviews of Early Years Settings and Síolta Aistear Mentors were conducted by an independent

facilitator, commissioned through an open tendering process and provided a report detailing the findings

of the interviews which alongside the data above have been presented thematically within the following

categories:

1. Governance of the NSAI

2. National reach and implementation to date

3. Overview of submissions from NSAI partner organisations

4. Overview of feedback from Early Years Settings

This report concludes with a summary of the main findings and an overview of the proposal for the future

development and implementation of the NSAI.

10

Governance of the NSAI

NSAI Steering Committee:

The National Síolta Aistear Initiative is overseen by a steering committee, chaired by the DES, with

members from the DCYA, DES (EYEI & EYEPU) and the NCCA. The role of the steering group is to oversee

the strategic development and implementation of the initiative. A representative from Better Start, the

National Quality Development Service joined the steering group in May 2018 to further enhance

integration between both initiatives. The role and remit of each of the organisations involved in the

steering group can be summarised as follows:

DCYA: are the funders of the NSAI. DCYA play a significant role in the regulation and funding of the early

years sector and contract a number of funding schemes for the Early Years sector including the ECCE and

CCS schemes. DCYA also fund Better Start and the Access and Inclusion Model to support children with

additional needs to access preschool. DCYA also have responsibility to support quality improvement

within the EY sector.

DES: initiated the development of both Síolta and Aistear frameworks and retain ownership and

responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of both frameworks.

NCCA: The NCCA has an advisory role on curriculum and assessment. In terms of the NSAI, NCCA were

tasked with developing 10 hours of CPD focused on Aistear and to work on the development of the

aistearsiolta practice guide.

Better Start: has three strands to its work-a quality development service providing mentoring to early

year’s settings, delivery of the access and inclusion model (AIM) which supports children with additional

needs to access pre-school and thirdly, a role in developing coordination and cohesion of quality supports.

National Coordinators:

There are two national coordinators in place to coordinate the work of the initiative-a Síolta

Coordinator based in EYEPU and an Aistear Coordinator based in NCCA. Both have individual

responsibilities and work in partnership on specific tasks also. Governance of the national coordinator

roles lies with the organisations within which they are employed but is also overseen by the steering

committee. The Síolta Coordinator is responsible for the development and implementation of the Síolta

11

strand of the initiative including provision of support and guidance to Síolta Aistear mentors, development

of Síolta resources and materials, coordination and development of the Siolta Quality Assurance

Programme (QAP) and associated validation processes and systems, development, coordination and

review of invoicing and reporting structures and maintenance of the central information database,

contribution to relevant work of DES and DCYA, training and supports for Síolta validators (not all within

cohort of NSAI mentors) and responding to queries from the general public and ECE sector. The role of

the Aistear Coordinator includes responsibility for the development of training and coaching CPD focused

on Aistear, development of the aistearsiolta practice guide, contribution to the work of NCCA, responding

to queries relevant to Aistear and providing training and support to the cohort of mentors delivering the

Aistear CPD and coaching model. Examples of joint coordinator activities include representing the

initiative at relevant events, promoting the initiative through publications such as the NSAI newsletter and

planning and delivery of CPD supports to Síolta Aistear Mentors. There is a strong emphasis on integration

of both strands of the initiative. The work of the National Coordinators is aligned, and they communicate

and meet regularly to ensure the smooth roll out of the initiative and the consistent delivery of key

messages.

Administration of the NSAI

Central Information Database: An information database was established by Q2 2017, when

implementation began in order to capture information on all activities carried out as part of the NSAI to

inform reporting and ongoing planning. A reporting structure was developed to provide the necessary

information required for the database (number of mentors active, types and frequency of NSAI activities,

number of settings and participants engaged, number of hours used). A structured reporting template is

provided which contains guidance for completion. Currently partner organisations submit progress

reports on a quarterly basis. 19 reports were received for Q2 2017 and 17 for Q3 2017. Not all

organisations were actively implementing at this point. There were some issues in terms of timeliness of

receiving reports and how they were completed (gaps in information, information in the wrong section

etc.). After piloting and reviewing information received and feedback from mentors some changes were

made to the template and updated versions distributed to organisations. In the majority of cases it

appears to be mentors rather than managers/coordinators who are completing these reports. Reports are

required by all organisations, regardless of whether there is a backfilling arrangement or not. In Q4 2017

100% of active organisations submitted a report. Reports from Q4 2017 and the initial ones submitted for

12

Q1 2018 appear to be of a higher quality than those submitted previously. Reports are submitted to EYEPU

and reviewed and information is inputted into the database by the Síolta Coordinator.

Invoicing processes: Structures and systems have been developed to support effective processing and

payment of invoices. Currently organisations eligible for backfilling (29) must provide an invoice, detailing

the work that is carried out and these are submitted on a quarterly basis alongside the progress reports.

A template has been developed for this purpose for each strand of the initiative and provided to

organisations. Invoices will not be processed unless the relevant quarterly report has been submitted.

Invoices are reviewed by the Síolta Coordinator and cross referenced with allocated hours, work plans

and information received in the progress report to ensure they are accurate and in line with agreed

backfilling amounts and activities. They are then submitted to DCYA for payment. Initially there were some

issues with invoices submitted (gaps in information, inaccurate claiming of hours, claiming for activities or

items not covered-travel, venues etc. and work by non NSAI mentors). Such invoices are rejected and

feedback given as to the reason why. Invoices in Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 indicate an improvement in quality

of invoices submitted which means they may be signed off after first review, although there are some

ongoing inaccuracies, leading to return of invoices.

Quality Assurance:

Quality assurance is an integral element of the initiative, however is challenged somewhat by the

distributed model. The work of the initiative is guided by DCYA/DES/NCCA protocols and in order to

address some of the anticipated challenges of a distributed model the following specific quality assurance

measures have been put in place by the initiative to date:

NSAI work is overseen by a steering group, chaired by DES and includes members from DCYA,

NCCA, and EYEI.

National coordination is in place with specific coordinator roles

Síolta Aistear Mentors met minimum qualification and experience requirements to be accepted

on mentor training

4 day initial Síolta Aistear mentor training provided by EYEPU

Provision of CPD –National (x2 annually), Regional CPD in 3 locations (x2 annually)

13

Ongoing informal support, guidance from coordinators (NING1, phone, email, face to face

meetings etc.)

Submission of work plans from CCC’s indicating work within the NSAI which must adhere to

current NSAI ‘agreed activities’

Provision of consistent materials and resources (workshops, QAP resources, templates, forms,

certificates etc.)

Further training for cohort of mentors who delivered Aistear CPD coordinated by NCCA to equip

mentors to deliver the Aistear CPD pilot

Organisations are required to submit quarterly progress reports to track progress and inform

planning-common template developed and in use and inputted into central information database

System and process in place for processing funding-invoice templates provided, review process in

place.

Síolta validation quality assurance processes (consistent materials, validator manual, CPD x2

annually, training from EYEPU, shadowing process for new validators, minimum criteria to attend

validator training)

Some of the potential challenges related to quality assurance of the initiative include:

National Coordinators are employed by separate organisations

Mentors not being directly employed or line managed by the initiative

Numerous organisations are involved with individual agendas/ethos

Diversity within the Síolta Aistear mentor cohort (for example experience, knowledge, skills,

qualifications)

Fixed term/short term funding of the NSAI and coordinator roles

Established practices of organisations

1 Private Social Media platform provided for mentors engaged in the Aistear Pilot. Currently shutdown as Aistear strand is being reviewed.

14

No pre/post or formal evaluation structures built into the original model

There is a limited focus on mentoring role for the majority of mentors who carry out NSAI work

as one element of their role

Limited impact/reach within hours available

Knowledge and understanding of the NSAI for some managers/coordinators of mentors

No direct observation or feedback structures with mentors limiting supervision and mentorship

of mentoring practice and delivery

Absence of ‘clearing house’ or structure to quality assure wider work related to Síolta and Aistear

(both within the NSAI mentor cohort and externally)

Cost effectiveness of elements of the model

NSAI Costs:

The NSAI currently has an annual budget of €500k which includes the cost of national coordination

and costs related to the implementation of the initiative

The NVCO’s carry out NSAI activity as part of their core work (which mainly relates to the Síolta QAP) since

2009 when they were invited by EYEPU to be part of the pilot implementation of the QAP. Whilst newer

resources supporting Síolta and Aistear awareness raising and implementation have been provided, the

NVCO’s overall appear to have a preference to focus on the QAP element of the NSAI.

Current agreed backfilling rates with CCC’s are €30 per hour for use of mentoring hours and €15

per hour for the Aistear CPD strand. The Síolta Aistear mentoring hours only provide for direct contact

with settings and not travel, venues, subsistence, preparation etc. Hours have fluctuated (see section on

implementation to date) and there is currently an agreement of a maximum of 20 hours per mentor, per

month available for the period February-December 2018. Initial hours allocated were 10 hours, per

mentor per month from May 2017-January 2018. . There was a significant underspend in 2017 due to only

two thirds of allocated hours being used.

15

CCCs indicate that the €15 per hour’s rate agreed for the Aistear Pilot was agreed as a gesture of goodwill

and it is likely that if they are engaged in any further implementation of Aistear CPD they would seek

parity with the Síolta mentoring hour’s rate of €30 per hour.

Organisations were allocated 109 hours for delivery of the Aistear CPD pilot which included preparation,

delivery of 5x2 hour workshops and 4 hours coaching per participant, travel and post workshop tasks.

There was also grant of €55 per mentor for printing costs and in addition venue and subsistence costs for

workshops were provided, although weren’t identified in the original costings. The cost of the Aistear

Strand pilot was €45, 630 (27 mentors @ €1690 per set of workshops). This figure excludes venue,

subsistence and travel costs. Aistear CPD was delivered to 401 participants from 162 settings.

16

National Reach & Implementation to date

Figure 1.2-Síolta Aistear Mentors trained by DES

67 Síolta Aistear Mentors have been trained by DES (2009, 2016)

Of this group 52 mentors are currently active (April 18). 7 have left their organisations since being

trained. 6 are not actively implementing within their current roles. 2 have moved into management

positions and therefore do not have the capacity to provide mentoring.

27 of the cohort of 67 mentors were trained to deliver the Aistear CPD strand.

Síolta Aistear Mentors: National Coverage

Whilst the majority of counties have at least 1 mentor, this may not be adequate depending on the

size/number of settings in a particular county, for example Cork City and Donegal have just 1 mentor

trained to cover a large area and Cork County have 3 trained but indicate a lack of capacity to deliver.

NVCO’s tend to cover regions but also primarily focus on supporting engagement with the QAP.

Counties without a mentor are Laois and Longford. Until recently Westmeath had no mentor but have

recently recruited one on a part time basis. Fingal CCC also do not have an active mentor. Whilst

geographical coverage is much improved since the establishment of the initiative, accessibility for

settings remains an issue in some areas.

78%

10%

9%3%

Total Mentors Trained by DES

Active

Left Organisation

Inactive

Moved post

17

Implementation to date:

As implementation for the majority of mentors began from September 17, the main analysis for this report

was conducted on implementation for the period September-December 2017 (Q4). Limited information

is available on Q2 & Q3 and information we have gathered for these periods is outlined below and

incorporated into the final figures and information provided.

Quarter 2 (April-June 2017)

19 organisations submitted reports

Limited implementation of mentoring hours this quarter for most organisations as Síolta

resources only made available from May

162 settings engaged in Aistear CPD during this period

3 Síolta, Aistear & the practice guide introductory workshops were delivered in Limerick, Longford

& Mayo

8 practice guide introductory workshops were delivered in Sligo & Tipperary

30 mentoring visits took place in Cork City, Cork County, Limerick, Mayo & Waterford

Over 100 settings were reported to be engaged in the Síolta QAP but figures provided are

inaccurate based on other information available

Quarter 3 (July-September 2017):

17 organisations submitted reports in Q4

Limited implementation as many settings closed for the Summer period during this quarter

Aistear CPD strand is on hold whilst an evaluation of the pilot is completed

11 Síolta, Aistear and the practice guide introductory workshops were delivered to 131 settings

in Border Counties, Dublin City, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, Kildare, Kilkenny, Louth, Wicklow &

Wexford

18 Síolta Awareness raising workshops were delivered to 110 settings

21 mentoring visits took place

18

NSAI Implementation Quarter 4 2017 (October-December):

Figure 1.4-Q4 2017 Organisational Implementation Levels

In Q4 87% of organisations (29) had active Síolta Aistear mentors. Of these 29 organisations we received

100% response rate for reports submitted for this period.

Of the 52 mentors across the 29 organisations 13% of mentors (4) were inactive (maternity leave x2, no

capacity x2). An additional 13% of mentors from 3 organisations did not implement in Q4 (changes in staff

etc.) and these 3 organisations did not use any of their allocated hours

The 24 organisations (CCC’s) entitled to an allocation of hours used 617 hours of a possible 1052 hours

(58.6%)- this figure includes organisations who were allocated hours but not actively implementing during

this period. Of the 26 organisations (CCC’s, NVCO’s, ABC’s) who actively implemented this quarter, 21 of

these were entitled to be backfilled for their hours. These 21 organisations used 617 of a possible

87%

13%

Organisational Implementation Levels

Active

Inactive

19

932.2hours (66.2%). The information overleaf details the types of activities supported in Q4 and is based

on 26 organisations actively implementing this quarter.

20

Introductory Workshops:

Síolta, Aistear & the PG-an introduction An introduction to the practice guide

Organisation No of workshops

No of settings No of participants No of workshops No of settings No of participants

Clare CCC* 5 26 58 3 23 44

DLR CCC 1 6 8

Dublin City CCC 3 23 54 3 26 54

Galway CCC 1 7 16

Kerry CCC 1 14 22

Kildare CCC 6 36 71

Limerick CCC 1 2 11

Leitrim CCC 2 10 12

Louth CCC 1 5 12 2 11 19

Mayo CCC 2 2 19 1 1 7

Roscommon CCC

1 3 7

Sligo CCC 7 13 61

Waterford 4 10 29

Wexford CCC 1 3 16 2 22 35

Total Q4: 33 138 355 14 105 200

Q2 Q3

3 11

12 131

32 246

8 0

59 137

TOTAL TO DATE:

47 281 633 22 164 337

21

Figure 1.5-Q4 2017 Síolta Awareness Workshops

Síolta Awareness raising workshops were developed in collaboration with the Síolta resource working group and made available to mentors from

May 2017. Their purpose is to increase awareness and understanding of individual Síolta standards, to identify how they connect with Aistear and

to begin to reflect on and develop action plans to enhance quality. There are four SAW workshops which can be delivered individually or a as a set

of 4 depending on need.

17 Síolta Awareness workshops were delivered in Q3 2017 to 109 settings. In Q4 69 Síolta Awareness Workshops were delivered to 526 settings,

comprising of 942 participants. This is a total of 86 workshops to 635 settings between Q3 and Q4 2017. (Please note this figure may not be 635

individual settings as settings may have attended more than one workshop. The reporting template for Q1 2018 has since been revised to capture

this information.)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Síolta Awareness Raising Workshops Q4 2017

No of workshops No of Settings No of Participants

22

Figure 1.6-Q4 2017 Onsite Mentoring supports

Mentoring visits began in Q2 with 30 visits occurring in Q2 and 20 in Q3. In Q4 126 mentoring visits took place with 345 participants. These may

have consisted of repeat visits to the same settings.

Reported focus of on-site mentoring supports included overview of the PG, overview of Aistear, ASPG pillars (Transitions, Partnership with

parents, planning & assessment, environments), curriculum foundations, Aistear guidelines for good practice, Síolta standards 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 13, 15, 16, outdoor environment, documentation and curriculum development, Síolta user manual, follow up from Síolta awareness

raising workshops, planning and documenting, information on the Síolta QAP.

In addition to on-site mentoring supports 6 Síolta Aistear Mentors provided cluster group supports to settings focusing on areas such as ASPG-

planning & assessing, ASPG & Síolta standard 13-transitions, Síolta standard 16-community involvement, policy development (39 settings & 100

participants in total). Figures for QAP related mentoring visits are not captured here and are in addition to this.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NCN Carlow Clare* Dublin City Kildare* Kilkenny Limerick Leitrim* Longford Louth Mayo Sligo Tipperary Wicklow*

On-site Mentoring supports

No of visits No of participants

23

Síolta Quality Assurance Programme (QAP)

Figure 1.7-Síolta Validated Settings 2011-2018

The Síolta Quality Assurance Programme has been supported by mentors from NVCO’s & ABC organisations since 2009. The QAP is designed to

provide structured engagement for early childhood settings who wish to seek external assessment of their setting’s practice against the Síolta

Standards of quality. Settings are supported by a Síolta Aistear mentor to work through a ten-step process to enhance quality and to create a

portfolio of evidence which is externally validated by Síolta validators. The first four settings were validated in 2011. It is expected that by end of

June 2018, 139 settings will have been Síolta validated since 2011. Information on validation levels suggests that not all settings who are eligible

for revalidation have applied for this process. Currently there are reported to be approximately 160 settings engaging with the QAP (not all may

proceed to validation, some of these may include settings who will be validated in June and may be incorporated into figures above.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Síolta Validations 2011-2018

Number of settings validated Column1 Column2

24

Síolta Aistear Mentor CPD

CPD for Síolta mentors was an integral part of the original Síolta QAP model and part of the

associated supports provided for mentors from 2009 following initial mentor training. Initially these

events were coordinated by EYEPU, with NVCO’s taking on the coordination, planning and delivery of

these in the years prior to the establishment of the NSAI. These events were viewed by mentors as an

important and valuable space for mentors from a range of organisations to support collaborative working.

CPD events were scheduled 2-3 times per year and were known as ‘Síolta Coordinator CPD’. Better Start

Early Years Specialists were invited to attend the national CPD from 2015.

Following the establishment of the NSAI in 2016, the National Síolta Coordinator had a number of

meetings with the NVCO’s and given the now central coordination of Síolta and the new role of national

coordinator it was agreed that DES would take on this role. The establishment of the NSAI as a centrally

coordinated model and in order to develop further integration between both strands of the initiative, it

was agreed that these events be renamed Síolta Aistear Mentor National CPD and focus on supporting

mentors to work in an integrated way with both frameworks within their mentoring roles.

As the National CPD sessions consisted of a large number of mentors it was difficult to focus on some of

the more practical elements of implementation, of particular importance for newer mentors. A plan for

Síolta Aistear mentor CPD was developed and consisted of 2 national events per year for mentors within

the NSAI and Better Start QDS Early Years Specialists with a focus on interagency working, information

sharing, policy updates and input on a particular area or focus related to mentoring work. Regional based

supports also take place twice a year, in three regional locations comprised of NSAI mentors only and

facilitate smaller groups to allow for more practical activity and increased interaction between mentors

and national coordinators

This CPD plan was piloted from September 2017-June 2018, with a schedule for the academic year drawn

up and provided to mentors in advance to facilitate planning and scheduling. Agendas are developed

based on feedback from mentors and information from national coordinators and these are provided in

advance. Evaluation and feedback is gathered as part of each session. Feedback on both national and

regional supports have been very positive and are viewed as an integral element of supporting capacity

building of mentors and enhancing quality assurance within the initiative.

Both national and regional supports have been very well attended with numbers of 50-90 attending the

national events and an average attendance of between 80-90% at regional CPD events. It is important to

25

note that mentors are not backfilled or reimbursed to attend CPD events. Feedback from mentors indicate

a desire for longer regional sessions and for additional CPD to also be provided. Mentor CPD is planned

and delivered by National Coordinators to support consistency.

In addition, dedicated CPD for Síolta validators has been developed and is delivered twice per year to

support validators in their role and to support a consistent approach amongst validators. These are open

to all Síolta validators who are drawn from NVCO’s, Better Start, CCC’s and ABC programmes.

26

Submissions from partner organisations

As part of the NSAI review, partner organisations were invited to provide written submissions on

an organisational basis to share their feedback on strengths and gaps of the current model. Organisations

were asked to describe which elements of the initiative they had been involved in to date i.e. Síolta

mentoring hours, Aistear CPD, Síolta Validator training, national and regional CPD. A number of headings

were suggested to structure feedback but also allowing for flexibility and more open ended responses, as

relevant to particular organisations individual experiences to date.

These headings included national coordination of the initiative, roles of the national coordinators,

communication, reporting and invoicing structures, backfilling arrangements, experiences of initial

mentor training and national and regional CPD, elements of the programme such as Síolta mentoring

hours and the Aistear CPD strand, validator processes and systems, quality assurance and finally

suggestions for future planning and alignment of the NSAI within the context of other quality initiatives.

Organisations could provide feedback on other areas also that may not have been covered within the

suggested headings.

The response to the request for written submissions was very positive with an overall response rate of

93.7% (2 organisations did not submit). 30 submissions were received including some from organisations

who are not currently active but wished to provide feedback.

The majority of respondents noted strong support for the development of the NSAI, indicated a

commitment to the NSAI, that a larger cohort of mentors was needed and has strengthened the capacity

to deliver, are pleased to be involved and feel that their organisations are particularly well placed to

support settings due to existing relationships and familiarity with settings. A number of organisations

stated there are still not enough mentors and/or hours to meet demand and they would welcome the

opportunity for training of additional mentors within their organisations (some of who are reported to

have undertaken further education and now meet application criteria).

Respondents report a high demand, appetite and need from providers for NSAI supports. They view the

renewed focus on Síolta and Aistear as very positive, central coordination as crucial and feel there is

increased engagement with the frameworks as a result of the NSAI. They report that feedback from

participants who have engaged in the initiative is very positive.

27

The following section provides a more detailed overview of the information provided in these written

submissions and is presented thematically in line with the headings used for written submissions, which

have been grouped together in connected themes and highlighting key points, strengths, gaps and any

specific recommendations put forward by respondents.

Due to the extent of the information provided in these submissions, identified strengths and gaps are

grouped together in order to make an effort to capture all feedback provided. Some suggestions and

recommendations were made by organisations within the various headings and these have been

incorporated into the section on alignment with other initiatives and future planning. The NSAI steering

group was cognisant of the strengths and gaps identified by organisations under different headings when

considering future planning as specific recommendations were not necessarily made in relation to these

but they were pertinent when reviewing and planning.

Other recommendations and suggestions were made regarding specific workshops or the ASPG or

elements of the initiative-as these are not relevant to the model review, they will be forwarded to the

appropriate person/forum for further consideration and action as appropriate.

28

National Coordination, Roles of National Coordinators & Communication:

Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the establishment of a national coordination structure

and the roles of national coordinators.

Strengths identified Gaps identified

National Coordination:

National coordination supports national,

and consistent messaging, provides a

focused, cohesive, interagency approach,

the initiative is more streamlined, has

increased consistency and provided a

standardised and planned approach

National coordination strengthens the

model and capacity to deliver key

objectives, keeping all up to date, has

increased the visibility of quality

improvement work and provides

statistical information

Has given Síolta and Aistear new impetus

which was missing in the past, focus on

both frameworks

National Coordinator roles:

National Coordinators were

approachable, accessible, supportive and

provided guidance and advice, dedicated

link person

Credibility of coordinators-relevant,

practical experience and in depth

understanding of Síolta and/or Aistear,

skill base-influences delivery on the

ground

Provision of CPD beneficial especially for

new mentors and for peer support,

sharing ideas and consistency

Communication:

Positive impact on communication

prompt, consistent, relevant, open,

transparent, supportive, useful managers

are included, NING useful, newsletter

helpful

National Coordination & coordinator roles:

Mentors work for CCC’s and sometimes

this must take priority, balancing NSAI

work and DCYA requirements

A more consistent approach between the

Aistear and Síolta strands of the NSAI may

also be beneficial e.g. content and

delivery of training materials, evaluation

of training programmes etc.

Gap and lead in time for replacement of

Aistear coordinator a challenge.

Somewhat ameliorated by consistency of

Síolta Coordinator. Momentum that had

built up stopped and disappointment for

settings who were eager to proceed.

Communication:

Managers/Coordinators not always

included in communication or not always

clear/more interaction with managers

would be beneficial including in relation to

the funding model and overall strategic

vision

29

Administration (quarterly progress reports, invoicing, backfilling arrangements):

Strengths identified Gaps identified

Progress Reports

Reports welcome to provide robust

information and evaluation of NSAI

Collation of data nationally could provide

rich reporting from a national perspective

Agreed understanding on expectations

System is manageable, effective in terms

of content, layout and frequency, less

cumbersome than previous system

Invoicing

Currently agreed understanding on

expectations

Progress Reports

Reporting should be in line with CCC

national reporting (mid and end of year),

challenging to complete within two weeks

Need to be reviewed in order to fully

capture the work

Level of detail required not obvious, large

blank boxes daunting

Invoicing

Clarity early on would have been useful-in

place now

Somewhat unwieldy and does not link into

the core CCC budget and financial

reporting templates

Lengthy time to receive payments

Expectations agreed but could be further

rationalised

Backfilling arrangements

Rate does not adequately resource to

cover all costs incurred with a salary,

hours and cost does not include

preparation, CPD, booking venues,

refreshments, advertising, photocopying,

travel, reporting, venues, refreshments,

printing, advertising, invoicing, report

writing.

Retrospective invoicing is a barrier to

planning work for example training or

mentoring may not go ahead, cannot

backfill in advance as other priorities may

arise, difficulty hiring someone on

backfilling basis

Review flexibility of hours between

quarters-Q3 particularly difficult

30

Initial Síolta Aistear Mentor Training and ongoing CPD

Strengths identified Gaps identified

Initial Training

Initial training was excellent, very positive

Well delivered with balance of activities

and active listening, facilitator well

prepared and knowledgeable

Coordinated effectively with a

standardised approach, providing clear

communication and training in terms of

mentoring and delivery

CPD:

CPD helpful, invaluable, vital for

consistency, practical activities helpful,

structured well, coordination and annual

scheduling helpful, opportunity to reflect,

professional dialogue, challenges

assumptions, enhance skills and

understanding, network, share

information, collate ideas, discuss

challenges, guest speakers inspiring and

effective, DES updates positive,

opportunities to discuss concerns

Investment in CPD welcome, regional CPD

welcomes, sessions with experienced

mentors really beneficial

NING was very helpful-similar should be

made available to all with TOR for use

Initial training

Premature as updated resources not

available-length of time between training

and delivery reduced enthusiasm and

some learning was lost , a lot of

information which was difficult to

comprehend until delivery commenced

Two day refresher may be useful, more

practical work would be helpful, more info

on the QAP

CPD:

Access to postgrad mentoring to support

consistency with BS mentors

Regional CPD days should be extended for

more in depth discussion, more time for

practical activities

Mentors should be asked for input,

staggered CPD might make it easier to

release staff

Use of external expertise may be helpful

at regional session as well as national

More in depth information on standards

and manuals to be equipped for broader

discussions and queries that arise

Gap between validator and regional CPD

Should be shared with managers

Enhanced with relevant and up to date

research/best practice examples for

weaving in and out of supports

National CPD could address updates from

regional sessions in morning and validator

CPD the same day

31

Síolta Aistear Mentoring hours and agreed activities

Strengths identified Gaps identified

Significant demand from settings for

workshops and onsite supports

Word of mouth and increased awareness

has led to less experienced practitioners

beginning to engage with Síolta-reach has

been widened because of content and

availability of mentors

Increased allocation of hours is welcome

to meet demand

Whilst maintaining fidelity, resources can

be tailored to directly address where

practitioners are

Offers flexibility and tailoring of support

depending on need and offers progression

routes-scope to mentors to adjust

delivery of supports in line with local and

individual needs important in ensuring

sufficient scope, pitch and support

methodology for each service, allows for

more meaningful support

Well balanced and combination of

workshop based learning and onsite

mentoring effective and reinforces

learning

Síolta Awareness raising Workshops

connect very well to Aistear

ASPG offers comprehensive support

material to support mentoring

Need for additional resources to support

deeper engagement around particular

standards, additional resources and

materials to support progression for those

not ready for the QAP-should be provided

to all to contribute to a consistent

approach to development work (for

cluster and mentoring)

More structure could be provided to

agreed activities

Lack of resources for under 3’s (applies to

Aistear strand also)

Not enough hours to fulfil needs within

current workloads

Challenges for settings releasing staff to

participate

As increased hours are only temporarily

available it is a challenge to engage

services in longer term QAP and is a

disincentive

QAP beneficial but time intensive-needs

to be reviewed-supporting settings

beyond validation

32

Aistear CPD:

Strengths identified Gaps identified

Opportunity to provide national led

guidance to settings

Was well received, high demand, services

interested in attending the next round

Coaching element & practice tasks

worked well, designated course tasks

doable within work

Mentoring element vital

Full staff participation including managers

and pedagogical leaders more likely for

changes to be sustainable

Training of mentors was well organised,

resources provided and an opportunity to

form support networks, felt equipped to

deliver the programme

Formula for the delivery of the pilot with

timescales

Focused and targeted, saw a flourishing of

participants and able to bring experience

of previous related work in

Settings who completed have gone onto

the Síolta mentoring programme

This strand is on hold at present, unclear

as to what the plan is

Amount of funding inadequate

Short timeframe for rollout was a

challenge-should be delivered over a

longer period, time between coaching

also tight

Varying qualification levels was a

challenge for pitch

2hours not adequate for content, did not

allow for reflection, change expected

before time for major philosophical

changes required-reference to Aistear in

Action

Desire to ‘teach’ the framework rather

than understand the framework means

most important elements of practice may

be omitted

Additional areas of knowledge may be

needed to fully engage in the programme

e.g. learning dispositions, deeper

understanding of play and environments

Many participants do not have access to

or have heard of ASPG-more opportunity

for this in CPD would be useful

Current move towards assessment,

documenting and planning and content is

not reflective of an emergent curriculum

or image of the child as indicated in

Aistear

Better links needed between this

programme and the Síolta strand-more

links to Síolta needed in content

PP presentation constraining-more

experienced mentors found need to

deviate in interest of group, very tight

control on training-while necessary in

some instances may have been too

33

controlled-capacity of mentors for

training needs to be supported

Some material could be provided further

in advance

Follow up visit needed after the CPD to

support implementation

Considerable time on evaluations

providing relevant information,

disappointing some of this feedback was

not used for the final report

All mentors should be trained in Aistear

CPD

Lack of Irish materials and 0-3

Supports and processes for validators including validator training and CPD

Strengths identified Gaps identified

Initial training and supports positive

CPD welcome and that this is with

experienced validators is beneficial

Interagency validations for robust

validation process

Supports for new validators very positive

including shadowing

Positive that experienced mentors were

asked to contribute to training and CPD

More structure and transparency in how

validators are selected.

More CPD and practice based training

sessions would be helpful, e.g. focus on

portfolio building aspect

Shadowing opportunities would be

helpful, we have not been approached for

shadowing or validation

Validation work not currently funded

through NSAI

A bank of independent validators may be

more effective

Revalidation conversations need to

continue

Review of the QAP needed

34

Other challenges and gaps in the model were identified by respondents and related to:

Short term funding of the initiative and limited duration of national coordinator roles (makes it

difficult to contribute to longer term strategic planning

Delivery mechanisms (co-delivery provides for richer experience, organisations have interpreted

Síolta and Aistear in different ways, particularly the QAP, needs to be recognition of adult learner

theory and practice)

Accessibility issues (agreed mentoring hours not sufficient for demand or particular aspects e.g.

QAP, inconsistencies in what is offered depending on capacity locally, geographical coverage of

organisations, number of settings, fluctuations in staff, no non-contact time for settings might

impact commitment of settings, should be paid CPD)

Perceived focus of the work (needs around structural elements of quality may be raised in NSAI

support activities and impact on process quality elements, but highlights a need to address)

Quality Assurance

The majority of respondents interpreted this heading in terms of assessment of quality and referred to

ECERS/ITERS or in terms of the Síolta QAP. Some key points raised on quality assurance included the

following:

Positive that mentors were selected on the basis of relevant experience and qualifications

Reflective questionnaires and evaluations provide opportunities for constructive feedback

Regular CPD is an important element of quality assurance

Existing QA mechanisms could be built on, ongoing evaluation processes for mentors will support

consistency and clarity of key messaging

There is currently no monitoring of workshop delivery and should be a process of QA for training

and support delivery for ongoing learning and development and for national consistency.

Some method to assess the impact on quality would be beneficial e.g. baseline assessment using

ECERS/ITERS

References to other related programmes delivered by both NSAI mentors and colleagues

35

A number of recommendations were made by respondents regarding the NSAI in the context of other

initiatives, supporting alignment and planning for future implementation. These are summarised as

follows:

Context of the NSAI & alignment with other initiatives:

Alignment & integration

Many respondents reported a need for a clear ‘roadmap of quality’, ‘quality journey’, ‘quality

spiral’ for the sector outlining who to go to for different quality services. This should be

documented and mapped to a system of supports

Clarification needed on where NSAI fits with other initiatives in particular BS and NVCO

mentors-somewhat unclear where NSAI fits with other quality initiatives in particular BS and

mentors from NVCO’s –more clarity around how these initiatives can work more collaboratively

with clear roles and direction where there is duplication/crossover of work-would assist in

better planning

Currently NSAI tends to be viewed as separate and in addition to other quality initiatives e.g.

funding streams, reporting templates-can make NSAI appear to be add on or enrichment

instead of being embedded in core quality actions-should be reflected in LIP’s as one of 6 core

priorities and core budgets

An integrated approach locally and nationally to ensure alignment and a shared understanding

of quality (NSAI, Better Start, AIM, LINC, Tusla, DES EYEI)

A more coherent outline of the national coordinators roles and where they fit in terms of the

overall structure of the sector in relation to other support organisations may be helpful

Feedback from EYEI, DES inspectors would be useful to support settings pre and post these

inspections. Alignment of the QAP and EYEI needs to be considered. NSAI quality assurance

must be consistent with quality standards and measures of Tusla and DES inspections

Links with Better Start: BS EYS should be aware of NSAI and CCC role-at present this is

disjointed, NSAI could be a follow on support for settings who have worked with QDS

Síolta and Aistear should be incorporated into all training, including induction and CPD, DES

and Tusla inspections

Communication

A nationally agreed communication plan to ensure consistent messaging to all services and key

stakeholders would be helpful

Communication pathways led by DCYA to ensure effective and efficient communication with

the sector and supported by both national coordinators

Biannual formal meetings with participation of both CCC mentor and manager would help

strengthen communication, plan and review, monitor progress and inform policy change and

development.

36

Planning for future implementation:

Coordination

The CCC’s feel they are the first port of call for practitioners and therefore best placed to

coordinate the delivery of quality initiatives on a local level. Another respondent called for the

development of a regional support system which would link local and national, include

development of regional roles from NVCO’s

CCI could engage in a process of consultation to develop a MoU to formalise a national

commitment around the expectations and national guidelines regarding the NSAI

More pathways are required to support communities of practice and mechanisms for ongoing

informal communication (discussion forum) among the mentors and CCC’s which would

provide enhanced integrated networks of support and embed an ongoing process of quality

assurance across the initiative

Development of an agreed mentoring framework, including service level agreements, core

principles to underpin (as individual organisational ethos can dominate)

Clear pathways and protocols for settings where concerns exist

Funding arrangements:

Include NSAI in core funding as is done with NVCOs’

The funding agreement requires strategic revision to incorporate a more robust model which

would allow CCC’s to commit to long term sustainable support for all early years services. A

system which allows for payments to be processed for the year in advance would better

support the backfill process and management of associated HR implications

NSAI CPD should be resourced, nationally recognized and certified

Quality Assurance:

Development of a service delivery management and monitoring system is necessary

CPD and collation of NSAI data should continue

There should be a suggested route through NSAI supports

Other:

There should be a 3-5 year strategy in place

Should be a requirement for services to take part and facilitate a flexible multi layered model

so participants can start where they are.

Aims of NSAI should address more achievable, realistic and meaningful aims-3 basic

requirements for successful day to day curriculum and quality provision-environment,

educators (2 aspects to this)

There should be quality baselines carried out at area and county level

37

Mentor feedback on the current NSAI mentor model

Although mentors may have contributed to written submissions of their parent organisations, it was

agreed that additional feedback from mentors, focused on their roles and experiences may be useful in

informing the review. An external consultant was employed to carry out short telephone interviews with

mentors over a two week period. 23 of a possible 52 mentors took part in the phone interviews which is

44% of the potential cohort of currently active mentors. Not all mentors responded to all questions. The

following section outlines the main findings of these interviews:

Role of the Mentor

13 mentors were in a mentoring role between 1-3 years, 1 between 3-5years, 6 between 5-10 years and

3 in a mentoring role for more than 10 years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Length of time in a mentoring role

1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

38

Of 23 respondents interviewed 20 were carrying out mentoring as part of their role and 3 as their full time

role. 14 respondents reported that their role was not being backfilled in order to carry out NSAI mentoring

work and 9 reported it was being backfilled

Part Time Full Time

Mentors views on how well they are equipped to carry out their mentoring role

Very well equipped Well equipped Not at all Not very well

39

Respondents were asked how equipped they felt to carry out their mentoring role effectively. The majority

of mentors interviewed felt they were very well equipped (15) and 8 mentors felt they were well equipped

for their role. Not at all and not very well was not chosen by any respondent.

Respondents described the most important characteristics of an effective Síolta Aistear mentor as

appropriate knowledge, previous experience, communication skills, empathy, responsiveness to

individual needs and contexts, ability to build relations, training qualification an advantage, willing to

learn, approachability and management experience

Experiences of the NSAI

21 respondents felt that there was consistency in the quality of mentors working within the NSAI

and 2 mentors felt there was not consistency. In terms of those who felt there was consistency

there were references to national coordination, CPD and peer networking, consistency of

workshops and similar levels of training and experience. Those who felt there was not consistency

indicated that there may be inconsistency in implementation and the second person said they

hadn’t had an opportunity to engage with other mentors

40

Respondents were asked to rate the helpfulness of national coordinators on a scale of 1-5 (1 not helpful

and 5 very helpful). 1 respondent rated a 3, 6 respondents a 4 and 16 respondents a 5. Examples given

suggested coordinators were approachable, contactable, quick to respond, gave clarity, had

understanding, were supporting, communication was good, were clear and organised and were

experienced. Some respondents indicated more contact with previous Aistear coordinator.

Strengths of the current NSAI mentoring model echoed the themes that emerged from the written

submissions and included the establishment of a national initiative to focus on Síolta and Aistear, national

coordination, national and clear messaging, well developed relationships with settings, consistency of

information and resources, more accessibility for settings, same training from the same national

coordinator, flexibility and the Aistear resources. Challenges identified also were consistent with those

raised in the written submissions and included funding for direct contact only, no non-contact time for

settings. These respondents also identified a challenge in supporting settings with low levels, supports

may be new in some counties, the Síolta resources not as developed as the Aistear ones and should be

level and the fact some mentors haven’t worked through the QAP.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 6 16

Helpfulness of National Coordinators

Number of Mentors Column1 Column2

41

Needs of settings

9 respondents reported the needs of the majority of settings they were working with as high and

9 as medium, A low level of need was not reported by any mentors who responded to this

question

Respondents identified some typical areas requiring training and mentoring support included

engaging with both frameworks, curriculum, observation, planning and assessment,

documenting, environments, interactions, partnership with parents, policies and procedures and

transitions

All 23 respondents agreed that the NSAI has impacted positively on practitioners understanding

and implementation of Síolta and Aistear. This was demonstrated through positive feedback,

reigniting of interest and motivation particularly related to Síolta, training being linked with

practice, new resources and making the frameworks more accessible

42

Feedback from Early Years Settings on experience of NSAI supports

It was particularly important that experiences of practitioners who participated in NSAI activities

were captured as part of this review. Whilst the content of particular workshops and mentoring supports

were not the specific focus of this review, information on experiences of workshops and mentoring were

relevant. On this basis, short telephone interviews were conducted by an external consultant with a range

of settings who had experienced introductory workshop supports (1. Síolta, Aistear and the Practice

Guide-an introduction, 2. An introduction to the practice guide and 3. Síolta awareness raising workshops)

or onsite mentoring supports. The external consultant was requested to gather feedback from 15 settings

who had received training supports and 15 settings who had received mentoring supports (30 in total).

Mentors were asked to provide details of all settings who had received support and consented to

participate in the review and the consultant decided who to contact. The target of 30 settings was

achieved and the following section outlines the findings from these interviews and is summarised below

and divided into two headings-those receiving training supports and those who received mentoring

supports:

Training Supports:

Profile of settings interviewed

Respondents interviewed were chosen randomly by an external consultant and represented 3

counties-Cork (7), Monaghan (5), Galway (3) and included 9 sessional settings and 6 Full-Day Care

Type of settings interviewed

Sessional Full Time

43

Respondents were asked to identify their role in the early years setting. 9 responses across 15

people were identified including manager, playgroup leader, childcare assistant etc.

Respondents were asked to describe the curriculum in place. Of the 15 respondents, 10

descriptions of curriculum were provided and included ‘Aistear and Play based’, ‘Aistear with

influences from Montessori,’ ‘influences from Montessori’, ‘Following Síolta and Aistear’ and ‘Play

based, child lead’

Experiences with the NSAI

Of the 15 respondents 9 had attended the Síolta Aistear and the Practice Guide workshop, 9 the

Introduction to the practice guide workshop and 15 had attended the Síolta awareness raising

workshops (some respondents attended more than one workshop)

8 respondents indicated they had attended previous training in relation to Síolta and Aistear and

7 had not. The type of or extent of this training was not detailed.

All respondents rated the workshop attended as very helpful (highest rating available)

Previous Training in Síolta and Aistear

Yes No

44

When asked if respondents had a better understanding of Síolta and Aistear after the workshop

12 felt they understood it really well (highest rating) and 3 understood it fairly well (second

highest rating)

14 respondents indicated that the content of the workshop was relevant to their setting and 1

felt it was not relevant.

All respondents indicated that the workshop helped them to make changes in their setting and

those who expanded listed areas such as ‘going through templates more’, ‘confidence linking

Síolta and Aistear to the curriculum’, ‘refreshed curriculum’, ‘started Aistear observation sheets

following the workshop’. ‘planning’, ‘taking children’s lead’.

14 respondents would recommend the workshop(s) they attended to colleagues, 1 would not

The majority of respondents (12) indicated an interest in attending further workshops on topics

such as refresher courses, Pobal workshops, documenting, observations, Aistear, Síolta.

Mentoring Supports:

Respondents were based in Wexford, Westmeath, Waterford, Meath, Sligo, Louth, Dublin and

Cork

Respondents were working in sessional settings (8) and Full day care (7)

11 descriptions of curriculum were given across 15 respondents and included ‘child focused’, ‘play

based’ and ‘Síolta and Aistear’

45

11 respondents had received previous training in Síolta and Aistear, 4 had not. The extent of this training

was not detailed. Those who indicated yes, stated ‘went to different centres and completed Síolta’, ‘Only

Aistear’, ‘online Aistear’, ‘Better Start’

When asked to describe the focus on mentoring received respondents stated ‘standards of Síolta,

quality of provision, different standards and dissected it to improve and implement, transitions,

practice guide, ways to improve, more play oriented.

Respondents were asked to describe the knowledge of the mentor and all responded positively

and identified elements such as knowledgeable, approachable, relevant, tips and being supportive

All respondents felt that the amount and timing of mentoring sessions was very good and worked

well for them

Respondents rated the mentoring received as very helpful (11) and helpful (4) which were the

highest and second highest ratings available

14 respondents felt that the content of mentoring was relevant, 1 felt that it was not.

All 15 respondents said the mentoring received helped them to make changes in their setting and

all agreed it made a difference to children and staff. Examples of this provided included ‘took on

board tips’, ‘better understanding of Aistear and Síolta’, ‘constantly reflecting and changing’,

Previous training in Síolta and Aistear

Yes No

46

‘outdoor improvements’. ‘added names to pics’, developed visual aids’, ‘expanded cosy areas’,

‘layout of rooms’.

All 15 respondents would recommend mentoring support to colleagues

A slight majority of respondents (8) were either not interested in further mentoring or not at the

moment.

47

Effectiveness of the model

This section will focus on the original objectives of the NSAI and comment on the effectiveness of the

initiative in meeting these objectives.

Key Objectives of the NSAI:

1. To coordinate at a national level the development and quality assurance of resources and

materials related to Síolta and Aistear and provide greater coherency

National coordination has been implemented with the introduction of key national coordinator

roles. The NSAI has made good progress in developing a number of quality assurance measures

related to the development and use of Síolta and Aistear resources and materials. This included

the revision and development of a number of Síolta resources such as the user manual, QAP

Implementation toolkit and associated resources such as consistent templates for mentors,

development of Síolta awareness raising workshops and revised and newly developed resources

and materials for Síolta validators and settings going through this process. Ten hours of CPD

related to Aistear has been developed and piloted, within a model that included a coaching

element, providing for the first time nationally led and developed Aistear training and consistent

resources and materials for mentors delivering the training. A new introductory workshop has

been developed to integrate both frameworks from initial stages of engagement of practitioners.

The previous section on quality assurance has indicated other quality assurance measured put in

place by the initiative to date and also highlights areas of vulnerability in terms of quality

assurance of the initiative and which need to be addressed and further developed. Greater

coherency has been given to development and use of Síolta and Aistear materials particularly

within the initiative but some issues remain in terms of beginning a quality assurance structure

for work and materials related to Síolta and Aistear which is outside the direct NSAI activities. This

48

initiative has impacted on cohesion between a number of key organizations involved in delivery

of supports related to quality improvement such as CCC’s, NVCO’s, ABC’s and Better Start.

2. To expand access to Early Years Settings for supports to engage with and implement Síolta and

Aistear

The national initiative has increased the number of mentors nationally from 12-67 with between

50-55 of these actively implementing the majority of the time. Figures and statistics presented in

the earlier section on implementation to date indicate that there has been much wider access to

supports related to Síolta and Aistear as a result of the national initiative. However, it is clear that

some issues remain in relation to accessibility with not all counties having a number of mentors

to meet the needs of settings in the area.

3. To provide dedicated funding to support the implementation of both Síolta and Aistear, the

national quality and curricular frameworks

The funding allocation from DCYA is a significant development which underpins the value and

strength of Síolta and Aistear as the national frameworks and investment in the NSAI signifies the

commitment of government to support implementation for settings. This is further supported by

the contractual requirements for Síolta and Aistear implementation as an element of DCYA

funding schemes. Dedicated funding for the initiative has facilitated the development of a

national coordination and management structure with a strong focus on implementation of Síolta

and Aistear at the heart of quality improvement work. As the national frameworks it is important

that a strategic and focused implementation plan is enabled which is supported by specific

funding. Whilst the initial implementation of the initiative has been developed on a short term

basis, strategic planning for the longer term is in progress to align the initiative with other quality

49

initiatives in order for maximum effectiveness to be achieved. It is important that a longer term

plan is developed and committed to in order to continue the view of the frameworks as central

to all early years work. This will require a more joined up and streamlined model which will

increase accessibility, availability and consistency of delivery

50

Review of the NSAI model – Conclusions and recommendations for the future NSAI model

Introduction

The NSAI initiative was developed in response to the findings of a national survey of

practitioners (2015) which sought to address the concerns raised that practitioners were poorly

prepared to implement the national quality and curricular frameworks-Síolta and Aistear . Whilst

a number of the key objectives of the initiative have been met, a review of the current mentoring

model in 2018 has identified both the strengths and gaps in the implementation of the NSAI

initiative to date. Analysis of the emerging themes provided a timely opportunity for the NSAI

steering committee to consider and address both the on-going and future development of the

current model. The emerging themes identified in the review include:

1. Governance

2. Administration and cost effectiveness

3. National coverage and wider Implementation.

4. Quality assurance of training and mentoring delivery and CPD and resource content and

development

5. Ongoing and future developments and alignment across all national initiatives.

Key Findings

Governance of the NSAI.

There is an overwhelming consensus from respondents across organisations (mentors and

coordinators) and practitioners on the value of the establishment of a national coordination

structure and the roles of dedicated national coordinators. The findings strongly indicate that the

national coordination supports provide consistency of messaging, a more cohesive and

interagency approach, an increased focus on Síolta and Aistear and enables the initiative to be

more streamlined.

51

Other key findings of the review highlight the benefits of the coordinators’ roles in providing

guidance and advice given their in-depth understanding of Síolta and Aistear to support delivery

on the ground. The provision of CPD was cited as beneficial particularly for new mentors and as

a means of peer support. The review also identified the positive impact and the transparent

nature of the communication processes employed including the NSAI newsletter and

establishment of the NING platform.

However, at present the Síolta coordinator’s role is not as effective as possible, as the mentors

report into their individual organisational management structures and although activities and

plans are reported to the Síolta coordinator, there is a lack of a clear mechanism for the

coordinator to have a more directive role in monitoring and overseeing the quality assurance

aspects of the model. There is also a need to further delineate between what constitutes

activities under the national initiative versus ad hoc activities being delivered and branded under

Síolta and Aistear, which have not been developed and quality assured under the NSAI initiative

The review highlights key challenges in relation to governance such as adequately balancing the

mentors existing work priorities for the CCC’s with NSAI and DCYA requirements. A more

consistent approach between the Aistear and Síolta strands of the NSAI coupled with the gap and

lead in time for replacement of the Aistear coordinator also presented a significant challenge.

Additional issues regarding the lack of inclusion of managers in the communication of both the

funding and overall strategic vision was identified by some respondents as a barrier to broader

implementation.

Administration and cost effectiveness

The review of the current model identifies a number of systems and structures that have been

developed to support effective administration and increase quality assurance of the NSAI. These

include establishment of a central information database which includes a quarterly reporting

structure for partner organisations to report on NSAI activity. The purpose of the reports and

database is to gather data on NSAI implementation nationally and to inform planning for the

52

initiative. Invoicing systems have also been developed and a process for payment agreed with

NSAI organisations and DCYA.

The review strongly suggests that challenges remain with the reporting and invoicing structures

including quality of completion, although there have been improvements for more recent

submissions. These structures also create a high level of work for the national Síolta coordinator

who is responsible for their review and sign off. Submissions from partner organisations suggest

that reporting structures should be aligned with those already in place with DCYA & Pobal.

A key finding for consideration with the current administrative process is the fact that it is a very

expensive and potentially unsustainable model. The backfilling system has been heavily criticised

by partner organisations who indicate that this poses challenges in terms of being able to recruit

appropriate staff and to plan accordingly.

National coverage and wider implementation

The review looked at the organisational implementation levels of the current model as well as at

the geographical coverage and access to CPD/mentoring for providers nationwide.

In terms of organizational implementation levels, in Q4 2017, only 87% of the organisations with

trained Síolta Aistear mentors (29 organisations) had active mentors implementing the initiative.

3 of the organisations did not implement any activity in Q4 or use any of their allocated hours

due to staff changes despite having 4 trained mentors. Another 2 mentors were inactive due to

maternity leave and 2 others were inactive due to lack of capacity/time to use their hours. There

was significant under-utilisation of the hours allocated right across the 24 CCCs with trained

mentors, with less than 60% of those hours used.

In terms of national coverage of mentors, the majority of counties have at least 1 mentor,

however these may not all be active (see above) and in some large areas, 1 mentor delivering

part-time is inadequate for the number of settings (e.g. Cork City and Donegal). Laois and

Longford have no access to mentors and Fingal CCC also do not have an active mentor.

53

Quality Assurance

The review outlines a number of quality assurance measures that have been developed as part

of the initiative. These include formal and informal support, guidance and coordination from

national coordinators on materials, resources and implementation relevant to both strands of

work and systems and structures to support effective governance of the initiative (steering group,

reporting and invoicing structures, and submission of plans).

Conversely potential challenges to quality assurance are highlighted which expose potential

vulnerability such as the location of the national coordinators in separate organisations, the lack

of direct line management and monitoring of mentors to ensure consistency of approach,

absence of supervision and support to evaluate mentor capacity , knowledge , and skills . This

impacts directly on planning for the next steps in the training and coaching supports, presents a

significant gap in the theory to practice loop and capacity building needs for both the mentors

and practitioners.

Other issues include a diverse array of mentors and organisations involved in the initiative for

varying periods of time, the absence of a formal clearing house structure to quality assure the

CPD content and mentoring resources and materials, development of the frameworks and the

impact of the short term nature of the NSAI and cost effectiveness of elements of the model

within the budget available. A number of concerns were raised in submissions from partner

organisations regarding alignment of the NSAI with other initiatives, particularly Better Start.

Issues around the short term funding of the initiative were also noted as a challenge to longer

term planning including recruitment of staff.

Conclusions

Future governance of the NSAI

In considering a number of the findings and questions posed in the review with regard to

governance and the effectiveness of the current national coordination structure that has been

established, there is still a continued need to retain the dedicated steering group to oversee and

54

provide strategic direction on the development and implementation of the initiative. The specific

roles and functions of all the key stakeholders within the NSAI have been clearly articulated in

the review. As the funders of the NSAI, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs play a key

regulatory role in terms of funding schemes for the sector including the ECCE scheme where a

contractual obligation is the implementation of both Síolta and Aistear. DCYA also have a remit

in policy development around quality systems and infrastructure.

The Department of Education and Skills initiated the development of both Síolta and Aistear

frameworks and retain ownership and responsibility for coordinating the development and

implementation of both frameworks. The national Síolta Coordinator is employed by DES within

a co-located arrangement with DCYA and reports back into DES. There is a clear rationale to retain

this reporting structure relationship due to the requirement of DES to support the continued

development of the frameworks and provide cohesion and integration of both the policy unit and

the EYEI inspectorate.

The NCCA hold an advisory role on curriculum and assessment. There is a continued need for the

NCCA to engage in the research and development of the curriculum framework, the aistear-siolta

practice guide and early childhood developments in general. The National Aistear Coordinator is

employed by and based in the NCCA and reports directly to the organisation.

The addition of representation of Better Start on the national steering committee will provide

added value to the dimensions of quality assurance and the centrality of messaging under the

organisations current remit to deliver mentoring support to the sector through it’s Quality

Development Service. Better Start’s remit is to be extended into delivering training, initially to

support the implementation of AIM (Level 3) and they are in the process of establishing a new

learning and development unit. The issue of quality assurance of delivery under the current

model requires further examination to ensure consistency and scope for wider implementation.

55

Quality, consistency and quality assurance

Taking a broader perspective rather than focusing on developing the NSAI in isolation,

consideration needs to be given to the recognition of Síolta and Aistear as the national quality

and curriculum frameworks and the need for them to be embedded in all other quality initiatives

and developments within the sector. First and foremost, Síolta and Aistear underpin the

Education focused inspections (EYEI). Better Start, Quality Development Service (QDS) mentoring

supports are based on both frameworks and the Aistear Síolta practice guide, and the work of

the NCCA involves the ongoing development of the practice guide.

Despite the centrality of both frameworks in informing the work of all key stakeholders, there is

a high level of fragmentation and inconsistency within the current distributed model being

pursued which impacts directly on the delivery of a coherent and consistent message to the

sector.

This has to be addressed in a coherent way to eliminate confusion and overload in relation to key

educational messages being delivered across quality initiatives in the sector. Key to this is

ensuring that the development of all Síolta and Aistear CPD content, resources and materials is

overseen and quality assured at a national level by a working group with clearly defined roles and

responsibilities and including representatives from the national steering committee

organisations.

The delivery of the materials developed in this way also needs to be quality assured with pre and

post evaluation of the effectiveness of training as well as oversight of mentors delivering CPD in

the two frameworks.

Cost-effectiveness and coverage

The findings also indicate a number of problematic issues in relation to the cost effectiveness of

the existing model, which is currently highly resource intensive for all parties. A considerable

amount of the Síolta coordinator’s time is spent on resolving and managing the system, instead

56

of focusing on and optimising her expertise on the quality assurance agenda and supporting of

the mentors.

In terms of access, geographical access for services to Síolta Aistear mentoring has improved

since the introduction of the NSAI. However, there is still not consistent access for services to

support in implementing the frameworks. Even where mentors have been trained, their activity

and the level of use of the hours allocated is dependent on their individual management and the

capacity of the organisation to use those hours. With the rollout of the national Early Years

Education Inspections, it is becoming ever more imperative that there is equity of access for

services wishing to improve and enhance their implementation of the two frameworks, given

that the understanding and use of the two frameworks is being evaluated and reported on a

national basis.

Ongoing and future development and delivery of the frameworks

The findings support the need for central management of full time, fully active mentors to deliver

the initiative with full geographical coverage nationally and it is clear that the current distributed

model of delivery inhibits these aims. While elements of the issues that have been outlined in

the review could be addressed by the appointment of full time mentors within the city and county

childcare committees, the issues arising from trying to co-ordinate staff within 29 separate

organisations would remain. Full-time mentors within a single operating structure overseen by

a national Síolta Aistear implementation office would be a more effective means of addressing

cost issues and coverage issues.

In addition, a single management structure would further maximize existing expertise and ensure

consistency of messaging to the sector. The rationale for having one national organisation with

the relevant systems, structures, coordination capacity and national reach, in addition to a remit

to deliver supports related to Síolta and Aistear as part of their core work is clearly evident from

the current analysis and findings. Better Start fits this profile, although the current structures

within Better Start would need to be supplemented to allow for this extension of their remit.

57

A central quality assurance model needs to be developed to ensure that all CPD training,

mentoring, coaching, materials and resources delivered to the sector is centrally overseen and

approved. This is not to infer that all materials need to be developed in-house although there is

a strong argument for Aistear CPD to be developed in- house, but that all material is vetted. It is

easier to quality assure content and delivery under one organisation rather than across multiple

organisations. The obvious home for this activity is within the Early Years Specialist Service which

is evolving to become the quality support hub across the early year’s sector.

One of the current priorities for the DES is the development of the Aistear CPD by a working

group (Clearing House) with representation from the key stakeholders including NCCA, Better

Start, EYEI, and both Coordinators. At present the working group acts as a clearing house for the

development of specific Aistear CPD and this model of quality assurance could be developed for

future development, proofing and alignment of all content and resources of both Aistear and

Síolta CPD and mentoring supports. A standing structure with a remit to develop and approve

CPD materials and resources for the frameworks should be put in place with final decision on

content of materials/resources resting with that group. Clear terms of reference should be

agreed at National Steering Group level when Group is formally established.

The establishment of a National Síolta-Aistear Implementation Office within Better Start would

address the perceived fragmentation of the two frameworks. Within such an office the current

National Síolta Co-coordinator role would be re-focused and co-located with a key role in the

quality assurance and oversight of delivery of Síolta Aistear Initiative activity as well as in

organizing CPD and other supports for the QDS Early Years Specialists. This new National Síolta

Development Officer role will continue to report into DES and will play a key role in the future

evolution of the Síolta framework to a whole setting self-evaluation model similar to that used in

the schools, in conjunction with the DES Early Year Inspectorate and with Tusla. This will provide

a means for the QAP and EYEI processes to be integrated into a self-evaluation and external

evaluation framework.

58

Given the statutory role of the NCCA in curriculum development, the National Aistear coordinator

role would become more research and development focused to inform the development and

upgrading of the Aistear Síolta practice guide and to work on curriculum development and

alignment of the Aistear framework with the current reviews and development of the primary

curriculum within the NCCA. In that context, the post of a National Aistear development officer

should remain within the NCCA and will feed updated Aistear developments into the NSA

Resource Development Group. Existing aspects of the role relating to the operation and delivery

of the Aistear CPD would transfer into the NSA Implementation office.

However, it is important that formal contact between the two national posts and the team lead

in Better Start is embedded into the new model. It is proposed that a Project Group will meet

regularly to ensure an integrated approach to both frameworks’ development as the initiative

rolls out.

It is envisaged that the NSA Implementation Office would also have a role in commissioning

activity where required and as budgetary constraints allow in the two frameworks so long as the

content had been quality assured and approved by the NSA Resource Development Group. It is

acknowledged that there is a wealth of early year’s expertise and mentor knowledge and skills

accrued within the existing cohort of Síolta Aistear Mentors in the CCCs and NVOs. The NSA

Implementation office will continue to oversee and supervise those mentors (including through

NVOs) who are supporting settings through a QAP process and a number of hours will be

allocated to allow CCCs to continue with introductory awareness raising activity for the

frameworks out in the sector for the present. In light of the overall findings from the review, the

following plan for a restructuring of the current model is outlined in the diagram below:

59