Essay: Family integration and child development

Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) specifically incorporates an holistic approach to education to develop the whole child, ‘children learn best when they are healthy, safe and secure, when their individual needs are met, and when they have positive relationships with the adults caring for them’ (2014, pg. 16).
Early Help Assessments (EHA) have replaced CAF with a basic principle of a lead professional advocating and coordinating support to the child and family. Working Together to Safeguard Children (2015) state for an EHA to be effective the assessment should be undertaken with the agreement of the child and their parents with additional professionals discussing concerns with a social worker in the local authority (pg.16) thus identifying integrated approaches when supporting the child’s views and needs. The Children’s Act 1989 requires local authorities to give due regard to a child’s wishes and feelings under Section 17 before making decisions and The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) both protect the rights of children and provides a child centred framework for the development of services to children. Comparing international perspectives to compare how children’s rights are developed may offer new strategies to best support in the setting.
Section 2
International perspectives on family integration may provide progressive education that encourages families to socially interact within the setting creating discussion and involvement of child development. Regio Emilia schools in Italy focus on family inclusion to provide greater provision Henderswon et al (2007) state families that are involved in their children’s education have been shown to have better learning outcomes directly supporting holistic growth and shared values (Smith, 2014). During Smith (2014) study of Reggio Emilia schools teacher parent relationships where noted as open which strengthened working partnerships because parents felt they were listened too allowing for issues to be openly discussed establishing shared school ethos and involvement. Bushaw and Lopez (2011) state, when learners are asked about the most important priorities for improving achievement, they consistently cite increased parental support as a top priority (Kraft et al, 2014, pg.2).
Steiner ideology is also based on the commonality of social interaction and integration of school ethos and values compared with Regio Emilia. Community partnerships support Steiner schools, Woods et al (2005) suggest, parental participation such as volunteering or a parent teacher association create a commitment to higher standards of education contributing to the development of the philosophy of the school (pg. 7). One example of parental involvement in shaping the school community is a governing body. Woods et al (2005) state the benefits of parental engrossment to the anthroposophical ideology create an energetic community of parents and teachers working together for the benefit of the children (pg. 107). Ernst (2011) describes anthroposophical philosophy as ‘a school of thought or esoteric philosophy that expands the human mind through imagination, inspiration, and intuition’ (pg. 187). However an anthroposophical philosophy which Steiner schools adopt may create challenges to parents from traditional backgrounds weakening a connection to the education progress marginalising parental immersion to pedagogy. Evangelou et al (2008) suggest children should spend a couple of days at their future school; this is reported to be supportive for children and parents to transition into the schools ideology gradually (Crafter and Maunder, 2012, pg. 7).
Schools which are able to partner with families may create a higher consistency between school and home environments. Smith (2014) notes that such partnerships require that teachers and parents have shared understandings of classroom curriculum, pedagogy and behavioural expectations. Steiner claims that good practice for practitioners is to understand children’s home circumstances with intent to connect to Steiner philosophy (Woods, 2005, pg. 109). Steiner ethos stretches beyond school hours with many teachers expected to visit their pupils at home in order to further their understanding of them as individuals (Woods, 2005, pg107). However Smith (2014) identifies that family engagement from different cultures and low incomes have shown barriers to a child’s progress due to a lack of shared values indicating that the setting may impact on home life creating more of a divide to partnerships. To address this potential disconnect, Molland (2004) suggests teachers need to seek out information to understand and bridge the cultural and linguistic diversity reflected in the families of their students; creating an approach to develop relationships. Noel et al (2013) notes that evidence for poor or negative engagement regarding sharing of information creates a barrier to parent teacher engagement. The importance of clear family engagement is identified in Montessori schools that practice a family centred, community based approach which openly communicates and collaborates ideas within the setting (Morrison, 2006). Morrison (2006) also exemplifies the ideology of partnerships with families to create effective teaching and learning (pg. 7); parents who interact with school values discuss issues within the setting (pg.25) potentially this discussion can strengthen reciprocal values and understanding of practice.
Section 3
To support children and families, roles within the setting can be explored to analyse internal and external professionals that help develop relationships. Within the setting issues of concern surrounding health and development of the child will be listened too, the practitioner notes that behavioural needs of the child are often referred to the settings Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) for further discussion. Wheeler (2015) identifies the role of the SENCO as strategic overviewing the school’s Special Educational Needs policy and responsibility of day to day practical implementation and specific provisions made to support pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) including those with Education Health Care Plans (EHCP).
Birdsall et al (2014) describe EHCP as putting more emphasis on the child’s personal and holistic goals supporting the child across different services (pg.14). Wheeler (2015) also states the SENCO works closely with and is a key point of contact for parents and other educational establishments such as educational psychologists, health and social care professionals and independent and voluntary bodies. Mackenzie (2012) states, parents respected and connected with the SENCO because feelings regarding their child where understood creating a deeper advocacy, noting that this led to parents opening up and sharing their concerns. Cole (2005) suggests parents want to be treated with dignity and care regarding a child with SEND meaning that the relationship between parent and teacher could be reflected onto the child creating comfort and safety, which as Cole states is more important of a consideration (Mckenzie, 2015, pg. 37). However, Oldman and Radford (2011) suggest the SENCO role is heavily focused on administrative elements leaving little time for a leadership that could develop inclusive practice within the setting. The practitioner notes that within the setting training of staff has been delayed because of the SENCO’s over extension of administrative planning and work load. Winwood (2013) states this could create a barrier to more practitioners to reach out to parents and families regarding their individual situation because training has not been provided.
The SENCO relates information between internal and external professionals including those that assess and diagnose; Jimerson et al (2007) defines Educational Psychologists (EP) as a role that is fundamental in diagnosing autism spectrum disorders for children who display cognitive, emotional and social behaviour difficulties. Farrell et al (2006) also states the EP role develops and implements intervention programmes which consult with teachers, parents and relevant professionals (pg. 32) which links into the implementation of the ECM legislation that states, central to integrated children’s services are a team that form around the child and family (2006, pg. 7). Combining educational and social services allows EP a medium for both community partnerships and school practices correlating in multi-agency work, Erasmus (2010) suggests recent government policy and legislation have reaffirmed the need for EPs to work collaboratively with other disciplines within community contexts including children and families.
Some children however display health based needs, Leonard (1997) state children with specific speech and language difficulties (SSLD) have a primary language difficulty, which cannot be explained in terms of other cognitive, sensory or neurological impairments (Palikara et al, 2007, pg. 3). Speech and Language therapists therefore can be identified as primarily health based; however collaboration between professional groups such as Joint Professional Development Framework (JPDF) highlighted the importance of multi-professional work between health and education to better meet the needs of children and young people (Children Act 2004) (Palikara et al, 2007, pg. 4). The importance of speech and language in education can also be identified in pedagogy frameworks (EYFS Framework, 2014, pg. 7-10) which recognise the fundamental role of language and communication in children’s learning. Roulstone et al (2011) also comment that children from deprived communities consistently received less verbal input than children from higher income earing families affecting vocabulary and conversations. The practitioner notes that when a child has been diagnosed with speech and language difficulties a working partnership with the speech therapist is implemented to develop a communication strategy in the setting to offer better outcomes to the child and families such as additional reading material and phonic packs that can be implemented at the child’s home.
Section 4
As Britain becomes ever more diverse the importance of working partnerships of parents in their children’s education has become more prevalent, Schnell et al (2015) state research has emphasised that over the past two decades the importance of family support and parental involvement within migrant families is determining educational pathways (pg. 2). Crul et al (2012) suggest successful achievement of migrant children originates from parental ambitions and support with Schnell et al (2015) commenting that parents are a child’s first educators (pg. 4). Practitioners therefore are required to support and collaborate with parents to further understand development needs and ambitions. Goodall et al (2010) proposes effective engagement can be reached between practitioners and parents if additional training is available particularly when working with parents whose backgrounds are very different to their own. However, Epstein (1987) suggests parental involvement requires interacting with school and teacher objectives, e.g. learning activities at home such as reading which bond both school pedagogy and home learning. Practitioners can recommend books that both family and child are familiar with as to slowly develop relationships. The collision of cultural difference can stem from home ideology and school ethos, Winter and Hollingsworth (2015) suggest, parents play an integral role in the development of children shaping who they will become but that teachers should design experiences by consulting with and involving families; educating parents as well as their children. By designing experiences around the child and consulting with parents the school could also encourage school values and ethos developing integration.
On balance, Fogle and Mendez (2006) suggest that some family members may not be aware of the true value of development in a child’s life. This consideration can be applied to SEND children and families whose support and care could affect outcomes. Copple and Bredekamp (2009) state, parental involvement is a key tenet of effective early care and education. Consultation and the sharing of ideas could lead to supportive strategies that develop educational and health needs. However supportive development could prove challenging to practitioners as Miretzky (2004) suggests a teacher’s availability to engage is often based on time restraints within school hours creating a barrier to collaborative practice (Ellis et al, 2016). In the setting school meetings between teacher and families are organised in advance so any additional queries that may arise from support strategies can be explained or modified if the parent requires further explanation.
Parents living in poverty or in economic stress, for example, experience higher levels of emotional strain and mental health problems (McLoyd,1998) which can impair their ability to engage with and support children and increase their likelihood of using harsh or punitive parenting practices Weiss et al (2009). Poverty therefore can be identified as a catalyst of confining growth. Disadvantaged families may also experience further logistical barriers, such as lack of transportation and poor flexible hours due to low paying jobs which may affect approaching the school to be more involved with volunteering and developing a school ethos (Garcia and Chatman, 2005). Research suggests that efforts to involve families in their children’s learning at home and at school must address some of the poverty induced barriers to involvement and reconsider the relationship between educational success and adequate social welfare provision (Wells, 2006). As a result, disadvantaged families have less access to information about school policies and staff. Consequently they are not as likely to communicate with teachers and make educational decisions that benefit learners at home (Gordon et al., 2005).
Weyer (2015) states no single approach to family engagement exists it is interwoven with environmental factors surrounding the child and is highly context and resource dependent. Identifying the strategies in the setting to overcome barriers to family enagement could lead to integrated solutions.
Section 5
In the setting strategies to improve practice are modelled, HM Government (Integrated Working,2008) states, the ECM agenda challenges leaders and managers to build integrated teams that put the child and family at the heart of all that they do (pg.6). Lead professionals work with children and young people with additional needs that require an integrated package of support from more than one practitioner. The lead professional takes the lead to co-ordinate provision and act as a single point of contact for a child and their family HM Government (Integrated Working, 2008. pg. 5). The practitioner notes that to integrate and support children qualifications in the role are required, The Integrated Qualifications Framework (IQF) continues professional development and mobility across the children’s workforce through approved qualifications setting a standard for practitioners when working with children. The IQF will apply to qualifications in England and will be implemented by 2010 (HM Government: Integrated Working, 2008, pg.6). Improved opportunities for personal and career development (Harrington, 2003) and the acquisition of a wider range of skills in the workplace (Worrall-Davies and Cottrell, 2009) have also been identified for the practitioner to understand wider services and roles of educational and health professional to best support the child. The practitioner notes that all practitioners would benefit from further training and development to best meet individual needs of the children. Department for Education (2004) state to work successfully on a multi-agency basis you need to be clear about your own role and confident about your own standards and targets and respectful of those that apply to other services (Gillen, 2011). Barriers to qualifications are often cited as funding based (Barnes, 2008) the practitioner notes that inside training to support staff by the school SENCO has allowed staff members to be trained on working behaviours with children with additional needs and up-to-date legislation of practice.
Working with different services outside of the school is also required to overcome barriers to integrated working, Department for Education (2009) state The Team Around The Child (TAC) is the formation around the child that brings together practitioners from across different services who work together to co-ordinate and deliver an integrated package of solution focused support (Collins and Mccray, 2012). In relation to knowledge and understanding Atkinson et al (2007) state, there is widespread agreement among professionals that integrated working can lead to greater understanding of other professionals’ roles and enhance awareness of the needs of children and families (Oliver et al, 2010, pg. 26). Effective professional growth must be collaborative (Roth et al, 2002). The practitioner notes that regular opportunities for interactions with colleagues is important in terms of support, sharing ideas and learning from experiences (Vygotsky, 1978) with advantages of professional growth (Jang, 2006) . Team teaching has a variety of operational definitions. For example, the term may refer to a simple allocation of responsibilities between two teachers, team planning or instruction and evaluation of learning experiences (Sandholtz, 2000). Team teaching therefore can be identified as cooperative integration of ideas which allows practitioners to reflect on previous actions, but also negotiating and considering actions and ideas of others to influence further practice (Schon, 1983).
Section 6
The importance of good practice when working with children and families is evident when exploring professional contributions and strategies to engage, Halgunseth et al (2009) state family engagement occurs when there is an on-going, reciprocal, strengths-based partnership between families and their children’s early childhood education programs. One strategy identified is teacher family engagement; Halgunseth et al (2009) suggests that family members who volunteer time share information that develops relationships which in turn is integrated into the curriculum and instructional practice (pg.3). Communication therefore can be utilised as a tool to initiate conversations about the child and family experiences to create a continuous reciprocal relationship that shapes wider integration. Henrich & Gadaire, (2008) suggest meaningful engagement of families in their children’s learning supports the school in creating academic success. Henderson and Mapp (2002) comment that such strategies contribute to further develop of engagement in children’s learning which strengthen partnerships. However, Ferguson et al (2008) argue that simply attending a meeting or school function does not necessarily result in an educator or family member changing their beliefs or actions. Souto-Manning and Swick (2006) suggest that the traditional paradigm for parent involvement focuses on the deficiencies of parents and strives to adapt parents to the methods applied by the schools. Mutch and Collins (2012) reviewed barriers to parental involvement in New Zealand and concluded not all parents are equally involved in their children education citing communicating strategies as the most influential to engage parents with learning and school partnerships. Hornby and Lafaele (2011) stress that school policy means nothing unless it is backed up by action on the school’s part to include parents and make them feel that their contributions are worthwhile (Humphrey-Taylor, 2015).
Constantino (2008) states that family-school relationships are the foundation for real or meaningful family engagement, however, Hoover-Dempsey et al (2005) found that programs and strategies progressed when welcoming factors were considered which influenced family engagement. The practitioner notes the setting implements welcoming strategies to engage with parents ranging from having staff greet families at the door, to hanging signs on the school walls so that families can navigate the building more easily, to establishing a parent room where parents can find information on child development or the educational program. Constantino (2008) suggests that these strategies result in family members feeling welcome, with intangible benefits such as feelings of acceptance and appreciation which are also important for promoting partnerships with families (Halgunseth et al, 2009, pg. 9). Gratz (2006) suggests a child’s attitude towards education is very dependent on the experience their parents received when they were children; indicating that a negative experience by the parent at school may influence how their children interpret learning and education.
Cultural differences and language barriers may lead to misconceptions about families’ participation in their children’s education. Strategies in the setting can limit these barriers by being involved in the community and striving to learn about the different cultural backgrounds of the children they educate and by hiring staff with similar cultural and language backgrounds as the children in the setting to promote diversity and acceptance. Ferguson et al, (2008) suggests biases, even unconscious biases, by practitioners can harm the partnerships between families and discourage families from participating. Therefore Ginsberg (2007) suggests expanding knowledge of cultural backgrounds creates a connection with parents, Meyer and Mann (2006) state improved communication with parents enhances understanding of the child and a greater insight on how the home environment influences school performance. Communication is the basis for any strong relationship and especially important with respect to family engagement in early childhood education programs (Baker and Manfredi-Petitt, 2004). Practitioners can communicate with parents through a variety of different means to further expand integration and understating including newsletters, translated materials, telephone calls, home visits (Carlisle et al, 2005) cited in (Halgunseth et al, 2009, pg. 10).
Conclusion
The connection between poor professional working and child tragedies has been made apparent by numerous inquiries into child deaths. UK policy makers have responded by promoting multi-agency partnerships working together to clarify aims and objectives under the umbrella of safeguarding. Strategically there have been some gains from integrated approaches such as the SAFER referral which supports early intervention of abuse and harm thus increasing the chances of positive outcomes. However, the terminology within the field of integration is unclear specifically regarding inclusion of parents within the setting. Strategies to promote parental empowerment through inclusive practices have shown to strengthen relationships and promote a better quality of provision for the child. However, there is a growing body of evidence that identifies barriers for different groups of parents in accessing services. Additional research on parents own behaviours and attitudes should be explored, so that services can become more sensitive when supporting families. The effectiveness of different approaches in consulting and planning strategies with parents is regarded as good practice. However, the practitioner notes these approaches are not reported as universally successful in engaging parents in mainstream services. This point however is irrelevant to the practitioner since involving parents regardless of motive can be justified as inclusive thus strengthening integration. However, moral obligations of services to parents should not be confused with evidence of effectiveness.