Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care (Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood) 3031340221, 9783031340222

Citation preview

CRITICAL CULTURAL STUDIES OF CHILDHOOD

Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care Edited by Stefanija Ališauskienė Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen · Daiva Kairienė

Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood Series Editors

Marianne N. Bloch Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI, USA Beth Blue Swadener School of Social Transformation Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA

This series focuses on reframings of theory, research, policy, and pedagogies in childhood. A critical cultural study of childhood is one that offers a ‘prism’ of possibilities for writing about power and its relationship to the cultural constructions of childhood, family, and education in broad societal, local, and global contexts. Books in the series open up new spaces for dialogue and reconceptualization based on critical theoretical and methodological framings, including critical pedagogy; advocacy and social justice perspectives; cultural, historical, and comparative studies of childhood; and post-structural, postcolonial, and/or feminist studies of childhood, family, and education. The intent of the series is to examine the relations between power, language, and what is taken as normal/abnormal, good, and natural, to understand the construction of the ‘other,’ difference and inclusions/exclusions that are embedded in current notions of childhood, family, educational reforms, policies, and the practices of schooling. Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood will open up dialogue about new possibilities for action and research. Single-authored as well as edited volumes focusing on critical studies of childhood from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives are included in the series. A particular focus is in a reimagining and critical reflection on policy and practice in early childhood, primary, and elementary education. The series intends to open up new spaces for reconceptualizing theories and traditions of research, policies, cultural reasonings, and practices at all of these levels, in the United States, as well as comparatively.

Stefanija Ališauskienė Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Daiva Kairienė Editors

Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care

Editors Stefanija Ališauskienė Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas, Lithuania

Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Nord University, Bodø, Norway

Daiva Kairienė Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas, Lithuania

ISSN 2731-636X     ISSN 2731-6378 (electronic) Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood ISBN 978-3-031-34022-2    ISBN 978-3-031-34023-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Malte Mueller / fStop / gettyimages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

It is a great honour and privilege to be invited to write this forward to this new volume edited by Stefanija, Natallia and Daiva entitled: Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care. I have worked professionally with Stefanija and Daiva in Lithuania over a number of years. Stefanija Ališauskienė, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen and Daiva Kairienė are leaders in the field of family-professional collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Their combined expertise in practice and research gives this new book credibility and can be viewed as an authoritative voice about the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults (families and professionals) to respect and protect children’s interests and rights. The collection of chapters in this edited book represents a selection of the best practice from authors around the world, but predominantly in Europe. The research and practice questions linked to the relationship between education institutions, professionals and families are frequently addressed by scholars around the world. The research literature suggests that the power dynamic between professionals and families can be problematic. The relationship between home and school is frequently characterized as challenging and unequal, and the knowledge of professionals and experts can at times overshadow the knowledge and expertise that parents bring to the relationship. The literature also provides models for working with parents, and they often replicate the practices that promote an imbalance in the relationships v

vi 

FOREWORD

which does not always value the knowledge and expertise. Conceptual frameworks that promote a more inclusive approach for professionals and families are increasingly recognizing the valuable insights and expertise that each member of the team around the child brings, and at the end of the day, all want the same outcomes for the child: that is, for them to reach their potential. Parents and families are the greatest allies for teachers and professionals. This statement is particularly true when the aim of education is for an inclusive experience for all children. This book presents an argument for something more than what is typically discussed in the literature in terms of partnerships with families and seeks to promote collaboration as a more authentic way to facilitate  inclusive education for children with diverse learning needs. This edited book brings together leading scholars and practitioners from around the world, each of whom considers their context and explores the nature of the relationships between educators and those professionals who work with children and their families to ensure that Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) caters for not only the diverse and individualized needs of all children, but specifically those children with complex needs. The central premise of this book is based on a rights-based approach for the education and care of young children. The European countries have adopted the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989) and other European conventions that make it statutory to operate within a framework that considers the rights of individuals as a prime driver in education and social care policy and practice. One of the book’s outstanding features is that it fills a gap in the research literature about the complex nature of the relationships between professionals and families but adopting the rights-based approach that underpins the importance of this type of work. One of the benefits of the text is that it is structured in a way that teases out the complexities of collaboration and the layers that can present barriers to full participation. There are three notable features of this book that focus on interprofessional collaboration. The first feature is relationships between professionals can present challenges when viewing the rights of a child through various professional lenses. The emphasis on collaboration minimizes the formation of hierarchies and prevents the ranking of knowledge based on perceived importance. For example, preferencing medical knowledge over educational or social work knowledge may lead to

 FOREWORD 

vii

decisions made by professionals ignoring the most important aspects for an individual. A decision to move a child into a specialist education facility because of their health needs fails to recognize the child’s rights to friends, peers and social contacts that they could experience in a mainstream setting. The second notable feature of this book looks at the complex relationships that exist between professionals and parents. My own research is about the role of professionals’ attitudes towards families and the significance of the relationship in optimizing children’s life chances and potential. The power imbalance that can exist between families and professionals can be due to the ‘hierarchies of knowledge’ that value ‘professional and expert’ knowledge over parents’ knowledge of the child or a professional’s practical knowledge of working with the child. The third notable feature of this book is the specific focus on the most important years of life, early childhood. International research confirms that this period of life, a child’s experience during this time, will shape their future. In some cases, children’s early experiences and trauma cannot be reversed but so much can be done by families and professionals to ensure that children’s experiences are positive and to support them to thrive. The core message of the book places the child and the child’s family at the centre of all pedagogical decisions. This book has a lot to offer international audiences who are currently recovering from the impact of Covid-19, being impacted by the significant conflict in the Ukraine and challenging economic times. This set of circumstances adds stress to families and systems designed to support and reduce the impact of such external factors. For professionals who read this book, it will introduce some new ideas and potential support for an improvement in practices that will lead to a more inclusive educational experience for children in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Stefanija Ališauskienė, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen and Daiva Kairienė and their colleagues have started a conversation in this book that offers a tangible opportunity to make changes to the way in which families and professionals, and professionals work with other professionals. Catherine Carroll-Meehan, Professor of Education and Pedagogy at Liverpool Hope University, UK. Her career in early childhood education has included work in Australia and the UK as a teacher, leader and academic. Her recent research in parents and partnership included a study

viii 

FOREWORD

that explores the nature of trainee teachers’ beliefs about the role of parents and families in the lives of children. The foundation for quality practices in Early Childhood Inclusive Education and Care (ECIEC) entails interprofessional and family-­ professional collaboration. We know from more than 30 years of research that quality of the partnership with families and professionals is a crucial factor and influences the effectiveness of interventions and outcomes for children and their families. The complexity involved in supporting and answering to the concerns and expectations of families of all children, particularly of children with Special Needs, makes the need for different professional knowledge’s and consequently, teamwork that ensures interprofessional collaboration. A model that helps our understanding of those influences on child and family well-being is Urie Bronfenbrenner bio-­ ecological model of development. In his model mesosystems are the relationships between two or more settings in which the child is an active participant, such as school and home, so the social richness of a child’s mesosystem stems from the number and quality of those connections. We can have two extremes: the case where the child is the only connection and the microsystems in both sides making irreconcilable demands, and at the other extreme, where there is a total joining between the two settings. Risk exists in mesosystems when there is absence of connections between one microsystem and the other. The sturdier, more positive, and more diverse the links between settings, the more powerful and beneficial the resulting mesosystems will be as an influence on the child’s development. So, for example, how well preschool, day care or other setting and home work together to provide a healthy balance between the two settings becomes of crucial importance in this process. Getzels (1974) mentions the balance between particularism (looks at each person individually) and universalism (treating everyone by the same standards), in the child’s experience. Families tend to emphasize particularism, but  preschool appear to be  universalistic ones, but for a healthy balance and positive child outcomes, family and preschool must work together and complement each other. It is like riding a tandem bike; if you ever tried to do it, one needs to be synchronized in movements, balance and pace. If not, then you don’t move or go anywhere. But if you are synchronized, then you can take the tandem bike where you want. ECIEC family and professional partners contribute equal amounts of power to meet their shared goals. Creating this power level—energy to act, that is brought to each encounter by both parents and professionals in the partnership, as noted

 FOREWORD 

ix

by Ann Turnbull—can be sometimes an easy journey and sometimes complicated by mismatching, miscommunication or other challenges which require on part of professionals important competences, that go beyond the knowledge base of the different disciplines. These relational and participatory competencies are related to how support is provided, that is, in ways that entail family-centred principles. Going back to the tandem bike metaphor, the problem with the history of family-­professional collaboration is that we had not been able yet to allow families to ride the tandem bike with us. We still want to drive families and very few times allow the family to be part of the power that moves the tandem bike. This is the necessary paradigm shift we need in family-professional collaboration, and this book with its rich chapters and research from different European countries can have an important role in opening the reflection on the need for this paradigmatic change. The way it is organized and the information it provides on experiences in different European cultures brings an enormous contribution for an understanding of this topic. The reflection on these different experiences and components of interprofessional collaboration and family-professional collaboration can be a leverage for the implementation of IPC and FPC practices in ECIEC to improve the outcomes for all children and families. Last but not least, entailing the concepts of collaboration and participation, ‘nothing about me without me’, it will be nice to read, in a next book on this topic, a chapter written by families. Ana Maria Serrano, Associate Professor at University of Minho, Portugal. She is the president of EURLYAID—The European Association on Early Childhood Intervention. Over the past decades, a growing amount of research has shown that the first years of a child’s life are crucial when the ‘brain architecture’ of the human being is formed in a short period and in a particularly intense way. High-quality early childhood education positively impacts a child’s future cognitive, social and emotional development. Moreover, at the same time, it provides an opportunity to detect risks or developmental disorders early and provide the necessary care, education and support. Today, early childhood is influenced by globalization, emigration, immigration, social exclusion, poverty, multilingualism, the pace of change and the development of information technology, and is therefore complex and multifaceted. Thus, the debate on how Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) policies and practices should change and what factors influence the quality of education of young children is becoming an increasingly important topic worldwide.

x 

FOREWORD

The anthology Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, written by an international team of researchers, is particularly timely and relevant. The anthology presents unique and inspiring Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) practices and discoveries from different countries, various models and trends in collaboration between those working with and for children, and the latest research, providing a cross-country perspective on today’s issues and problems. The unique value of the work lies in its focus on inter-­ institutional cooperation between different sectors (education, health, and social), on the partnership between early childhood teachers, family and professionals working as a team, sharing responsibility in decision-making, and thus creating an inclusive culture and practice for each and every one. Laima Jankauskienė, Head of Preschool and Primary Education Division Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Lithuanian Republic.  Professor of Education and Catherine Carroll-Meehan Pedagogy at Liverpool Hope University, UK Associate professor at the University of Ana Maria Serrano Minho, Minho, Portugal, and a president of EURLYAID – The European Association on Early Childhood Intervention. Head of Preschool and Primary Education Laima Jankauskienė Division Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Lithuanian Republic Vilnius, Lithuania 

Acknowledgements

This book has been written in a close collaboration of the researchers and ECEC experts from Lithuania, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Spain, the UK and Ukraine. We would like to express our gratitude to each and all authors of the chapters for their kind cooperation, professionalism, responsibility, trust and comprehension that enabled us to work productive as an international team. We are also thankful to our colleagues from the UK, who have contributed to data gathering and further remarks of the study. We want to express our sincere gratitude to Palgrave Macmillan staff, including Linda Braus, Editor, Education, Childhood, Youth, and Family Studies, and Antony Sami, the Production Editor. Our deep appreciation for your significant support and helpful advice and for being accessible for the discussion and consultations at all stages of book writing stages. Our special thanks to Catherine Carroll-Meehan, Professor of Education and Pedagogy at Liverpool Hope University, UK; Ana Maria Serrano, Associate Professor at the University of Minho, Portugal, President of EURLYAID; and Laima Jankauskiene, Head of Preschool and Primary Education Division Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Lithuanian Republic for the Forewords to the book. Many thanks to Monica Melby-­ Lervåg, Professor at the Department of Special Needs Education at University of Oslo, Director of the Centre for Research on Special Needs Education and Inclusion for the Endorsement to the book. We are thankful to reviewers for their constructive and critical feedbacks, comments and suggestions on book chapters. xi

xii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to Odeta Sapelyte and Aldona Bagdoniene for technical support. We are also thankful to our families for understanding and support that was very helpful in the intensive process of the book writing. Sincerely, Stefanija Ališauskienė Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Daiva Kairienė

Praise for Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care “A scholarly and important contribution to the often neglected areas of interdisciplinary collaboration and collaboration with the family to promote inclusion of children with special needs. This book is authoritative because the authors do research in this area, and it is a must-have book for all interested in inclusive and special needs education.” —Monica Melby-Lervåg, Professor Department of Special Needs Education University of Oslo. Director of the Centre for Research on Special Needs Education and Inclusion (SpedAims)

Contents

1 Introduction  to Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care  1 Stefanija Ališauskienė, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, and Daiva Kairienė Part I Theoretical Perspectives on Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care  13 2 Interprofessional  Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care 15 Stefanija Ališauskienė, Daiva Kairienė, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen , Jonna Kangas , and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen 3 Family-Professional  Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care 29 Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, Stefanija Ališauskienė, and Daiva Kairienė

xv

xvi 

CONTENTS

Part II Interprofessional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care  43 4 Interprofessional  Intervention Collaboration in Early Language Learning in the United Kingdom: A Descriptive Case Study 45 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen 5 Interprofessional  Collaboration for Inclusive Education in Early Childhood Education and Care in Ukraine 61 Nataliia Sofii , Oksana Fedorenko , Iryna Novyk, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , and Jonna Kangas 6 Caught  Between Expectations and Ambitions: Finnish Early Childhood Special Education Teachers’ Experiences of Consultation as Interprofessional Collaboration 79 Eva Staffans and Christel Sundqvist 7 Developing  Interprofessional Collaboration: Learning Communities in Early Childhood Education and Care in Iceland 99 Edda Óskarsdóttir , Anna Katarzyna Wozniczka, and Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir 8 Communication  in Interprofessional Teams Meeting Special Educational Needs of Children in Lithuanian ECEC Settings115 Stefanija Ališauskienė and Daiva Kairienė 9 The  Schooling Processes of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Early Childhood Education: Implications for Interprofessional Collaboration in Spain137 María Pantoja González, Gerardo Echeita Sarrionandia, and Cecilia Simón Rueda 10 Interprofessional  Collaboration in the Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care Context159 Tove Ingebrigtsen and Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen

 CONTENTS 

xvii

Part III Family-Professional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care 179 11 “To  See a Shift in Parents’ Knowledge”: A Case Study of Family Professional Collaboration in the United Kingdom181 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Jonna Kangas 12 Family-Professional  Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care in Ukrainian Policy197 Olena Martynchuk, Tetiana Skrypnyk, Nataliia Sofii, Natalia Babych, Jonna Kangas, and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen 13 Parental  Partnerships in Early Childhood Education—A Document Analysis of Teacher Education Programs and Policy Documents in Sweden and Finland213 Tina Yngvesson , Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , and Susanne Garvis 14 Family-Professional  Collaboration in Inclusive Early Childhood Education in Iceland—Multilingual Families and Children229 Hanna Ragnarsdóttir 15 Family-Professional  Collaboration in Teams Meeting Special Educational Needs of Children in Lithuanian ECEC Settings245 Daiva Kairienė and Stefanija Ališauskienė 16 Professional  and Family Relationships Within the Framework of a Family-Centred Approach in Spain267 Cecilia Simón Rueda, Margarita Cañadas, and Ángela Barrios 17 Family-Professional  Collaboration in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care287 Martin Samuelsson and Tove Ingebrigtsen

xviii 

CONTENTS

18 A  Parental Perspective on Educational Support for High-­Ability Children in Finland303 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , Katja Sirvio, and Jonna Kangas 19 The  Development of Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care—Lessons Learned321 Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Index

341

Notes on Contributors

Stefanija  Ališauskienė  is a professor at the Academy of Education, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania. Stefanija’s research interests are linked to inclusive education, Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), early childhood intervention, special needs education and personalized learning. Over ten years she is editor-in-­chief of scientific periodical Special Education and the member of Editorial Board of the European Journal of Special Needs Education. Prior to moving into higher education, she worked as a speech therapist in the field of early childhood education and educational support to children and families for over 20 years. Nataliia  Babych is an associate professor at the Chair of Special and Inclusive Education of Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine. Natalia’s research interests are linked to speech therapy support of persons with speech disorder, speech sound disorder and their combination, inclusive education, Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), early childhood intervention, and special needs education. Prior to moving into higher education, she worked as a speech therapist in the field of early childhood education and medical institutions of the city of Kyiv for over 20 years. Ángela Barrios  is an associate professor. She has developed her university teaching since 2006 to the present in the Psychology Faculty in the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology of the Autonomous University of Madrid. She is co-coordinator of research group ‘Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Education’ (EQUIDEI) at UAM (https://www.equidei.es/). She is member of the university institute of xix

xx 

Notes on Contributors

Needs and Rights of Childhood and Adolescence. Principally, her research has been in the relationships between peers in the school. In this area, she has collaborated with schools to improve their scholar climate. She is currently interested in these relationships understood as the social dimension of inclusive education, as well as in collaborative practices that promote the inclusion of all students. Margarita Cañadas  is a professor at the Faculty of Psychology and director of the L’Alqueria-Capacitas Early Childhood Center at the Catholic University of Valencia, Spain. Her research interests include early childhood, family-centred practices and implementation science in early childhood. She is director of the Ibero-American Observatory for Early Childhood Intervention, Ambassador of Recommended Practices of the Early Childhood Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, and member of the Board of the European Association on Early Childhood Intervention (Eurlyaid). She collaborates in the implementation of recommended practices in Early Childhood in Spain and other Latin American countries. Oksana  Fedorenko has pedagogical background on the speciality ‘Special Pedagogy’ (2003). She got her PhD in 2015. Since 2015 she focuses on development of modules for teacher training and lectures for students (inclusive pedagogy across the curriculum, supporting diversity in the classroom, and approach to pre-­service teacher preparation for inclusive education), and from 2013 to 2018 she was member of the editorial board (responsible secretary) of the special scientific edition Exceptional Child: Teaching and Upbringing. She was also a consultant in the project ‘ICF for Inclusive Education’ (by the UNICEF in Ukraine and by the public organization ‘Synerhiia’); coach and mentor in the project ‘Improving the Quality of Pre-school Education in Ukraine’ (by the UNICEF in Ukraine and by the Ukrainian Step by Step Foundation); consultant in the project ‘Institutionalization of a Universal Teaching Assistant in Ukraine: Exploring Conditions for Implementation’ (by the Ukrainian Step by Step Foundation); and consultant in the project ‘Providing Transition Program from Early Intervention to Early Childhood Education’ (by the Ukrainian Step by Step Foundation). At present, she works at the Ukrainian Institute of Education Development. The field of scientific interests are the professional development of pedagogical workers, professional standards and education reform, implementation of inclusive education and professional training of future teachers.

  Notes on Contributors 

xxi

Susanne  Garvis  is a  professor of early childhood education at Griffith University, Australia. She has previously worked at University of Gothenburg and Stockholm University in Sweden. Her research interests include quality, policy and early childhood teacher education (including pedagogical practices). She has worked on numerous national and international early childhood education projects with governments, NGOs and professional organizations. She currently sits on number of different local, national and international advisory boards and working parties to support quality in early childhood education. María  Pantoja  González  is a psychologist specializing in Educational Psychology and in the processes of development and learning throughout the life cycle. She has focused her activity in educational research, specifically in studying the processes of inclusion in family, school and community, being a member of the EQUIDEI research team, based in Autonomous University of Madrid. She has been Lecturer in Educational Psychology at the Antonio de Nebrija University in Madrid. She has also coordinated for two years a project of educational accompaniment and the reduction of the digital divide in families in vulnerable situations, being responsible for training university students and volunteers. She is currently an educator in a psycho-educational support project in a school in Madrid. Guðjónsdóttir  Hafdís is a professor emeritus at the University of Iceland, School of Education. She was a general teacher for 26 years before her academic job where she focused on school for all. Hafdís pursues qualitative research methodology, practitioner research and self-study of teacher education practices focusing on inclusion, multicultural education, pedagogy, educational practices and teacher professionalism. She has collaborated in research projects with professionals from Europe, the USA, Australia and Asia. Hafdís was a co-editor of Taking a Fresh Look at Education: Framing Professional Learning in Education Through SelfStudy and the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, and in 2019, she became the co-editor of Teaching and Teacher Education. Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen  is a professor in Special Needs Education and a leader of the Research Group on Speech Therapy: language and communications impairments at the Faculty of Education and Arts at Nord University in Bodø, Norway. She has an aesthetic education with a major in music, singing and art history from the Belarusian State

xxii 

Notes on Contributors

Pedagogical University named after Maxim Tank (Minsk), and adaptive training and special needs education from Nord University in Bodø, Norway. She holds a Doctor of Philosophy from Nord University. Natallia’s research is currently linked to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), special needs education, inclusive education, comparative studies, developmental language disorders, aesthetic and special needs education, bullying, psychosocial learning challenges and behavioural and relational impairments. Heidi Harju-Luukkainen  is a professor working as a director of education unit and as vice director at Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius at the University of Jyväskylä. She works also as a professor II at Nord University, Norway. She has published more than 270 scholarly papers and worked in 40 projects globally. Harju-Luukkainen has worked in multiple countries in top research universities (UCLA, USC) as well as in many Nordic research universities. She has developed education programs for universities, and been a PI of PISA sub-assessments in Finland. Her research interests are broad ranging from early childhood education to student assessment and higher education questions. Tove Ingebrigtsen  is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education and Arts at Nord University, Bodø, Norway. Ingebrigtsen’s research interests are linked to quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), collaboration between ECEC educators, and parents and supervision. Her recent book co-authored with Martin Samuelsson, A Dialogical Approach to Family-Professional Collaboration in ECEC—Participation and Partnership (Dialogisk foreldresamarbeid i barnehagen—medvirkning og partnerskap), was published by Cappelen Damm, Norway, in 2022. Ingebrigtsen has extensive experience from kindergarten and school both as a teacher and as a special educator. Daiva  Kairienė  is an associate professor working as researcher at the Academy of Education, Vytautas Magnus University in Lithuania. Her main research interests are linked to different issues of speech and language therapy (SLT) provision in early and preschool settings, early childhood education, special needs education and inclusive education. She is active member of Lithuanian Speech and Language Therapists’ Association Board, representing SLTs’ interests in European Speech and Language Therapy Association (ESLA). Her academic work and research interests are combined with the SLT’s practical activity in preschool settings.

  Notes on Contributors 

xxiii

Jonna  Kangas  is a Finnish researcher in Early Education. She is the director of the Blended Teacher Training program for Early Childhood Education. She has published in leading international education journals. She is a member of Playful Learning Center and Learning, Culture, and Interventions (LECI) expert groups which are devoted to advancing highquality research, and research-based teaching and societal interaction at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, the University of Helsinki. Her specialties are in pedagogics, teaching and learning processes, observation and documentation, playful learning and mathematics of early years. She has designed innovative teacher training and mentoring programmes for online platforms. Olena Martynchuk  is a head of the Department of Special and Inclusive Education, Faculty of Psychology, Social Work and Special Education, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine. Olena’s research interests are linked with inclusive education, quality of education of children with special educational needs, training of special pedagogues to work in an inclusive educational environment, professional profile of special pedagogue. Olena Martynchuk worked more than 20 years in a field of higher education, participated in the development of educational standards in higher education for the specialty 016 ‘Special education’ for the first (bachelor’s) and the second (master’s degree) levels of higher education. Olena is an expert of the National Agency for provision of the quality of higher education. Because of the initiative of Olena Martynchuk, the educational programme ‘Intervention in autism’ was introduced in the University curriculum for the first time to provide training of the specialists in special education to work with children with autism. Iryna  Novyk  has pedagogical background on the specialty ‘Preschool education’ (2010) and ‘Management of an Educational Institution’ (2020). Novyk got her PhD in 2016. At present, Novyk works as the methodologist of the department of educational materials at the Ukrainian Institute of Education Development (UIED) as well as a senior lecturer at the Department of Pedagogy and Psychology of the Kyiv Borys Grinchenko University (part-time). Novyk was part of the working group on the development of the professional standards for preschool teachers (2021) and for preschool principals (2021). The spheres of scientific interests of Novyk are the actual issues of partnership interactions with the participants of the educational process; the basics of psychological-pedagogical cooperation with families and their consulting on the inclusive education

xxiv 

Notes on Contributors

implementation; implementation of inclusive education and the professional training of future preschool teachers; realization of inclusive education tasks in the preschool educational establishments. Edda Óskarsdóttir  is an associate professor at the University of Iceland. She completed MA in Special Needs Education at the University of Oregon 1993 and an EdD from University of Iceland in 2017. She has 20 years of experience as a special needs educator and coordinator for support in compulsory schools. She also has experience as a project assistant at the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. Her research field covers inclusive education and in that context teacher education, teacher development, policy and practice that supports education for all. Hanna  Ragnarsdóttir  is a  professor at the School of Education, the University of Iceland. She completed BA in Anthropology and History from the University of Iceland in 1984, MSc in Anthropology from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1986, and Dr Philos in education from the University of Oslo in 2007. Her research has mainly focused on immigrants and refugees (children, adults and families) in Icelandic society and schools, heritage language research, bi- and plurilingualism, multicultural education, multilingual education and school reform. Her recently published books include Ragnarsdóttir, H. & Lefever, S. (Eds.) (2018). Icelandic Studies on Diversity and Social Justice in Education; and Ragnarsdóttir, H. & Kulbrandstad, L. A. (Eds.) (2018). Learning Spaces for Inclusion and Social Justice: Success Stories from Four Nordic Countries. Cecilia  Simón  Rueda is a senior lecturer in the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology in the Faculty of Psychology at the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM), Spain. She is co-coordinator of the research group ‘Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Education’ (EQUIDEI) at UAM (https://www.equidei.es/). She is a member of Catalyst for Inclusive Education (International Inclusion) and the University Institute for Human Rights, Democracy, Culture of Peace and Nonviolence (DEMOSPAZ). She has collaborated with entities such as the Organization of Iberoamerican States for Education, Science and Culture or the European Agency for Special Needs Education and Inclusive Education. Her areas of research include equity and inclusive education (cultures, policies and practices), and school, family and com-

  Notes on Contributors 

xxv

munity partnerships. She has extensive experience in advising professionals and schools and has participated in many national and international projects on these issues. Martin Samuelsson  is an associated professor at the Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University. He has a PhD from the University of Bergen, Faculty of Psychology, and Department of Education. Samuelsson has a particular research interest in questions related to democracy and education and has a number of publications nationally and internationally. His most recent publication is the book A Dialogical Approach to FamilyProfessional Collaboration in ECEC—Participation and Partnership (Dialogisk foreldresamarbeid i barnehagen—medvirkning og partnerskap), co-authored with Ingebrigtsen in 2022. Samuelsson teaches at the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) programme and supervises master’s and PhD students. Gerardo  Echeita  Sarrionandia is a senior lecturer for 22 years at Developmental and Educational Psychology Department in the Faculty of Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM); member of Research Group EQUIDEI; and expert in the field of special needs education and inclusive education, for different international projects promoted by UNESCO, OCDE, INCLUSION INTERNATIONAL, OEI and THE EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION. Sarrionandia is author of more than 100 publications, including papers, chapters in books and books. Sarrionandia’s most recent publication is Inclusive Education. The Dream of a Night of Summer (“Educación inclusiva. El sueño de una noche de verano. Barcelona: Octaedro, 2019”). Katja  Sirvio has worked as a university teacher in Department of Education at Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius since 2021. Her range of responsibility are the multimodal early childhood teacher training programmes. Before that she worked as a part-time teacher in Department of Education and Culture at the Tampere University (2017–2020). Katja has also coordinated Ministry of Education and Culture’s Key Project called Mentoring and Learning Partnership in ECEC (Tampere University, 2017–2020). Katja is doing her PhD studies at the Tampere University. Her research focuses on the early childhood education teacher’s turnover. Katja’s specific areas of expertise and topics of her teaching are the ECEC pedagogy, teacher practicum and teacher well-being.

xxvi 

Notes on Contributors

Tetiana  Skrypnyk  is a professor at the chair of Special and Inclusive Education of Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, chair of the NGO ‘Systemic Support Children with Autism’ ‘Little Prince’, trainer and supervisor of special needs support teams in educational institutions. Tetiana’s research interests include the implementation of appropriate and free education for people with special needs based on international standards in Ukraine; the methodological basis for training specialists capable of implementing quality education for children with special needs; unlocking the potential of children with autism and creating conditions for their self-realization in society. Prior to teaching at the university, she worked both as a teacher in a school and as the head of the department for autism education at the Institute of Special Pedagogy of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine. Nataliia  Sofii works as an associate professor at the Department of Special and Inclusive Education Faculty of Psychology, Social Work and Special Education, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine. Her research interests are related to inclusive education, training of regular teachers to work within inclusive educational environment, and mentoring. Nataliia Sofii has participated in the development of professional standards of preschool and schoolteachers and is a co-author of the manual for primary teachers within implementation of the New Ukrainian School educational reform. For more than 20 years, she is working as a director of Ukrainian Step by Step Foundation—the national member of International Step by Step Association. Because of this Nataliia had an opportunity to work as a trainer and as a mentor in other countries, which implement child-centred, inclusive education—Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bhutan and others. Eva  Staffans  is a university teacher at the Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies at Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland. Eva’s research interests originated from prior work as a special education teacher in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Eva’s specific research interests are special education in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), special education teachers’ work, special needs education, early childhood intervention, inclusive education and transitions. Eva is a convener in the Early Childhood Education Network in NERA.

  Notes on Contributors 

xxvii

Christel Sundqvist  is an associate professor, and holds a PhD in Special Needs Education and special needs education teacher qualification. Her research areas are inclusive education, special educational practices and consultation. She has published journal articles within the field of special educational support system, inclusive education, teacher collaboration and consultation in special needs education. She is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. Sundqvist has worked at Åbo Akademi University in Finland since the year 1998 and at Nord University in Norway from 2017 to 2023. Anna  Katarzyna  Wozniczka is a PhD candidate at the School of Education, University of Iceland. She completed a master’s degree in international relations from the University of Economics in Katowice, Poland, in 2006 and a master’s degree in education from the University of Iceland in 2011. Anna has been a part-­time lecturer at the School of Education since 2014. She has over ten-year experience of work with immigrants and refugees. Her doctoral study, as well as other research, concerns the ideas of inclusion and the situation of students with multicultural background at all levels of education. Tina  Yngvesson is Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at the University of Borås and a PhD student at Jönköping University, Sweden. Her dissertation focuses on the perspectives of preschool children, parents of preschool children and preschool teachers, and their conceptions of parent engagement in everyday preschool practices. Her research interests are primarily centred on early learning, child development and parental involvement in education, with a particular interest in the position of the preschool in society, the emergence of curriculum and the bridge between policy and praxis.

Abbreviations

ECEC ECTE IPC FPC SEN ASSISTANCE SNE

Early Childhood Education and Care Early Childhood Teacher Education Interprofessional Collaboration Family-Professional Collaboration Special Educational Needs Assistance Special Needs Education

xxix

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 10.1 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 16.1 Fig. 19.1

Various ways of approaching FPC. Note: Represents a mix of child-oriented and family-oriented models (by Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen) Model of interprofessional collaboration in ECEC in Ukraine for children with SEN The team around the child (MER, 2019, p. 79) Model of factors acting as barriers to PI (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011, p. 39) Family participation scale (Source: Adapted from Simón and Barrios, 2019) The entire picture of practice architectures (Source: Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 33)

33 64 163 187 279 324

xxxi

List of Tables

Table 6.1 Table 8.1 Table 12.1 Table 15.1 Table 16.1 Table 18.1

Background information of the participants Characteristics of the research sample and participants Summary of the findings Characteristics of the research sample and participants Models about decision-making in the practices Description of the analysis framework

85 121 201 251 273 309

xxxiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Interprofessional and Family-­Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care Stefanija Ališauskiene, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, and Daiva Kairiene

Introduction The title of the anthology Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care underlines the core elements of the content. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is an internationally recognised priority in most European

S. Ališauskiene (*) • D. Kairiene Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] N. B. Hanssen Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskiene et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_1

1

2 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

countries (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017). It is important to highlight that the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe, 1950), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989) and other internationally agreed conventions are widely accepted references on children’s rights. Quality in ECEC is a prominent concern for policy-makers as well as ECEC practitioners and recently became a priority for many international organisations. Most countries in the world follow the international education priority that is emphasised in UN Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all (UN, 2022). Education for all is linked to inclusive education, however, it is still a challenge and unrealised wish for many people with diverse educational needs. Therefore, a systemic approach to ECEC services and a strong collaboration between the different sectors, such as education, health and social, are being emphasised. It requires a coherent vision that is shared by all stakeholders, including parents and professionals of different professions (European Commission, 2011). More recently, the Council of the European Union (2017) highlighted the need to prioritise high-quality ECEC to address inequalities in lifelong learning. To address the main internationally agreed priorities related to ECEC, this anthology focuses on ‘inclusion’ in ECEC (UNESCO-IBE, 2008, p. 18). Building on previous works in the field, it is stated that interprofessional collaboration and family-professional collaboration (IPC and FPC) are two important factors in ECEC to support inclusion of all children, including those with special educational needs (SEN) (Garvis et al., 2021). Despite the existence of considerable knowledge related to IPC and FPC in various systems (Slusser et al., 2019; Forman et al., 2020), there is a clear lack of research conducted in this area in ECEC context (Garvis et al., 2021). At the same time, in many European countries, the attempts to make ECEC a high-quality inclusive arena of development is far from being successfully realised (Hanssen & Olsen, 2022; Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022). Therefore, our aim is to provide a platform and a forum for the international dialogue and development of shared understanding about successful and inspiring ECEC practices, the main barriers of interprofessional and family-professional collaboration, and opportunities for further improvement of ECEC practices. Across the chapters of the book, it is clear that themes, serving as a ‘red thread’ throughout the volume, are related to collaboration in ECEC in various European countries. First, we intend to focus on interprofessional (IPC) collaboration in the field of ECEC in various social and cultural

1  INTRODUCTION TO INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL… 

3

contexts. Second, we aim to focus on family-professional (FPC) collaboration in ECEC. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is not a new concept that has been applied in various disciplines. In the context of ECEC, IPC is considered as precondition for the holistic child and family practice, partnership-­based professional relations, coordinated services, spread of competences and innovative activities within teams and organisations (Barr et  al., 2005; Barker, 2009; Payler & Georgeson, 2013). As mentioned earlier, IPC is a significant factor for the effective provision of inclusive education especially for children with SEN and their families aiming to address challenges when jointly acting with representatives from different professions. In the last few decades, research shows that in reality IPC often is a challenge (Hong & Shaffer, 2015). The reasons for this relate to, among other issues, lack of research defining the concept and the structure of collaboration between professionals, that is subjective and different interpretation of the IPC conception, lack of presumptions for success and sufficiency of IPC, issues of professional power, professional identities and relations and diversity of professional languages and roles (Ališauskienė & Gevorgianiene, 2015; D’Amour et al., 2005). Another urgent issue relates to ECEC professionals and families’, as ECEC service users’, perspectives on professional-family collaboration (FPC), which is the second theme of the anthology. Aiming at the quality in ECEC, in many countries educational policies emphasise the role and responsibility of parents and treat them as integral partners in developing a more inclusive system, where the decision-making and the responsibility need to be shared among educational partners (Garvis et  al., 2021). Fruitful FPC has been identified as a key element to the success of ECEC, especially for children with SEN relating to their better outcomes in further learning, social development and future work life (Filler & Xu, 2006; Garvis et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2015). However, FPC in ECEC is still a challenge. Research shows that FPC in ECEC is not strongly generated neither in policy nor in practice. Identification of parents’ and teachers’ roles and responsibilities as well as parents’ voices in a team is the most challenging issue in ECEC practice (Ališauskiene & Kairiene, 2016; Garvis et al., 2021; Sadownik et al., 2021). In the book, international team of researchers representing various social cultural contexts share unique and inspiring family-professional collaboration experiences in ECEC. It is clear that deepened knowledge and more nuanced insight are needed to better understand IPC and FPC in ECEC. As such, the overarching intention of the book is to make visible the complexity around

4 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

IPC and FPC in ECEC. Furthermore, we want to let the experiences from various European countries representing various social cultural contexts serve as a starting point for the dialogue concerning the process of developing IPC and FPC in ECEC.  Learning from shared experiences may facilitate creation of ‘inclusive culture’ and ‘inclusive practice’ with some degree of consensus among various professionals and parents around values of respect for diversity and a commitment to offering all children access to equal learning opportunities.

Overview of Book The anthology takes us on journey through several countries, such as Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Various geographical, social, cultural and historical contexts of the participating countries have shaped the ECEC, with consequences for understanding IPC and FPC. The strategy of the anthology can be interpreted as a comparative approach. We want to point out that the methodological focus is not primarily comparative, in the sense that systematic comparisons are made between the countries involved. In this anthology, it was relevant to give voices to the participating countries to view IPC and FPC from different perspectives, to summarise their understanding of how IPC and FPC are organised there, as well as to discuss guiding policy documents regarding FPC and IPC in their particular contexts. This kind of approach may help reader of this book to get various views on and solutions to managing IPC and FPC in ECEC. Insights into varying solutions can contribute to a better understanding of different collaborations in ECEC (Hanssen, 2018). Ainscow (2021) noted that learning from what is happening in the other places, when we visit other countries, when we see other places, it is like a mirror, it makes us to think about what we do in our context. When you reflect on what you read in this book, use it as a mirror, think about your own context, think about the strengths you can build on in terms of history and your traditions, but also think about the barriers within your systems that limit the progress and development of the IPC and FPC. Dear reader, we believe that this book will benefit the international discussion and suggest that an insight into various ways of UPC and FPC in ECEC in different countries may bear on the success of attempts to make ECEC systems more qualitative. We hope that with this anthology, we intend to show variety of collaboration models and trends in the field

1  INTRODUCTION TO INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL… 

5

of ECEC, to share with unique and inspiring ECEC practices, and to create a ‘community of enquiry’ (Bozalek et  al., 2017) and learn from each other. The anthology consists of Introduction as Chap. 1, seventeen more chapters that are presented in three thematically organised parts exposing various perspectives on interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and family-­ professional collaboration (FPC) within inclusive and special needs Early Childhood Education and Care in different cultural contexts, and a finalising Chap. 19. Part I presents an overall view of the themes articulating perspectives on IPC and FPC. This part contains two chapters. Chapter 2, written by Stefanija Ališauskiene, Daiva Kairiene, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, lays the foundation for all the chapters in Part I of the book by introducing the anthology’s theme of interprofessional collaboration. The chapter briefly discusses central concepts connected to IPC; however, it is not intended to be comprehensive regarding literature and theory. Rather, the aim is to examine the concept of IPC in ECEC from multiple viewpoints, and to demonstrate the complexity of the concept and diversity of its interpretations. Chapter 3, written by Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, Stefanija Ališauskiene and Daiva Kairiene, briefly articulates and discusses the second central theme of the anthology—family-professional collaboration (FPC) in ECEC.  This chapter is not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, the aim is to examine the concept of FPC in ECEC from multiple viewpoints, and to demonstrate the diversity of the perspectives of the concept. Part II of the anthology contains seven chapters that focus on the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in ECEC in various European countries. In Chap. 4, the author Heidi Harju-Luukkainen sheds light on the IPC in the UK. The author takes a closer look at an intervention program from inner London schools. This program provides a holistic, universal framework to upskill early years education staff and families in developing children’s language development. In this chapter, the author presents a descriptive case study on the intervention program focusing on its inclusive and interprofessional collaboration practices connected to families. Chapter 5 focuses on IPC in the context of Ukraine. Authors Nataliia Sofii, Oksana Fedorenko, Iryna Novyk, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Jonna Kangas not only give an overview of the research conducted on the

6 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

field but also highlight the legislative and teacher training premises for organising interprofessional collaboration of the country for the benefit of special needs education (SNE). As a result of this descriptive literature review, the authors developed a model that describes the IPC in Ukraine on the state level as well as ECEC institution and ECEC classroom levels. Chapter 6 introduces IPC in Finland. Eva Staffans and Christel Sundqvist examine how early childhood special education teachers (ECSET) experience their consultative role with a focus on the practical opportunities to deliver consultation as an IPC. ECSETs call for greater opportunities to implement the consultations as structured and process-­ oriented dialogues. The need to strengthen special needs education teachers’ jurisdiction to deliver high-quality consultations as an IPC to develop inclusive support for children is discussed. Chapter 7 developed by Edda Óskarsdóttir, Anna Katarzyna Wozniczka and Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir explores the development of the collective inquiry between teachers, immigrant counsellors and other professionals and its impact on inclusion of immigrant children in ECEC. The data was collected from a Multicultural Team in one municipality through interviews, documents and observations and analysed through the content analysis. The findings shed light on the importance of including diverse actors in developing ECEC practices that ensure all children’s well-being, participation and learning. In Chap. 8, the authors Stefanija Ališauskiene and Daiva Kairiene explore the concept of communication among professionals, as one of the key components of IPC while meeting special educational needs (SEN) of children in Lithuanian context. The chapter shows that daily informal communication in spontaneous meetings creates an opportunity to spread information and provide emotional support to each other. However, limitations of informal communication, such as interruption of individual work, irrational time management, lack of constructive discussions, have been identified. Therefore, the participants of the research suggest to use formal meetings for the purposeful discussions, practice reflections and learning from each other. Chapter 9 focuses on IPC in the context of Spain. The authors María Pantoja González, Gerardo Echeita Sarrionandia and Cecilia Simón Rueda present a study which aims to analyse and assess the schooling processes of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in ECEC in ordinary centres. For this purpose, a phenomenological qualitative interpretive methodology is used through multiple case studies and in-depth interviews to

1  INTRODUCTION TO INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL… 

7

families and professionals of these students. The results made it possible to identify barriers and supports in the schooling process that have to do both with family-school and interprofessional collaboration. In Chap. 10, Tove Ingebrigtsen and Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen explore IPC in ECEC in the Norwegian context. In the chapter, the findings of critical examination of key policy documents that outline interprofessional collaboration are presented. The issues related to interprofessional collaboration definition and description in Norwegian legal and legislative documents along with the guidelines for interprofessional collaboration have been analysed. The chapter concludes that a clear and comparable definition of IPC in ECEC in both legal and other documents would prevent misleading interpretations. Part III contains eight chapters that direct readers’ attention to family-­ professional collaboration (FPC) in ECEC. Chapter 11, which is developed by Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-­ Luukkainen, presents FPC in the context of the UK. This chapter takes a closer look into ECEC practice exploring how nursery teachers describe their implementation of FPC. A single case study has been used as research method to reveal FPC practices that are implemented in ECEC setting while educating diverse children including those with SEN. Among other findings, the data show that multiple barriers for a successful family-­ professional collaboration are still evident. In the Chap. 12, the authors Olena Martynchuk, Tetiana Skrypnyk, Nataliia Sofii, Natalia Babych, Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen focus on FPC while working with families of children with SEN in the Ukrainian context. The chapter aims to reveal how the collaboration with families is being defined in the legal documents. The results show that the FPC is rather theoretical. It was suggested that a more specific content is needed in order to realise IPC in ECEC practice. In Chap. 13, Tina Yngvesson, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Susanne Garvis investigate national policy documents regarding FPC and the curriculum contents of one Finnish and one Swedish ECEC teacher education programs. For the investigation, the document analysis has been employed. The data show that multiple differences as well as similarities across ECEC teacher education program contents related to FPC have been found. Chapter 14 that is developed by Hanna Ragnarsdóttir introduces the FPC in Iceland. The chapter discusses the findings of the qualitative research that explores the collaboration of diverse immigrant families with

8 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

their children’s preschools on multilingual issues in inclusive educational contexts. The data show that the parents see their role both as supporters of their children’s Icelandic learning and their heritage language teachers. The preschool professionals emphasise linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches, while collaboration with parents on multilingual issues is lacking. In Chap. 15, Daiva Kairiene and Stefanija Ališauskiene identify, share and interpret family-professional collaboration experiences while meeting SEN of children in two different types of ECEC teams in Lithuania. The results show that professionals emphasise the respectful and positive relationships with families as the main presumption of collaboration. However, professionals see parents as their assistants rather than collaborative partners. Besides the fact that professionals expressed their need for developing family-professional collaboration competences, they also highlighted the lack of and a need for family preparation for equal participation in ECEC practice. Chapter 16 written by Cecilia Simón Rueda, Margarita Cañadas and Ángela Barrios justifies the importance of the relationships between professionals and families whose children attend early childhood services and transdisciplinary teamwork with special emphasis on the participation of the family as a team member. The framework of so-called Family-Centred Approach for strengthening the family on the basis of trust in their parenting skills has been used. In this chapter, the authors provide the key issues that promote the empowerment of families and contribute to positive changes in families’ quality of life. In Chap. 17, Martin Samuelsson and Tove Ingebrigtsen explore FPC in ECEC in Norway. The authors describe the Norwegian ECEC context and the main characteristics of family-professional collaboration, taking into consideration legal formulation of this concept. By looking at Norwegian research in the field and comparing these findings with the ideal as described in the policy documents, authors identify some areas that both ECEC parents and ECEC professionals consider important in family-professional collaboration, along with one area that seems to be more challenging: making all parents feel included in the collaboration. Chapter 18 is written by Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Katja Sirvio and Jonna Kangas. It focuses on group of high-ability children who are often in need of extra support in their learning environment. Authors shed light on the parental perspective of these children and discuss how the Finnish

1  INTRODUCTION TO INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL… 

9

ECEC manage to organise the needed support from the perspective of the parents and FPC The final Chap. 19 that is written by Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen combines the main issues of the content of all the chapters into a comprehensive summary. The theory of practice architectures as a theoretical and analytical tool to portray a comprehensive picture of IPC and FPC in ECEC practices of participating countries has been used. In this way, IPC and FPC in ECEC in various European countries were demonstrated. The results show that time, space and possibilities are needed for the discussion, reflection and articulation of how IPC and FPC should be conceptualised, and what kind of frameworks both at the practice and policy levels are necessary for the development of IPC and FPC to represent the diversity and pluralism represented in ECEC.

References Ainscow, M. (2021). Foreword. In N.  B. Hanssen, S.  E. Hansén, & K.  Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. xiii–xxii). Routledge. Ališauskienė, S., & Gevorgianiene, V. (2015). Exploring professional boundaries: A shift to inter-professional early childhood intervention practice in Lithuania. Society. Integration. Education, 3, 15–30. Ališauskienė, S., & Kairiene, D. (2016). Shared responsibilities of parents and teachers in inclusive early childhood education. EDULEARN16. 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Conference proceedings, 8601–8611. Barker, R. (2009). Making sense of every child matters: Multiprofessional practice guidance. The Policy Press. Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., Hammick, M., & Freeth, D. (2005). Effective interprofessional education: Assumption, argument and evidence. Blackwell. Bozalek, V., Dison, A., Alperstein, M., & Mitchell, V. (2017). Developing scholarship of teaching and learning through a community of enquiry. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 1–15. Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Rome, 4 November. www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/ full-­list/-­/conventions/treaty/005 Council of the European Union. (2017). Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the governments of the member states, meeting within the Council, on inclusion in diversity to achieve a high quality education for all. 2017/C 62/02. https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/EN/TXT/?uri=uri serv:OJ.C_.2017.062.01.0003.01.ENG

10 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulie, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 116–131. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2017). Inclusive early childhood education: Literature review (F.  Bellour, P.  Bartolo, & M. Kyriazopoulou, Eds.). Odense, Denmark European Commission. (2011). Communication on early childhood education and care. (February 2011) COM (2011) 66. Filler, J., & Xu, Y. (2006). Including children with disabilities in early childhood education programs: Individualizing developmentally appropriate practices. Childhood Education, 82(2), 92–98. Forman, D., Jones, M., & Thistlethwaite, J. (Eds.). (2020). Sustainability and interprofessional collaboration: Ensuring leadership resilience in collaborative health care. Palgrave Macmillan. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sadownik, A.  R., & Phillipson, S. (2021). Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Routledge. Hanssen, N.  B. (2018). Special educational needs in Norwegian and Belarusian preschools. Doctoral diss., Nord University, Bodø. Hanssen, N. B., & Olsen, K. (2022). A survey into graduate students’ views on special needs education in ECE teacher education in Norway. In H.  Harju-­ Luukkainen, N. Hanssen, & C. Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years. Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic countries. Springer. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Kangas, J., & Garvis, S. (Eds.). (2022). Finnish early childhood education and care: A multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice. Early childhood research and education: An inter-theoretical focus. Springer. Hong, S. B., & Shaffer, L. S. (2015). Inter-professional collaboration: Early childhood educators and medical therapist working within a collaboration. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1), 135–145. Murray, E., McFarland-Piazza, L., & Harrison, L. J. (2015). Changing patterns of parent–teacher communication and parent involvement from preschool to school. Early Child Development and Care, 185(7), 1031–1052. https://doi. org/10.1080/03004430.2014.975223 Payler, J., & Georgeson, J. (2013). Multiagency working in the early years: Confidence, competence and context. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 33(4), 380–397. Sadownik, A.  R., Phillipson, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Garvis, S. (2021). International trends in parental involvement of sayings, doings, and relatings. In S.  Garvis, S.  Phillipson, H.  Harju-Luukkainen, & A.  Sadownik (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 306–316). Routledge.

1  INTRODUCTION TO INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL… 

11

Slusser, M., Luis, I., Garcia, L. I., & Reed, C. (Eds.). (2019). Foundations of interprofessional collaborative practice in health care. Elsevier. UNESCO. (2008). Education for all by 2015. Will we make it? EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008, UNESCO, Paris. United Nations. (1989). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN. United Nations. (2022). The sustainable development goals report. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). https://hlpf.un.org/2022/programme/ sdgs-­in-­focus-­sdg-­4-­and-­interlinkages-­with-­other-­sdgs-­quality-­education

PART I

Theoretical Perspectives on Interprofessional and FamilyProfessional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care

CHAPTER 2

Interprofessional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care Stefanija Ališauskiene , Daiva Kairiene, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen , Jonna Kangas , and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen

Introduction Professionals who work well together in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) environments and who come from different disciplines with different educational and working backgrounds have been highlighted in the literature as an important factor when it comes to improving the outcomes of ECEC in general. This has been documented in both the

S. Ališauskienė (*) • D. Kairiene Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] N. B. Hanssen Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_2

15

16 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

political and scientific literature (Alila et  al., 2022; Garvis et  al., 2019; Garvis et al., 2018; The State of Queensland Department of Education and Training, 2017). In the field of ECEC services, the collaboration of experts also means supporting the inclusion and sustainable development and meaningful participation of all children, including those with special educational needs (SEN). However, here, we also need constantly developing and critically evaluation of practices (Harju-Luukkainen et  al., 2022b). Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) (which can also be called teamwork or professional collaboration, cooperation, partnership, etc.) has been established as a core concept within early education and social care (McLaney et al., 2022). Interprofessional means that professionals (in ECEC settings) offer their unique disciplinary knowledge for their services to individuals and families. Members of the various professions bring different insights into situations based on their education. Each professional comes to the situation with disciplinary knowledge, and one profession does not preside over the others (Parse, 2015). This collaboration helps in transforming autonomous and often fragmented services directed at children and their families into more integrated services. The growing discussion of inclusive ECEC for young children (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022a) has also made IPC an important theme across the globe. For IPC, different terms characterising team approaches, such as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, are being applied in ECEC (Harju-Luukkainen et  al., 2022a). The terms imply that two or more disciplines (e.g., medicine, psychology, sociology and others) align their resources in educational endeavours, such as engaging in combined courses and establishing cooperative projects. The three terms also reflect the differences in the extent to which professionals from different disciplines work alongside each other (‘coexist’); with each other—for example, in sharing information from respective disciplines; or work together to

J. Kangas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] H. Harju-Luukkainen University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected]

2  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

17

develop new knowledge and skills in ways that transcend disciplinary boundaries (Malin & Morrow, 2009; Parse, 2015; Wong et al., 2012). In the research on inclusive and special needs education (SNE) in ECEC, two common models of collaboration have been described: interprofessional collaboration with external agencies or professionals and interprofessional collaboration within ECEC services. Both models include shared goals, shared interactions and shared activities, entailing shared expertise and a redirection of SEN knowledge towards regular ECEC environments, thus potentially supporting inclusive education (Sundqvist, 2021). To address the complex physical, emotional, social and educational needs of children, both models are often recommended to be systematically used (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Peabody et al., 2016). Creating an IPC requires rethinking the current processes of ECEC. The goal begins by putting mechanisms into place that allow individuals to work together in a flexible but disciplined manner. This implies a larger reflection on the strategies the team uses to instil certain habits in a team (Lavie, 2006; Reeves et al., 2011; Tahir et al., 2010). Moreover, the development of IPC requires a common work methodology and shared theoretical approaches. The contextualising of IPC is, however, a multi-theoretical question, in which practical and political issues in ECEC have their influences. In the context of interprofessional collaborative ECEC practice, the phenomenon of collaboration can help explain the identified concepts of collaboration, for example, general and contextual knowledge and learning (Bossche et  al., 2006). The authors treat collaboration as a result of the interaction of the participants’ interrelations (social factors) and the creation of knowledge as a shared conception of the problem. The cognitive factors, here determining the mutually main dimensions of collaboration as social relations, are singled out as self-reflections of one’s own actions: (a) feedback when interpreting the conceptions, behaviour and roles of others; (b) means of symbols (speech) of mutual reality; (c) shared experiences, including knowledge, rules and values; and (d) cooperation processes based on shared regulations (Berger & Luckman, 1999; Lemon, 2003). In explaining IPC as a process of learning, it is important to reveal the perspectives of knowledge. This chapter views IPC through constructivist learning theories, where the nature of knowledge emphasising social interactions and learning in natural practical situations

18 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

is related to the conception of a collaborative culture (Bossche et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2007). IPC is also shaped and formed through the operational culture, where the organisational elements influence the teamwork. An organisation, for example, an ECEC centre, shapes the values and structures of the work while enabling or restricting the necessary resources for high-quality ECEC. All of these are the so-called relational factors of teamwork, such as leadership practices, management of resources, operating culture values and atmosphere, work assessment and evaluation, technical support and promotion processes (Chmiel, 2005; Reeves et  al., 2011). When these relational factors cause controversial issues and competitive culture, it is harder for the professionals to design a common ground for their teamwork (Kangas & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021; Venninen et al., 2012). Finally, the contextualisation of IPC in teamwork depends on the political and legal settings, together with professional education and in-service training elements. In each national context, there are different regulations and legislation defining what kinds of collaboration are available, how the information is divided, when professionals are allowed to contact, for example, healthcare, social services or special education resources, and what information about the children can be exchanged with other professionals (Alila et al., 2022). In addition, the in-service training availability and realisation and practicality of teacher education programmes influence professionals’ competencies and continuous learning capacities. Teachers in ECEC are expected to be critical agents of change and they have to have the ability for pedagogical leadership and process development (Kangas & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021). As this introduction implies, when we talk about IPC we need to consider multiple factors or dimensions. We have chosen only few dimensions for discussion in this chapter, and, in the following section, we briefly describe factors such as collaboration in teams, positive relations, learning in the team, team management and leadership, values in team and collaborative culture. In other words, we focus on those factors that are emphasised as pertinent for team functioning and creating a collaborative culture.

Collaboration in Teams Collaboration can be defined as collective actions to achieve a common purpose (Castañer & Oliveira, 2020; D’Amour et al., 2005). The delivery of optimal inclusive and special needs ECEC within an effective

2  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

19

interprofessional team is based on the collective efforts of team members and is better accomplished through a number of shared responsibilities, interactive planning and collaborative decision-making (Langlois, 2020; McLaney et  al., 2022; Smith et  al., 2018). Moreover, interprofessional teams should ensure that members understand each other’s roles, scopes and expertise. Several researchers have emphasised that a lack of team performance priorities, clarity and adequacy of common aims, along with unclear roles and responsibilities, usually causes difficulties in collaboration (Barker, 2009; Reeves et al., 2011). IPC balances professional autonomy with professional interdependence. Each member’s competences need to be recognised and shared in the ECEC team practice (Hall, 2005; Peeters & Sharmahd, 2014). Inclusive and special needs education ECEC practice is multifunctional, for example, ECEC professionals should be able to share competences with colleagues in a team and parents and should be ready to perform other specific functions, such as being the head of a centre, a counsellor helping families meet children’s SEN, a social worker and a family advocate, support coordinator and so forth. Therefore, specific functional competences are important while performing various roles and functions that are not always directly related to ECEC only (Pretis, 2006). However, the success of collaboration in ECEC team can be disturbed because of a lack of agreement related to members’ responsibilities and role limitations that predetermine the overlapping of roles and lack of diversity (Barker, 2009; Reeves et al., 2011). The spread of professional competences, roles and responsibilities are the factors that most often disturb interprofessional collaboration. These factors may lead to a decrease in professional identity, lack of work autonomy and uncertainty about roles and responsibilities. The high requirements raised for representatives of various professions especially decrease self-confidence and motivation for active participation (Barker, 2009; Reeves et al., 2011). Positive Relations in the Team The literature have indicated that interpersonal relations predetermine successful collaboration in a team, such as having the disposition to communicate, flexibility, empathy, openness, knowledge of oneself and others, mutual trust and respect and friendliness (Slot, 2018; Getha-Taylor, 2008). The significance of positive relationships has been underlined in numerous studies (Carnwell & Carson, 2008; Dunaway & Kenney, 2006;

20 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

McLaney et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2011; Slot, 2018). Positive relations are characterised by harmonious and emotionally positive interrelations without a manifestation of envy, competition and accusing behaviour (Kayes et al., 2005; Reeves et al., 2011). Still, the negative relations in the team can contribute to low professional self-confidence, low motivation and mistrust among all the members (Lavie, 2006; Venninen et al., 2012). For more about relations, please see Chap. 3. Learning in the Team IPC encompasses not only joint work, but also learning together or from each other (Leathard, 2003). Interprofessional work provides a possibility to learn inside a team as well as to identify the fields of personal and professional development (Barker, 2009). Learning inside the team is linked to the development of specialists’ professional competence including not only learning from each other, but as well sharing of work experiences and interprofessional knowledge, a reflection of mutual work and constructive criticism and feedback (D’Amour et al., 2005; Hall, 2005; Nolte, 2005). It should be emphasised that learning is a continuous process when the professional knowledge is applicable on a work place and matches with changing organisation’s requirements, routine, relations among staff (Jarvis et al., 2007). Learning in the team is based on situated learning theory that embraces a sociocultural view of learning. Because knowledge is socially co-constructed by a community, the only way to learn is to learn from others through social participation and interactions (Lavie & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Team Management and Leadership Learning provides the presumptions for perfecting an interprofessional team’s performance if attention is paid to, among other things, team management. Management includes the continuous assessment of team performance quality, a revision of the roles and their change according to the needs and situation, a reflection of mutual team practice, feedback analysis and acknowledgement of strengths and challenges. Management also contributes to the development of relevant theoretical and practical approaches in an attempt to strengthen interprofessional collaborative practice through carrying out action research, experimentation and participation in joint training. Team management plays a crucial role in the overall

2  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

21

growth of any organisation. It aims to ensure self-development, positive communication, leadership skills and the ability to work with maximum productivity (Kivunja, 2015; Nolte, 2005). Managing IPC is linked to relevant leadership. Both central and local leadership is needed to promote collaboration, eliminate barriers (D’Amour et  al., 2005), promote an effective team culture (Clark, 2011) and create an empowering environment that includes receiving access to information, support, resources and the opportunity for growth. In IPC, the importance of shared leadership is evident. Shared leadership refers to a team property whereby leadership is distributed among team members rather than focused on a single designated leader. Shared leadership is based on horizontal management structure, so that the functions of leadership in certain fields can be assigned to any team member as an expert on a certain situation. Team members are encouraged to be ready to take and share responsibilities in a team, be able to act independently and in collaboration with others (Carson et al., 2007; Chmiel, 2005; Day, 2006; OECD, 2020; Yang & Yu, 2006). Team Values IPC is based on values and ethics such as ‘work with individuals of other professions to maintain a climate of mutual respect and shared values’ (Interprofessional Education Collaborative, 2016, p. 11). Values and ethics of interprofessional collaborative practice competency include the following components: being interested in inclusive and SNE ECEC service receivers; respecting the unique cultures, values, roles and responsibilities and expertise of other professions in the team; working in cooperation with those who receive services, those who provide services and others who contribute to or support the delivery services; developing a trusting relationship with service receivers and other team members and so on (ibid., p. 11). It should be emphasised that interprofessional collaboration in a team is based on shared values such as active participation, freedom of self-­ expression and so on (Barker, 2009; Carnwell & Carson, 2008; D’Amour et al., 2005; Nolte, 2005; Reeves et al., 2011). Collaborative Culture A collaborative culture of a team is one in which collaboration is regular and deliberate. Team cultures are the collective behaviours of a team that

22 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

emerge over time as a result of shared experiences and leadership (Spacey, 2016). The team cultures can have different characters, such as (a) a communal culture that is attributed to a strong sense of belongingness and orientation towards performing tasks and inspiring leadership; (b) a networked culture where members are considered to be friends and maintain close personal relations, however avoid critical reflection; (c) a mercenary culture oriented towards strictly defined aims and quick results and high quality; and (d) a fragmented culture, where the sense of belongingness to the team is weak and there is a lack of cooperation (Brown, 2004; Poell, 2005; Rosen, 2008). Creation of a collaborative culture requires team members and leaders to rethink their current processes to support individuals to work together in a flexible but disciplined manner. This implies a larger reflection on the methods and strategies the team uses to instil certain habits in a team (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Lavie, 2006; Reeves et al., 2011; Sutton & Shouse, 2016).

Conclusion In most countries, especially in Western societies, ECEC is organised based on the teamwork of professionals, who come from different educational backgrounds. Interprofessional collaboration in ECEC is not an SNE service or organisational structure—instead it is available for all children (Äikäs et al., 2022; Bricker et al. 2022). The requirements for ECEC professionals’ competences are broad; these include, for example, an understanding of the future challenges and developing towards the future, the knowledge of the interdisciplinary nature of education of the youngest children and abilities for critical thinking and leadership skills. All these skills are important when the educational systems have been developed and guided politically towards gearing children towards having twenty-­ first-­century skills and meeting UNESCO’s future goals (Kangas & Harju-­ Luukkainen, 2021; OECD, 2020). ECEC professionals are expected to be experts in interaction, scaffolding participation and learning, implementing diverse methods and didactics and pedagogical leadership in designing, implementing and evaluating their own work individually as well as in collaboration with other professionals in a team (Ahtiainen et al., 2021;Äikäs et al., 2022). ECEC professionals need to be able to work in an interprofessional team that requires teamwork to build a collaborative culture through shared values (Ališauskiene & Gevorgianiene, 2015; Kangas et al., 2022). Moreover, the idea of collaboration and equal and

2  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

23

active participation in an interprofessional team in ECEC requires a common methodology and shared theoretical approaches that can help better understand the nature of IPC (Alila et  al., 2022; Reeves et  al., 2011; Venninen et al., 2012).

References Ahtiainen, R., Fonsén, E., & Kiuru, L. (2021). Finnish early childhood education and care leaders’ perceptions of pedagogical leadership and assessment of the implementation of the National Core Curriculum in times of change. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(2), 126–138. https://doi. org/10.1177/18369391211010971 Äikäs, A., Pesonen, H., Heiskanen, N., Syrjämäki, M., Aavikko, L., & Viljamaa, E. (2022). Approaches to collaboration and support in early childhood education and care in Finland: Professionals’ narratives. European Journal of Special Needs Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2022.2127081 Alila, K., Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Kangas, J. (2022). Elements of the pedagogical process in Finnish early childhood education. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, J.  Kangas, & G.  Susanne (Eds.), Finnish early childhood education and care. A multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice (pp.  257–274). Springer Nature. Ališauskiene, S., & Gevorgianiene, V. (2015). Exploring professional boundaries: A shift to inter-professional early childhood intervention practice in Lithuania. Society Integration Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 3, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2015vol3.378 Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youths, families and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39–53. Barker, R., ed. (2009). Making sense of every child matters: Multi-Professional practice guidance (1st edn). Bristol University Press. JSTOR, Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t890vn Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1999). Socialinis tikroves konstravimas [Construction of social reality]. Pradai. Bossche Van den, P., Gijselaers, W.  H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P.  A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. Bricker, D. D., Felimban, H. S., Lin, F. Y., Stegenga, S. M., & Storie, S. O. (2022). A Proposed framework for enhancing collaboration in early intervention/Early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(4), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419890683

24 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

Brown, R. (2004). School culture and organization: Lessons from research and experience: A background paper for the Denver Commission on Secondary School Reform. http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/culture_organization.pdf Carnwell, R., & Carson, A. (2008). The concepts of partnership and collaboration. In R. Carnwell & J. Buchanan (Eds.), Effective practice in health, social care and criminal justice (pp. 3–21). Open University Press. Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159921 Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565 Chmiel, N. (2005). Darbo ir organizacine psichologija [Work and organisational psychology]. Poligrafija ir informatika. Clark, D. (2011). The art and science of leadership: Growing a team. http://www. nwlink.com/~donClark/leader/leadtem.html Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge. D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulie, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 116–131. Day, J. (2006). Interprofessional working: Expanding nursing and health care practice. Nelson Thornes. Dunaway, C., & Kenney, E. (2006). Forming transdisciplinary teams: Performance-­ based assessment. San Diego Unified School District. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2019). Nordic families, children and early childhood education. Palgrave Macmillan. Garvis, S., Philippson, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (Eds.). (2018). International teaching, family and policy perspectives: Early childhood education in the 21st century. I. Routledge. Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 103–119. Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 188–196. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Bahdanovich Hanssen, N., & Sundqvist, C. (Eds.). (2022b). Special education in the early years: Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic Countries (p. 283). Springer. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Kangas, J., & Garvis, S. (Eds.). (2022a). Finnish early childhood education and care: A multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice. Early childhood research and education: An inter-theoretical focus. Springer.

2  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

25

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford University Press. Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2016). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Jarvis, R., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2007). The theory and practice of learning. Routledge. Kangas, J., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). What is the future of the ECE teacher profession? Teacher’s agency in Finland through the lenses of policy documents. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 47(1), 48–75. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/331181 Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Garvis, S. (2022). Conclusion and orientation to the future. In H. Harju-Luukkainen, J. Kangas, & G. Susanne (Eds.), Finnish early childhood education and care. A multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice (pp. 275–228). Springer Nature. Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming, 36, 330–354. Kivunja, C. (2015). Leadership in early childhood education contexts: Looks, roles, and functions. Creative Education, 6, 1710–1717. https://doi. org/10.4236/ce.2015.616172 Langlois, S. (2020). Collective competence: Moving from individual to collaborative expertise. Perspectives on Medical Education, 9(2), 71–73. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40037-­020-­00575-­3 Lavie, J. (2006). Academic discourses on school–based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 773–805. Lavie, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Leathard, A. (2003). Introduction. In A. Leathard (Ed.), Interprofessional collaboration: From policy to practice in health and social care (pp. 3–11). Routledge. Lemon, B.  S. (2003). Symbolic meanings of products: A symbolic interactionism perspective. Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University. Malin, N., & Morrow, G. (2009). Evaluating the role of the Sure Start Plus Adviser in providing integrated support for pregnant teenagers and young parents. Health & Social Care in the Community, 17(5), 495–503. McLaney, E., Morassaei, S., Hughes, L., Davies, R., Campbell, M., & Di Prospero, L. (2022). A framework for interprofessional team collaboration in a hospital setting: Advancing team competencies and behaviours. Healthcare Management Forum, 35(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704211063584 Nolte, J. (2005). Enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration in primary health care. Primary health care: A framework that fits. EICP. OECD. (2020). Building a high-quality early childhood education and care workforce: Further results from the starting strong survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-­en

26 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ ET AL.

Parse, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary and interprofessional: What are the differences? Nursing Science Quarterly, 28(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318 414558624 Peabody, M.  A., Stephen, P., & Demanchick, S.  P. (2016). Interprofessional opportunities: Understanding roles in collaborative practice. International Journal of Play Therapy, 25(2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pla0000013 Peeters, J., & Sharmahd, N. (2014). Professional development for ECEC practitioners with responsibilities for children at risk: Which competences and in-­ service training are needed? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.912903 Poell, R. F. (2005). Learning organizations and communities of practice: A critical evaluation. In J. P. Willson (Ed.), Human resource development. Learning and training for individuals and organizations (pp. 99–111). Publisher: London. Pretis, M. (2006). Professional training in early childhood intervention: Towards a common ground in Europe. Specialusis ugdymas [Special education], 1(14), 42–47. Reeves, S., Goldman, J., Gilbert, J., Tepper, J., Silver, I., Suter, E., & Zwarenstein, M. (2011). A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25(3), 167–174. https://doi. org/10.3109/13561820.2010.529960 Rosen, E. (2008). The culture of collaboration (p. 304). Red Ape Publishing. Slot, P. (2018). Structural characteristics and process quality in early childhood education and care: A literature review, OECD Education Working Papers, 176, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/edaf3793-­en Smith, T., Fowler-Davis, S., Nancarrow, S., Ariss, S. M. B., & Enderby, P. (2018). Leadership in interprofessional health and social care teams: A literature review. Leadership Health Services, 31(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/ LHS-­06-­2016-­0026 Spacey, J. (2016). 13 Examples of team culture. Simplicable. https://simplicable. com/new/team-­culture Sundqvist, C. (2021). Moving towards inclusive schools: Teacher collaboration as a key aspect of the development of inclusive practices. In N.  B. Hanssen, S.  E. Hansén, & K.  Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 202–217). Routledge. Sutton, P., & Shouse, A. (2016). Building a culture of collaboration in schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 97, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716641653 Tahir, S., Basit, T., Anis-ul-haque, M., Mushtaq, A. H., & Chaudhry, A. (2010). Knowledge management practices: Role of organizational culture. Proceedings of American Society of Business and Behavioural Sciences, 1(17), 1027–1036.

2  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

27

The State of Queensland Department of Education and Training. (2017). Fostering the development of transdisciplinary practice. https://earlychildhood.qld.gov. au/earlyYears/Documents/info-­s heet-­1 3-­f ostering-­d evelopment-­ transdisciplinary-­practice.pdf Venninen, T., Leinonen, J., Ojala, M., & Lipponen, L. (2012). Creating conditions for reflective practice in early childhood education. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 6(1), 1–15. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wong, S., Sumsion, J., & Press, F. (2012). Early childhood professionals and interprofessional work in integrated early childhood services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 81–88. https://doi. org/10.1177/183693911203700110 Yang, C. H., & Yu, C. (2006). Exploring inter-professional collaboration within action research group in health care sectors. Asian Journal of Health and Information Sciences, 1(2), 152–162.

CHAPTER 3

Family-Professional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, Stefanija Ališauskienė, and Daiva Kairienė

Introduction Extensive research published over the past 50 years indicates that family– professional collaboration (FPC) is an important element of high-quality education for children of all ages. It has been found that FPC can positively benefit children’s academic learning, social and behavioural outcomes (Hill et  al., 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Murphy  et  al., 2021), self-esteem and attitudes towards lifelong learning (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002; Hanssen & Mamonka, 2021; Kocyigit, 2015; McQuillan & Coleman, 2007; Murphy et al., 2021).

N. B. Hanssen (*) Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] S. Ališauskienė • D. Kairienė Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_3

29

30 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

Thus, the importance of FPC has been widely acknowledged regarding the effective realisation of inclusion and inclusive education, which, since 1990, has been provided by the United Nations’ Education for All (EFA) movement and has worked to make basic education available to all (Ainscow, 2021). However, FPC requires flexibility, accessibility, proximity, interdisciplinarity, universality of services and support (Ališauskienė, 2005; Carpenter, 2007; Nolte, 2005; Soriano, 2005; Vanclay, 2003). It is also important to recognise that the collaborative efforts of every role-­ player, including professionals and parents, in developing the inclusive ECEC system is critical (Ališauskienė & Kairiene, 2016). Currently, there are several empirical studies that have questioned the role and responsibility of parents as integral partners in collaboration (Hanssen & Mamonka, 2021; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2021). For example, in several countries, the opportunity to create an equal, active, meaningful and caring partnership supporting children’s development and inclusion throughout the ECEC years has been weakened (Carrol-Meehan, 2021; Hanssen & Mamonka, 2021; Sadownik & Lewandowska, 2021). Although FPC has been widely accepted, the importance of FPC is not always identified or clearly articulated on the legal and legislative level (Åmot & Skoglund, 2019; Hanssen & Mamonka, 2021; Phillipson & Garvis, 2020; Uusimäki et al., 2019). Furthermore, critical analysis and reflection on the phenomenon of FPC are almost nonexistent (Janssen & Vandenbroeck, 2018). As this short introduction implies, when we talk about FPC collaboration, we need to consider multiple aspects or dimensions. This is well evident in various studies that have describe different ways of approaching FPC and the various strategies for enhancing FPC, which will serve as a starting point for this chapter. In the next section, we take a closer look at these ways of approaching FPC.

Ways of Approaching Family-Professional Collaboration From a historical perspective, until 1980, ECEC and early childhood intervention in Europe used to be oriented towards support to a child, following the model of child-oriented support (Dunst, 2000; Moore, 2005), where children’s educational achievements are the focus. The model is oriented towards increasing the level of academic competence and, according to Garvis et  al. (2021), fostering cognitive and behavioural

3  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

31

dispositions, a high level of which will help the child to succeed in their future education. Concerning the realisation of inclusion and inclusive education for all, it is useful to note that the model of child-oriented support seems to rely on the deficit approach. This approach focuses on the fundamental assumption that diversity is negative and must be reduced to reach the educational goals defined by the institution (e.g. the ECEC) through, for example, the curriculum (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). To reach these goals, institutions—in this case ECEC—can use a medical diagnosis (defining children with SEN) to provide those children with academic support or behavioural interventions that are the most effective in separated settings (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). Taking into account those strategies, the idea of inclusion and inclusive education, which has been supported for more than 20 years, brings forward a complicated balancing act. It is also important to admit that this model requires parents to realise that ECEC focuses on a preparation for school, and the degree of their collaboration with professionals concerns only the school readiness of their children (Garvis et al., 2021). For example, FPC can be founded on professionals’ knowledge, with information given to parents about the developmental and educational needs of their children (Hanssen & Mamonka, 2021). As such, parents are not always seen as equal, competent and potential resources, but rather, they are seen as passive observers of their children’s educational path. The model of child-oriented support was challenged by the social pedagogy tradition, which focuses on the child’s development by reciprocal interactions between a child, the surrounding and constantly changing closest environment and a wider context. Environment is perceived as a composition of the factors directly and indirectly impacting a child’s learning and behaviour (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Epstein, 2001). A new model of family-centred support based on social pedagogy occurred (Davis & Gavidia-Payne, 2009; Dunst, 2000, 2002; Moore, 2005; Ozdemir, 2007; Shannon, 2004). This model is oriented towards expanding children’s abilities to freely express themselves and to provide space for individual initiatives, experiments and collaborative adoption of a critical stance (Hanssen, 2018). The family-centred support model is based on the ideas of freedom, divergence and independence from institutional (in this case ECEC) directives. Returning to the question concerning the realisation of inclusion and inclusive education for all, we can assume that the family-centred support

32 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

model seems to rely on the growth approach (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). At the core of this approach is the idea that children’s diversity is necessary for development and learning. Diversity is positive and a prerequisite, and being different, children can learn from each other and create spaces where they can develop new relations and new understandings of what it means to be human (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021; Rix et al., 2013). We claim that the legitimation of this approach is more value dependent, and an inclusion and inclusive education will, therefore, be a dynamic environment, giving everybody the possibility to develop and participate in society. That being said, the perspectives on FPC within the model of family-centred support recognise parents as an important link between ECEC and the local community (Garvis et al., 2021). Parents play a vital role in ensuring the welfare and education of their children, playing a pivotal role in shaping the children’s identity and values (McQuillan & Coleman, 2007). Because parents are familiar with the needs, problems, gifts and abilities of their children, they have a crucial role in aiding ECEC, so their view of involvement is seen as holding equal relations and collaboration with professionals. However, if looking at ECEC practice, we will probably see a mix of the above child-oriented and family-oriented models, so there will always be the dominant model or parts of the model used as the way of approaching FPC. Therefore, Fig.  3.1 illustrates the dynamic and mutual relationships between two models approaching FPC, which exist bundled together. We want to point out that, even though it seems like the models are in relation to each other on the same equal level, it does not mean that they appear equated in the ECEC practice. Therefore, this figure can be used as a lens or analytical tool for interpreting ECEC practices and discovering which model is dominant in approaching a high-quality FPC.

Strategies for Enhancing Family-Professional Collaboration A variety of aspects enabling and constraining FPC in ECEC have been outlined by researchers (Epstein, 2001; Murray et al., 2015), and these aspects are typically complex. Among other issues, FPC is based on equal relationships and effective communication of all participants of the educational process (Ališauskienė,

3  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

33

Fig. 3.1  Various ways of approaching FPC. Note: Represents a mix of child-­ oriented and family-oriented models (by Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen)

2005; Ališauskienė & Kairiene, 2016; Avendano & Cho, 2020; Ruškus & Mažeikis, 2007; Soriano, 2005), as well as the development of the ‘readiness space’, which incorporates the expansion of parents’ and professionals’ personal qualities, beliefs and views concerning the acceptance of each other as individuals and equal members of the same space while sharing the same aim, which ensures child’s lifelong learning (Hanssen, 2018). In the following section, we briefly review the key presumptions of FPC in relation to parent and professional readiness, collaborative relationships and communication. By bringing the presumptions for the implementation of FPC into the discussion, a description of how we can turn collaboration between parents and professionals into practice towards family-centred support is based on a growth approach. The description offered is limited, but it might serve as a starting point to further facilitate FPC while developing supportive and respectful communication between families and professionals, which is a key feature of high-quality collaboration (Epstein, 2001; Guralnick, 2005; Hurth & Goff, 2002; Lyon, 2008; Nolte, 2005; Ruškus & Mažeikis, 2007). Parents’ and Professionals’ Readiness for Collaboration To take an active part in the ECEC process and successfully collaborate, both parents and professionals need to be ready to do this.

34 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

Murray et  al. (2015, p.  1034) claim that regarding parents, demographic variables, such as low level of parent education, have been associated with lower readiness for collaboration. At the same time, there are numerous studies that contradict these associations (McWayne et  al., 2008; Waanders et al., 2007). Murray et al. (2015) point out that parents with low education may probably feel unqualified to be involved in their collaboration with professionals and their ability to meet and represent their child’s and own needs when using different available resources is not appropriate enough (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Guralnick, 2005; Lyon, 2008; Pandit, 2008). Ferrara and Ferrara (2005) emphasise that, in other cases, parents may feel intimidated by the ECEC environment and ECEC teachers’ educational expertise. All of these factors may place parents in a lower position than professionals, thus hindering their readiness to collaborate with professionals. Aiming to prepare parents for collaboration, special attention may be paid to, for example, helping them to recognise child’s and own strengths and needs and facilitating to maintain the interactions with a child in the home environment. It can also incorporate home educational and social activities that encourage interest in a child’s entire development (Blue-­ Banning et al., 2004; Dunst, 2000; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Freedman & Boyer, 2000; Guralnick, 2005; Hurth & Goff, 2002; Lee, 2009; Mellinger, 2009; Talay-Ongan, 2001). Murray et al. (2015) state that the quality of home activities is often associated with other social capital factors, such as parental occupation and education level. As such, parents with higher education possibly have more resources and a higher level of readiness to collaborate with professionals. Regarding professionals’ readiness to collaborate with parents, it has been underlined that, in many cases, professionals report their lack of readiness towards collaboration with parents with racial, linguistic and cultural backgrounds differing from their own (Hughes et al., 2005; Souto-­ Manning & Swick, 2006). Taking into account these concerns, it is important to bear in mind that, among other issues, the important element of readiness to collaborate is trust, which can be strengthened through building relationships and effective communication over time (Miretzky, 2004).

3  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

35

Collaborative Relationships Between Parents and Professionals Collaborative relationships between professionals and parents is one of the key principles of FPC (Adams & Christenson, 2000). Relationships are often operationalised as a continuum of the two main aspects of support— emotional and instructional. Emotional support is interpreted as a positive climate, sensitivity and respect for individuals involved in collaboration. Instructional support involves the ability to listen to the opinions and views of others (Hanssen, 2018). The creation of collaborative relationships is based on certain key aspects, such as mutual feelings of trust through effective communication (Adams & Christenson, 2000). Trust in collaborative relationships is understood as ‘confidence that another person will act in a way to benefit or sustain the relationship, or the implicit or explicit goals of the relationship, to achieve positive outcomes for children’ (Adams & Christenson, 2000, p. 480). As such, the creation of mutual trust requires, among other things, adjusting of expectations, predictability, such as responding consistently to a situation, and acting consistently during any given situation (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Pratt & Skelton, 2018). Very often, the relationships between parents and professionals are characterised as asymmetrical because of the disproportionate responsibility placed on the professional for the quality of these relationships (Pianta, 1999). The asymmetrical relationships illuminate the dominance of one part regarding competence and positioning (Mahon et  al., 2017). Asymmetry can also point to differences in terms of knowledge and expertise; for example, ECEC professionals working with children have higher competencies and knowledge of inclusion and SEN than parents (Hanssen, 2018; Kemmis & Heikkinen, 2011). As such, relationships between parents and professionals may represent solid and traditional authority and subordination based on formality and hierarchy. The consequences of these relationships are that teachers first perceive parents as a subject of a child’s educational activity (receivers of knowledge) and, thereafter, only as a personality (Hanssen, 2018). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge parents as those who can choose and make decisions concerning the planning of individual support to a child and family, providing an opportunity for parents to discuss and negotiate specialists’ opinions (Dunst, 2000; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Guralnick, 2005; Heward, 2000; Hurth & Goff, 2002).

36 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

Effective Communication Communication is a way of understanding one another’s needs and sending or giving messages to each other. Effective communication builds understanding and trust while presupposing that both parties are actively and equally involved in collaborative discourse. Only during equal and active communication between parents and professionals is it possible to share expectations, plan and provide support based on trust and respect (Lee, 2009; Mellinger, 2009). Success of communication depends on quantity, including the stability and frequency of communication, information management and coordination, accessibility of specialists and quality, including clear, accessible and understandable information provided to parents in various sources (Ališauskienė, 2005; Blue-Banning et al., 2004). Researchers have found that parents and teachers have voiced their desires to gain and share information with one another, but many teachers have placed parents in a passive role by depriving them of their role as active participants. The reason for this is that teachers may perceive themselves as active providers of information, opinions and suggestions (Adams & Christenson, 2000). However, when asked what parents would change about teachers, a frequent response was that they should listen more (Peck et al., 2015). As such, effective communication involves the necessity for teachers and parents to put themselves in the role of the listener and remain mindful to learn from one another (Peck et al., 2015).

Conclusion We conclude our chapter by returning to the very beginning. One prominent feature in many Western countries is a high quality of life and children’s outcomes, as well as comprehensive, equal and inclusive ECEC (Hanssen & Olsen, 2022). As mentioned in the introduction, FPC is an important element of high-quality education for children of all ages. It can be defined as a process where parents and teachers share joint responsibilities and rights, are seen as equals and can jointly contribute to the process (Adams & Christenson, 2000). FPC is also stated as being a critical component for positive outcomes for all children.

3  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

37

This primarily means that neither parents nor professionals are always treated as active and equal members of a collaborative space (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Nachshen, 2004). According to Barker (2009), all parts can become equal members of a collaborative space only when they develop trust, build relationships and communicate effectively. In addition, learning from one another and sharing knowledge and expertise when providing presumptions for collaboration are important (Blue-Banning et  al., 2004; Lyon, 2008). Moreover, the importance of reciprocal responsibilities of professionals and parents has been emphasised: the reciprocal representation of the child’s and family’s interests, mutual desire to help, parents’ involvement in planning and implementation of the child’s education and support plan (Blue-Banning et  al., 2004; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Hurth & Goff, 2002; Mellinger, 2009). However Ališauskienė (2003) makes it clear that, despite substantial organisational factors, personal attitudes, stereotypes, unknown expectations and values are considered obstacles for collaboration. In addition, the difficulties arising in collaboration have been linked to the lack of mutual preparation of parents and professionals to appreciate equal positions: professionals wish to be ‘experts’, that is, to implement their competences and properly perform their duties without regarding actual family needs, whereas families usually expect only the support of professionals (Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Hurth & Goff, 2002; Wang et  al., 2004). This is why a high level of awareness and reflection on this phenomenon is needed. With this in mind, a conclusion that can be drawn from this chapter relates to the prerequisites for the further development of a quality FPC.  Without a doubt, early childhood teacher education and ECEC practice are the arenas for reflecting on FPC by using the presented models and strategies as a tool for analysis, looking at which variable is dominant and what ways to enhance FPC we should focus on. It is no secret that parents and ECEC  teachers are crucial members throughout a child’s personal life and educational journey. Therefore, as educators and parents, it is our responsibility to continue this collaboration so that transitions are successful throughout the child’s life and education. Regardless of how big or small each step is, our goal as parents and professionals should be creating collaboration in which every party feels competent as a member of the child’s educational team (Owen, 2016).

38 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

References Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family–school relationship examination of parent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-­4405(00)00048-­0 Ainscow, M. (2021). Foreword. In N.  B. Hanssen, S.-E.  Hansén, & K.  Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. xiii–xxii). Routledge. Ališauskienė, S. (2003). Specialistų ir tėvų bendradarbiavimo predispozicija ir bendradarbiavimo kūrimas [Predisposition of collaboration between parents and professionals]. Specialusis ugdymas [Special Education], 1(8), 129–138. Ališauskienė, S. (2005). Ankstyvoji intervencija vaikysteje: ̇ Monografija [Early childhood intervention: Monography]. VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla [Siauliai University Publishing House]. Ališauskienė, S., & Kairiene, D. (2016). Shared responsibilities of parents and teachers in inclusive early childhood education. In EDULEARN16 Proceedings: 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 8601–8611). https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0875 Åmot, I., & Skoglund, R. I. (2019). The complexity of recognition in kindergarten and school. Universitetsforlaget. Avendano, S.  M., & Cho, E. (2020). Building collaborative relationships with parents: A checklist for promoting success. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52(4), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919892616 Barker, R. (2009). Making sense of every child matters: Multiprofessional practice guidance. The Policy Press. Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J.  A., Frankland, H.  C., Nelson, L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167–184. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Carpenter, B. (2007). The impetus for family-centred early childhood intervention. Journal Compilation, Child: Care, Health, and Development, 33(6), 664–669. Carrol-Meehan, C. (2021). United Kingdom  – Four nations in one country: Diversity in policy, research and practice. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, A. R. Sadownik, & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 280–292). Routledge. Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four perspectives on childcare quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.102 3/A:1021245017431

3  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

39

Davis, K., & Gavidia-Payne, S. (2009). The impact of child, family and professional support characteristics on the quality of life in families of young children with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34(2), 153–162. Dunst, C.  J. (2000). Revisiting ‘rethinking early intervention’. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(2), 95–104. Dunst, C.  J. (2002). Family-centred practices: Birth through high school. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 139–147. Epstein, J. (2001). School, family and community partnership: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press. Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2008). Family-centered practice: Collaboration, competency and evidence. Journal Compilation, 23(3), 136–143. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­9604.2008.00384.x Ferrara, M. M., & Ferrara, P. J. (2005). Parents as partners: Raising awareness as a teacher preparation program. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 79(2), 77–81. Freedman, R. I., & Boyer, N. C. (2000). The power to choose: Supports for families caring for individuals with developmental disabilities. Health and Social Work, 25, 59–68. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sadownik, A.  R., & Phillipson, S. (2021). Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Routledge. Guralnick, M. J. (2005). The developmental systems approach to early intervention. Paul H. Brookes. Hanssen, N.  B. (2018). Special educational needs in Norwegian and Belarusian preschools. PhD dissertation, Nord University. Hanssen, N. B., & Mamonka, V. (2021). Parental involvement in early childhood education in Belarus. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, A. R. Sadownik, & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 40–50). Routledge. Hanssen, N. B., & Olsen, K. (2022). A survey into graduate students’ views on special needs education in ECE teacher education in Norway. In H.  Harju-­ Luukkainen, N. Hanssen, & C. Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years. Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic countries (pp. 151–167). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030­91297-­0_11 Hausstätter, R., & Vik, S. (2021). Inclusion and special needs education: A theoretical framework of an overall perspective of inclusive special education. In N. B. Hanssen, S.-E. Hansén, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 18–32). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367810368 Heward, W.  L. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Merrill.

40 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1491–1509. Hill, N.  E., & Tyson, D.  F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 3, 740–763. Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., & Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers’ perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 303–320. Hurth, J., & Goff, P. (2002). Assuring the family’s role on the early intervention team: Explaining rights and safeguards. National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. Janssen, J., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2018). (De)constructing parental involvement in early childhood curricular frameworks. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(6), 813–832. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1350293X.2018.1533703 Kemmis, S., & Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2011, September 14). Understanding professional development of teachers within the theory of practice architectures [Paper presentation]. European Conference of Educational Research ECER2011, Berlin, Germany. Kocyigit, S. (2015). Family involvement in preschool education: Rationale, problems and solutions for the participants. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2474 Lee, Y. H. (2009). The paradox of early intervention: Families’ participation driven by professionals throughout service process. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Lyon, K. C. (2008). An examination of volunteerism: Teacher expectations and parent involvement. Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring education and professional practice. Springer. McQuillan, M. K., & Coleman, G. A. (2007). A guide to early childhood program development. State of Connecticut. State Board of Education. McWayne, C., Campos, R., & Owsianik, M. (2008). Family involvement in preschool: A multidimensional multi-level examination of mother and father involvement among low income, culturally diverse families. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5), 551–573. Mellinger, S. L. (2009). A survey of the attitudes, perceptions, and practices of early care and education staff regarding parent involvement. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University Graduate Board. Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814–851.

3  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

41

Moore, T. (2005). Evolution of early childhood intervention practice. ECIA(VC) Consultative Forum. http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/Tim_Moore_ 2010.pdf Murphy, C., Matthews, J., Clayton, O., & Cann, W. (2021). Partnership with families in early childhood education: Exploratory study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1836939120979067 Murray, E., McFarland-Piazza, L., & Harrison, L. J. (2015). Changing patterns of parent–teacher communication and parent involvement from preschool to school. Early Child Development and Care, 185(7), 1031–1052. https://doi. org/10.1080/03004430.2014.975223 Nachshen, J.  S. (2004). Empowerment and families: Building bridges between parents and professionals, theory and research. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 11(1), 67–75. Nolte, J. (2005). Enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration in primary health care. Primary health care: A framework that fits. EICP. Owen, A. (2016). Forming collaborative parent-teacher relationships to increase parental involvement. Independent studies and capstones. Paper 728. Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine. https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/pacs_capstones/728 Ozdemir, S. (2007). A paradigm shift in early intervention services: From child centeredness to family centeredness. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Dergisi, 47(2), 13–25. Pandit, S. (2008). An evaluation of facilitators of parent involvement in early intervention programs for children with developmental disabilities: An ecological perspective. Doctoral dissertation, The State University of New Jersey. Peck, N. F., Maude, S. P., & Brotherson, M. J. (2015). Understanding preschool teachers’ perspectives on empathy: A qualitative inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 169–179. Phillipson, S., & Garvis, S. (2020). Policy and childhood: Making sense of systems. In S.  Garvis & S.  Phillipson (Eds.), Policification of early childhood­ education and care: Early childhood education in 21st century (pp. 274–285). Routledge. Pianta, R.  C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pratt, K. J., & Skelton, J. A. (2018). Family functioning and childhood obesity treatment: A family systems theory-informed approach. Academic Pediatric Association, 18(6), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2018.04.001 Rix, J., Sheehy, K., Fletcher-Campbell, F., Crisp, M., & Harper, A. (2013). Exploring provision for children identified with special educational needs: An international review of policy and practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257. 2013.812403

42 

N. BAHDANOVICH HANSSEN ET AL.

Ruškus, J., & Mažeikis, G. (2007). Nei ̨galumas ir socialinis dalyvavimas: kritine ̇ patirties ir galimybių Lietuvoje refleksija [Disability and social participation: Critical reflection of experience and possibilities in Lithuania]. ŠU leidykla [SU Publishing House]. Sadownik, A. R., & Lewandowska, E. (2021). Parental involvement in Poland. In S.  Garvis, H.  Harju-Luukkainen, A.  R. Sadownik, & S.  Phillipson (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 199–2011). Routledge. Sadownik, A.  R., & Skoglund, R.  I. (2021). Parental involvement in ECE in Norway. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, A. R. Sadownik, & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 174–184). Routledge. Shannon, P. (2004). Barriers of family-centred services for infants and toddlers with developmental delays. Social Work, 49(2), 301–308. Soriano, V. (2005). Early childhood intervention analysis of situation in Europe. Key aspects and recommendations. Summary report. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Souto-Manning, M., & Swick, K. J. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about parent and family involvement: Rethinking our family involvement paradigm. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 187–193. Talay-Ongan, A. (2001). Early intervention: Critical roles of early childhood service providers. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(3), 221–228. Uusimäki, L., Yngvesson, T., Garvis, S., & Harju-Luukainen, H. (2019). Parental involvement in ECEC in Finland and in Sweden. In S.  Garvis (Ed.), Nordic families, children and early childhood education (pp. 81–99). Springer Nature. Vanclay, L. (2003). Supporting families an interprofessional approach? In A.  Leathard (Ed.), Interprofessional collaboration: From policy to practice in health and social care (pp. 158–171). Routledge. Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619–636. Wang, M., Mannan, H., Poston, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A. (2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 144–155.

PART II

Interprofessional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care

CHAPTER 4

Interprofessional Intervention Collaboration in Early Language Learning in the United Kingdom: A Descriptive Case Study Heidi Harju-Luukkainen

Introduction Inclusive language supporting practices in educational contexts are important elements of Early Childhood Education and care (ECEC) and these practices promote equity and social justice in the society in a long run. However, these inclusive practices in ECEC can be viewed but also implemented from multiple perspectives. One of the key elements in these inclusive practices regarding language support are interprofessional collaboration and collaboration with families. Children’s learning is always happening in an ecology with home and ECEC contexts, therefore the collaborative practices implemented between the personnel but also

H. Harju-Luukkainen (*) University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_4

45

46 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

between the families become important. According to Balice-Bourgois et al. (2020) families need to be seen as a part of interprofessional collaboration teams. Good quality parental collaboration has been highlighted in recent research as important regarding children’s learning and this collaboration leads to better academic attainment for the child (Garvis et al., 2021; Garvis et  al., 2019; Purola et  al., 2021; Sandberg & Harju-­ Luukkainen, 2017; Lewis, 2011; Clarke, 2010; Desforges & Abouchar, 2003; Epstein, 2001). In order to be successful in this collaboration teachers but also other personnel need specific skills (see for instance Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Mahmood, 2013; Uusimäki et al., 2019). In the UK early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework (2021) sets the standards that all ECEC providers must meet when it comes to learning, development, and care of children from birth to 5 years. The EYFS seeks to provide following for every child attending the early years’ education (2021, p. 5): • “Quality and consistency in all early year’s settings, so that every child makes good progress, and no child gets left behind; • secure foundation through planning for the learning and development of each individual child, and assessing and reviewing what they have learned regularly; • partnership working between practitioners and with parents and/ or carers; • equality of opportunity and anti-discriminatory practice, ensuring that every child is included and supported”. EYFS also states the reasons for this partnership as following (p.  7) “providers must work in partnership with parents and/or caregivers, to promote the learning and development of all children in their care and to ensure they are ready for year 1” and further it clarifies somewhat the role of the providers and parents “Parents and/or carers should be kept up to date with their child’s progress and development. Practitioners should address any learning and development needs in partnership with parents and/or carers, and any relevant professionals” (p. 18). The EYFS definitions for parental involvement (PI) and collaboration provided by EYFS are very inexact, giving providers different possibilities to interpret the text. However, for EYFS there is also supporting material available by Foundation Years (2022) which provides the latest news, policies, and

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

47

resources for early years’ professionals. It is important to note that these are non-statutory. As stated earlier, learning of the children happens in an ecology with home and ECEC, but it should also include the community, different media channels, and other places where children have a possibility to learn and to be engaged. The younger the child is the stronger the family’s influence in this ecology is. Therefore, the learning begins in the family and is later a shared responsibility between these learning spaces. Here the interprofessional collaboration becomes significant as well as the competence of personnel. However, not all parents are equally equipped to support their child and here professional expertise is needed from ECE personnel (Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Mahmood, 2013; Uusimäki et  al., 2019). Further, according to Alasuutari (2010) ECE teachers need expert skills in collaborating and engaging with the parents of the child, but also with other professionals working around the child. The challenge in this collaboration is according to Alasuutari (2010) to agree on the interpretation of partnership and participation, meaning what type of roles professionals or families have and take and what type of interpretations they make of the situations. Further, Alasuutari (2010) has been defining different types of collaboration approaches closer. In a vertical frame the collaboration is considered as a hierarchical relationship, but in a horizontal frame, which reflects the partnership approach, parallel expertise and proximity are emphasised. However, the idea of partnership seems to lead to varying interpretations about what partnership and parent participation mean in practice. An International Parent-Professional Partnership (IPP) research study conducted by Hujala et al. (2009) focused on the contemporary challenges of the parent-teacher partnerships in early childhood education from a cross-cultural perspective. According to the results there were differences in teachers’ approaches to parent-teacher partnerships between societies as well as within each country. Parents also differed in their capacity to develop and maintain partnerships with teachers and other personnel. According to Vlasov and Hujala (2017) ECE services maintain a central role in supporting families with young children. How this partnership between families and service providers is conducted and understood is dependent on the political, societal, and cultural changes in the nation’s context. Therefore, the educators’ interpretation of the collaboration is not the only determinant but also many other societal factors are premises for the success of this collaboration.

48 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

Importance of Early Language Support EYFS statutory framework (2021) have placed a strong emphasis on the development of speech and language skills in children and awareness and training. The development of speech, language, and communication is a statutory responsibility for all education staff working with children aged 0–5 years. According to the EYFS (2021, p. 8) all education programmes must involve activities and experiences for children as set under the area of communication and language as following: The development of children’s spoken language underpins all seven areas of learning and development. Children’s back-and-forth interactions from an early age form the foundations for language and cognitive development. The number and quality of the conversations they have with adults and peers throughout the day in a language-rich environment is crucial. By commenting on what children are interested in or doing, and echoing back what they say with new vocabulary added, practitioners will build children’s language effectively. Reading frequently to children, and engaging them actively in stories, non-fiction, rhymes and poems, and then providing them with extensive opportunities to use and embed new words in a range of contexts, will give children the opportunity to thrive. Through conversation, story-telling and role play, where children share their ideas with support and modelling from their teacher, and sensitive questioning that invites them to elaborate, children become comfortable using a rich range of vocabulary and language structures. There is much research literature regarding the benefits of good language skills. However, it is important to note that good skills are not only a question of individual knowledge, skills, and competencies. These are also societal and generational issues. For instance, good language skills are a critical factor in the intergenerational cycles that perpetuate social disadvantage (Stewart & Waldfogel, 2017). Bradbury et al. (2015) found that children from low-income families lag behind high-income counterparts by twenty months in vocabulary at school entry and studies consistently indicate a higher prevalence of language needs from disadvantaged communities, with between 40–56% of children starting school with a language delay (Law et al., 2011). Further, Harju-Luukkainen et al. (2014) reported of alarming findings of learning achievements of students with an immigrant background. One finding was that a great proportion of the first-generation immigrant students did not reach even the minimum level of mathematical proficiency. The results were largely similar also in

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

49

science, reading literacy and problem solving. Furthermore, there was no significant improvement in the results when looking at the students with a second-generation immigrant status. Best performing students in mathematics were coming from regions near Finland or had arrived in the country before school age. One of the explanatory factors for these results could be, according to the authors, language skills. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (2014, p. 107) suggested therefore following: For this reason, special attention should be paid to students’ progress and coping at school. Early childhood education, the comprehensive school and upper secondary education form a continuum within which each child and adolescent should have an opportunity to reach his or her own potential. It is important to ensure this so that the students acquire best possible keys to develop their competencies for their future life. This benefits not only the individual student, but also society as a whole.

Ecological Approach to Language Learning According to Harju-Luukkainen (2007, pp.  59–62), van Lier (1988, 1996, 1998, 2000) has become known as a language learning researcher who combined a sociocultural approach with a cognitive way of thinking, creating a new, ecological perspective on language learning. In their view, language learning is therefore considered in a wider context than usual, which partly combines the ideas of Vygotsky and Piaget. If so, the learner is not a passive recipient of the language, but an active agent operating in an ecological system, who also learns the language in the world outside the classroom or kindergarten. Thus, learning is not something that happens exclusively “inside the learner’s head”, but learning combines cognitive and social processes. According to van Lier (2000, p. 258), language learning cannot be interpreted as “words that travel through the air, on paper or along wires that connect the sender and the receiver”. In this respect, van Lier’s view is based on Gibson’s (1979) theory of ecological perception, according to which perception is an active activity. According to van Lier (also Krashen, 1985), exposure is a basic condition for language learning. According to van Lier, the amount of exposure is important for a child’s learning, but also its quality. This quality is primarily influenced by the socio-cultural environment. The child must also be able to understand the language he is exposed to in order to be able to work on it. Therefore, the exposure to the language should be at the right level for the child’s development, that is, the activity should be oriented towards

50 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

the child’s immediate development zone. According to van Lier (1996, p.  193), learning in the zone of proximal development should be seen from a broader perspective. Learning can take place with the help of an adult, in interaction with an equal friend, with the help of a weaker learner, or an individual’s internal dialogue. Further, according to Harju-Luukkainen (2007), social interaction plays an important role in language learning, and it especially affects the quality of exposure to the language. Exposure is necessary, but not a prerequisite for learning. In some cases, the child may live in a foreign language culture without learning its language (van Lier, 1996, pp. 46–47). An example of this can be seen in second-generation immigrants who have lived in the country all their lives without learning the country’s language. Thus, language learning does not happen in a vacuum, but is always connected to social interaction. According to van Lier, the language use situation, linguistic context, and interaction with others are paramount when learning a new language. Here van Lier approaches Veresov’s (2004, pp. 16–17) view of the importance of interaction for a child’s development. According to Veresov (2004), it is precisely the social environment that imposes certain demands or challenges on the child, and if these challenges or demands are new to the child, they cause him an internal conflict. It is this conflict between the child’s internal perceptions and the environment that is the driving force in the child’s development.

Methods This study is conducted with the help of a descriptive case study. According to Merriam (1998, p. 29) a case study does not use any specific data collection method but focuses on holistic description and explanation of the phenomenon studied. Further, in qualitative case study the aim is to seek a better understanding of the case and it can be for instance descriptions of programmes (Stake, 1995). Therefore, a descriptive case study develops a story about a real-world situation, describes it in detail from different angles. In this study, I engaged with a descriptive case study on the UK-based intervention programme. There is very or no research evidence on it and it is also widely promoted in the UK (see Barbour, 2022). The aim of this research is to describe the intervention programme especially its inclusive and interprofessional collaboration practices with families using multiple textual datasets. In

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

51

this study I will use textual online descriptions of the programme and professional expert descriptions of the programme published in the Barbour (2022) report. These textual datasets are then studied closer through the lenses of the theoretical frame. According to Yin (2012), especially in a case study the research of the theory is important. It is not only important in developing sound case studies but also in generalising case study results. From these premises I formulated a research question: how does the UK-based programme for language intervention describe inclusion and interprofessional collaboration with families within the framework of ecological theory?

Results This section summarises our descriptive case study results, especially focusing on inclusive, language learning and IPC and FPC aspects of the intervention programme conducted in inner London ECEC schools (Hackney, 2022; Pring et al., 2012). This whole school programme was created in 2012–2013 in northeastern London, UK, where 28% of families are living in poverty and 65% of children enter school with significantly delayed language skills, in addition to many who are learning English as an additional language (Office for National Statistics, 2017). The programme provided by Speech and Language Therapists (SLT) for all early years children in a school or nursery setting, supporting speech, language, and communication skills. This model of collaborative input developed in response to a need identified within early years’ settings and schools. Teachers were reaching out across the education market for products to solve the broader issues they were observing with language development which were not being addressed by the state-provided specialist SLT input and which they did not feel equipped to support themselves. This language programme is grounded in the principles of quality early education within the UK EYFS (2021). In practice, the implementation of language intervention programme is supported by an experienced local SLT team. The team structure includes a highly specialist SLT as language intervention programme lead and several specialist SLTs with significant experience of the programme provide training and support to the wider delivery team and can provide additional support in settings through joint planning meetings, coaching, and joint visits. Weekly half-days in settings allow the SLT team to be responsive to progress and challenges. The

52 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

language intervention programme encompasses a broad range of evidence-­ based interventions including adult-child interaction strategies (McInnes et al., 2013), targeted language groups (Boyle et al., 2009; Fricke et al., 2017), Concept Cat, from the Word Aware approach (Moran & Moir, 2018), Colourful Semantics (Bolderson et al., 2011), and Makaton signing (Mistry & Barnes, 2013). All children exist within a social setting (Blackburn & Aubrey, 2016; Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Successful interventions must, therefore, target both the individual child and the wider context. Speech and language development can be viewed not just as an individual medical or developmental issue, but as a public health issue where a community-focused approach can be more effective (Enderby & Law, 2019). With an understanding of each learning environment as a small community, the language intervention programme aims to create a social movement that aligns with the values, policies, and cultures of the learning environment in order to make long-lasting change. Identifying existing assets within the learning community is fundamental to ensuring that an approach such as this is successful. This includes identifying the assets within individual staff members (training attended, knowledge and skills, passion, and enthusiasm), physical and environmental assets (classroom environment, physical spaces that create communication opportunities), and identifying key change-­makers within the relevant staff group (Enderby & Law, 2019). Identifying and implementing an asset-based approach in this way takes time, trust, and relationships which is why this language intervention programme asks settings to commit to the programme for a minimum of one year. Further, according to literature successful early language interventions involve intensive and ongoing training, guidance and feedback for the staff delivering interventions, and careful monitoring to ensure staff are carrying out the intervention as modelled (Ebbels et  al., 2019. McCartney et al., 2010). Using what we know about how to create behavioural, systemic, and sustainable change, language intervention programme therapists consider the capability, opportunity, and motivation of education staff who already have many competing demands and pressures on their time (Michie et al., 2011), using feedback, reflection, and data to shape and improve the programme within each setting. This inner London language intervention programme also provides a tailored approach to empower parents to provide optimal support for their child’s speech,

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

53

language, and communication development. Research suggests that the home learning environment and parental attitudes and involvement in their child’s education have a significant impact on language and literacy development, cognitive development, behaviour, and school achievement (Desforges & Abouchar, 2003; Farber & Goldstein, 1998; Locke et al., 2002; Melhuish et  al., 2001). The language intervention programme offers also regular parent workshops to build relationships, knowledge, and confidence in supporting early language development at home. The inner London language intervention programme was recently selected for an independent evaluation in private, voluntary, and independent settings by the Sutton Trust in collaboration with the Institute for Employment Skills and Oxford University (Barbour, 2022). However, the COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on the study and sample sizes and delivery methods were not as planned, leading to limited robustness of data from a quantitative perspective. However, interviews conducted as part of this independent evaluation found that education practitioners reported increased skills, knowledge, motivation, and confidence in working with speech, language, and communication needs and were able to better tailor strategies according to children’s needs. Practitioners also reported that inner London language intervention programme supported the language skills of all children in their settings and observed additional benefits in personal, social, and emotional development. The adapted approach will involve using skilled and experienced SLT assistants—rather than SLTs—to deliver the inner London language intervention programme in settings, supported carefully by specialist SLTs for aspects such as planning, data analysis, and staff training. Research indicates that this multi-tiered approach—comprising SLT, SLT assistant, and education staff—to interprofessional collaboration can be highly effective (Mecrow et al., 2010).

Discussion Inclusive language supporting practices in educational contexts are important elements of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and these practices promote equity and social justice in the society in a long run. However, these inclusive practices in ECEC can be viewed but also implemented from multiple perspectives. One of the key elements in these inclusive practices regarding language support are interprofessional

54 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

collaboration with families. In the UK many children enter school with significantly delayed language skills, and many of them are learning English as an additional language. In this chapter we take a closer look at a UK-based inner London intervention programme, with the help of a descriptive case study. According to Merriam (1998, p. 29) a case study does not use any specific data collection methods but focuses on holistic description and explanation of the phenomenon studied. Therefore, in this case study the aim was to develop a story about the intervention programme, described from multiple angles. From these premises research question was formulated—how does the inner London language intervention programme describe inclusion and family professional collaboration within the framework of ecological theory? According to the descriptive case study results, the inner London language intervention programme is a unique programme among language intervention programmes in the UK. It is grounded in the principles of quality early education within the EYFS (2021). In practice, the implementation of the language intervention programme is supported by an experienced local speech language therapist team working in interprofessional collaboration. Further it highlights interprofessional collaboration with families, and the intervention can be crafted to respond to the specific needs of families and their different settings. Therefore, the programme is seen to be tailored, flexible, and sustainable giving the programme a clear focus on ecological perspective on supporting children’s language learning developed (van Lier, 1988, 1996, 1998, 2000). Support for language and communication has been recognised to be of importance in high-­ quality learning environments (Law et al., 2017). The language intervention programme seeks to break the link between family income and educational achievement through a holistic approach in the earliest years of education, supporting the inclusive practices with education. Therefore, there can be found an approach towards inclusive practices, a link between the programme aims and the needs of areas with social deprivation in England. However, it is important to state that the programme description conducted in this research is done only from a few perspectives. Further, only a limited amount of textual data was available to do this case description. Therefore, I would like to suggest that more effort in the UK context would be put into conducting research on the different intervention programmes, their interprofessional collaboration practices and working with families, but also publishing the results in peer-reviewed journals. Finally,

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

55

this studied language intervention programme employs a holistic universal framework with an appreciation of the complex social, behavioural, and environmental situations and it has a potential in making lasting changes in ECE settings. However, at the basis more research evidence is needed.

Final Remarks I would like to thank the specialists involved in the data gathering, that are closely involved with the inner London language intervention programme and making further remarks of the study. Without your contribution this paper would not have been published.

References Alasuutari, M. (2010). Striving at partnership: Parent–practitioner relationships in Finnish early educators’ talk. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502931003784545 Balice-Bourgois, C., Zumstein-Shaha, M., Simonetti, G.  D., & Newman, C.  J. (2020). Interprofessional collaboration and involvement of parents in the ­management of painful procedures in newborns. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, 394. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00394 Barbour, L. (2022). CECIL  – Coaching early conversations interaction and language. Sutton Trust. Blackburn, C., & Aubrey, C. (2016). Policy-to-practice context to the delays and difficulties in the acquisition of speech, language and communication in the early years. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(4), 414–434. Bolderson, S., Dosanjh, C., Milligan, C., Pring, T., & Chiat, S. (2011). Colourful semantics: A clinical investigation. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27(3), 344–353. Boyle, J. M., McCartney, E., O’Hare, A., & Forbes, J. (2009). Direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment: Principal outcomes from a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(6), 826–846. Bradbury, B., et al. (2015). Too many children left behind. Russell Sage Foundation. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 187–251). JAI Press. Chan, A., & Ritchie, J. (2016). Parents, participation, partnership: Problematising New Zealand early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 289–303.

56 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

Clarke, K. (2010). Children’s Centres and Parental Engagement: Lessons from the English Experience. Sozialer Fortschritt, 59(4), 108–112. Department for Education. (2021). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-­years-­ foundation-­stage-­framework-­2 Desforges, C., & Abouchar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literature review. DfES, 433. Ebbels, S. H., McCartney, E., Slonims, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Norbury, C. F. (2019). Evidence-based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54(1), 3–19. Enderby, P. M., & Law, J. (2019). Speech, Language, and communication in a public health context: A UK perspective with potential global application–an opinion piece. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 71(4), 168–175. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family and community partnerships. Westview Press. Farber, J. G., & Goldstein, M. K. (1998). Parents working with speech-language pathologists to foster partnerships in education. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools, 29(1), 24–34. Fricke, S., Burgoyne, K., Bowyer-Crane, C., Kyriacou, M., Zosimidou, A., Maxwell, L., & Hulme, C. (2017). The efficacy of early language intervention in mainstream school settings: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), 1141–1151. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2019). Nordic families, children and early childhood education. Palgrave Macmillan. Garvis, S., Phillipson, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Sadownick, A. (2021). Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Routledge. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. Hackney. (2022). Launchpad for language. https://gethackneytalking.co.uk/ educational-­professionals/launchpad-­for-­language/ Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2007). Kielikylpydidaktiikkaa kehittämässä: 3-6-­vuotiaiden kielikylpylasten kielellinen kehitys ja kielikylpydidaktiikan kehittäminen päiväkodissa. Barns språkliga utveckling i språkbad och utveckling av spåkbadsdidaktik i daghemsmiljö [Developing language immersion didactics. 3-6-year-old children’s development of command of language in language immersion daycare]. Åbo Akademis förlag. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Sulkunen, S., & Suni, M. (2014). Avaimet osaamiseen ja tulevaisuuteen: Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisen tasosta ja siihen liittyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012 –tutkimuksessa [Keys to competence and future. A report on PISA 2012 results and related underlying factors for students with an immigrant background]. University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research.

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

57

Hujala, E., Turja, L., Gaspar, M. F., Veisson, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2009). Perspectives of early childhood teachers on parent-teacher partnerships in five European countries. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(1), 57–76. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Issues and implications. Longman. Law, J., Charlton, J., Dockrell, J., Gascoigne, M., McKean, C., & Theakston, A. (2017). Early language development: Needs, provision and intervention for pre-school children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. London Education Endowment Foundation. Law, J., McBean, K., & Rush, R. (2011). Communication skills in a population of primary school-aged children raised in an area of pronounced social disadvantage. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(6), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-­6984.2011.00036.x Lewis, J. (2011). From Sure Start to children’s centres: An analysis of policy change in English early years programmes. Journal of Social Policy, 40(1), 71–88. Locke, A., Ginsborg, J., & Peers, I. (2002). Development and disadvantage: Implications for the early years and beyond. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 37(1), 3–15. Mahmood, S. (2013). First-year preschool and kindergarten teachers: Challenges of working with parents. School Community Journal, 23(2), 55–85. McCartney, E., Ellis, S., Boyle, J., Turnbull, M., & Kerr, J. (2010). Developing a language support model for mainstream primary school teachers. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 359–374. McInnes, K., Howard, J., Crowley, K., & Miles, G. (2013). The nature of adult– child interaction in the early years classroom: Implications for children’s perceptions of play and subsequent learning behaviour. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 268–282. Mecrow, C., Beckwith, J., & Klee, T. (2010). An exploratory trial of the effectiveness of an enhanced consultative approach to delivering speech and language intervention in schools. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(3), 354–367. Melhuish, E., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2001). Technical paper 7 – The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project social/behavioural and cognitive development at 3-4 years in relation to family background. DfEE/Institute of Education, University of London. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Michie, S., Van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-­ 5908-­6-­42

58 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN

Mistry, M., & Barnes, D. (2013). The use of Makaton for supporting talk, through play, for pupils who have English as an Additional Language (EAL) in the Foundation Stage. Education, 3-13, 41(6), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.108 0/03004279.2011.631560 Moran, E., & Moir, J. (2018). Closing the vocabulary gap in early years: Is ‘Word Aware’ a possible approach? Educational & Child Psychology, 35(1), 51–64. Office for National Statistics; National Records of Scotland; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. (2017). 2011 Census aggregate data. UK Data Service (Edition: February 2017). Office for National Statistics. Pring, T., Flood, E., Dodd, B., & Joffe, V. (2012). The working practices and clinical experiences of paediatric speech and language therapists: A national UK survey. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(6), 696–708. Purola, K., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2021). Parental participation in the Finnish ECEC context. Springer nature. In S.  Garvis, S.  Phillipson, H. Harju-Luukkainen, & A. Sadownik (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Taylor & Francis. Sandberg, E., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2017). “Opettajan asenne heijastui suoraan oppilaan koulumenestykseen” Riittävät ja riittämättömät tukitoimet koulussa ADHD-perheiden näkökulmasta viimisten vuosien aikana [“Teacher attitudes affect student’s educational outcome” Support measures in schools with ADHD children]. Oppimisen ja oppimisvaikeuksien erityislehti, 27(2), 26–39. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications. Stewart, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2017). Closing gaps early: The role of early years policy in promoting social mobility in England. Sutton Trust. Uusimäki, L., Yngvesson, T.  E., Garvis, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2019). Parental involvement in ECEC in Finland and in Sweden. Nordic families, children and early childhood education. In S.  Garvis, H.  Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families, children and early childhood education. Studies in childhood and youth (pp.  81–99). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­16866-­7_5 van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. Ethnography and second-­language classroom research. Longman. van Lier, L. (1996). Interacti on in the language curriculum. Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Longman. van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7, 128–145. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Teoksessa J. Lantolf (toim.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford University Press.

4  INTERPROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION COLLABORATION IN EARLY… 

59

Veresov, N. (2004). Zone of proximal development (ZPD): The hidden dimension. In Teoksessa: Østern, A.-L & Heilä-Ylikallio, R. (Ed.), Språk som kultur – brytningar I tid och rum, 1 (pp. 13–29). Rapport Nr 11 / 2004. Rapport från pedagogiska fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi, Vaasa. Vlasov, J., & Hujala, E. (2017). Parent-teacher cooperation in early childhood education  – Directors’ views to changes in the USA, Russia, and Finland. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(5), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1356536 Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc.

CHAPTER 5

Interprofessional Collaboration for Inclusive Education in Early Childhood Education and Care in Ukraine Nataliia Sofii , Oksana Fedorenko , Iryna Novyk, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , and Jonna Kangas

Introduction Good quality Early Childhood Education and  Care (ECEC) includes a high level of special needs education (SNE) system. Providing children with special education needs (SEN) their right to quality inclusive education cannot be realized only by the ECEC teachers. It requires a continuous collaborative effort of multiple professional groups around the child and the child’s family inside and outside of the early childhood institution N. Sofii (*) Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Kyiv, Ukraine e-mail: [email protected] O. Fedorenko • I. Novyk Ukrainian Institute of Education Development (UIED), Kyiv, Ukraine e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_5

61

62 

N. SOFII ET AL.

during early years. Therefore, one of the key questions in educational quality lies in how the professionals working around the child are managing their interprofessional collaboration (IPC). Further, the collaboration between professional groups is important, not only regarding the early childhood education and ECEC teachers, but it has an important impact also on the personal level that positively affects further the levels of communities and nations. Ukraine, as many other European countries, has given much attention to ECEC in its policy documents, recognizing that it is in the early years that children create the foundation and capacity to learn throughout life. In previous literature it is highlighted that, building a strong foundation during the early years is a precondition for higher level competence development and educational success as much as it is essential for health and the well-being of children (Engzell & Tropf, 2019; Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022b). Participating in ECEC is beneficial for all children and especially for children with SEN. It supports by preventing the formation of gaps regarding early skills and thus it is an essential tool when fighting against inequalities and educational poverty. This is in line with the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989) and with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4.2 that anticipates that all girls and boys should have access to quality ECEC and pre-primary education by 2030 (UN Resolution Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015). In 2018 the educational reform called ‘New Ukrainian School’ started at the level of primary and secondary education. It introduced concepts like child-centered, competency-based, value-based education, pedagogy of partnership and inclusive education (Concept of realization of the state policy in a field of reforming the system of general secondary education ‘New Ukrainian School’, 2016).

H. Harju-Luukkainen University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] J. Kangas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

63

From these starting points, this chapter focuses on interprofessional collaboration as the premise of providing quality inclusive education during ECEC in Ukraine for children with SEN. Since this area has received very little attention in the Ukrainian research literature (see closer the literature review), our aim with this chapter is to give an overview of both a) the research conducted on the field and b) to highlight the legislative and Early Childhood Teacher Education (ECTE) premises for organizing professional collaboration of the country for the benefit of SNE. This is done to support the further development of IPC  in Ukraine during ECEC within SNE. At the end of the chapter, we provide readers of this chapter a model that describes the IPC in Ukraine. Our research question is, therefore, what is the interprofessional collaboration model in ECEC in Ukraine for children with SEN? As our methodological approach we have chosen to use literature review. Literature review can be conducted in multiple ways. According to Salminen (2011) descriptive literature review is one of the most used basic types of literature review. It can be characterized as an overview without strict and precise rules. The materials used are extensive and the selection of materials is not limited by methodological rules. However, it is possible to describe the phenomenon under investigation in a broad way and, if necessary, to classify the characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. The research questions are broader than in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Further, Salminen (2011) argues that methodologically, it is the lightest form of literature review, but with its help, it is possible to give a broad picture of the subject under discussion, or to describe the history and development of the subject under discussion. Therefore, the descriptive review aims for a result that gives a broader picture that is easy to read. From these premises, we have chosen to use descriptive literature review, since our aim is to give a broader picture (Fig.  5.1) of the Ukrainian IPC premises on three levels (level of state; level of early childhood institution and level of early childhood classroom), within the ECEC system.

Literature Review The European Commission emphasizes the importance of IPC. The main idea is that enhancing collaboration among ECEC teachers, families, and different professional groups it will increase quality of educational services considering and meeting children’s needs (EU Council Recommendations

64 

N. SOFII ET AL.

Fig. 5.1  Model of interprofessional collaboration in ECEC in Ukraine for children with SEN

on High Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems, 2019). This IPC especially in the context of ECEC has often referred other parallel concepts. For example, the conception of multi-professional collaboration is used to describe the issues with power distribution and values, when professionals from different backgrounds and degrees work together to solve problems and settle issues in their everyday working environment (Ukkonen-Mikkola & Varpanen, 2020). Another closely related concept, interdisciplinary collaboration also covers the interconnected aspects of collaboration of different specialists in more general ways (Gerdes et al., 2020). The concept interpersonal collaboration is widely used to refer more commonly the shared ground of the work professionals focus together. IPC have shown to have an essential potential for the development of the strategies of providing quality education, which was important for teachers, students and other services which cooperate (Borg & Drange, 2019). Finally, the concept of teamwork is used frequently in policy documents and practical implementation materials including curricula when referring the nature of ECEC work as both in the fields of

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

65

education and care. Teamwork in ECEC have been developed through purposeful relationship building among staff and it can be divided into four categories, which are knowledge, quality of communication, respective speech (how teachers refer to one another) and finally the shared philosophy, values and beliefs of the goals and means of ECEC (Fitzgerald & Theilheimer, 2013). All these concepts include the idea that especially in ECEC where the professionals come from different educational backgrounds and may have a different understanding of the values and goals of the education. That is why it is essential that professional collaboration is not just given by employer, but both teams working with one class of children, and larger groups of professionals working with parents and children with SEN have time and resources to conceptualize their understanding together and form shared goals and methods for the IPC (Alila et  al., 2022; Fitzgerald & Theilheimer, 2013). IPC can be defined in multiple ways. In this study we use the definition of Reeves, Zwarenstein, Espin and Lewin (Reeves et al., 2010). According to the authors it is collaboration between persons with different professional experience aimed at solving common tasks. The collaboration has four elements: relational, processual, organizational and contextual. Relational factors directly affect the relationships shared by professionals such as professional power and socialization. Processual element consists of the practical work and participants’ understanding of distribution of work while the relational element describes participants’ understanding of power distribution, social relation and the meta level of the shared work. At the organizational level the basis for the collaboration is set and resources for the work divided. It has been shown that especially in ECEC the dualistic nature of the services partly as care and partly as education tends  to influence the organizational division of resources (Alila et  al., 2022). Finally, the contextual element includes the broader cultural and social settings and the traditional rules and expectations towards the work (Reeves et al., 2010). Searching the effective forms, methods and means of IPC in the context of providing quality inclusive education in a sphere of ECEC is also not sufficiently studied. Scientific research related to the IPC in the schools prevails in the scientific sources of Ukrainian and international researchers, but there is a lack of similar research in a field of ECEC (Borg & Drange, 2019; Fitzgerald & Theilheimer, 2013; Hynek et al., 2020; Saltkjel et al., 2018; Wiedebusch et al., 2022).

66 

N. SOFII ET AL.

It is important to note that the topic of IPC has not been discussed in the Ukrainian research literature. The only exception is the educational-­ methodological manual called ‘Professional cooperation in the inclusive educational establishment’ (Kolupaijeva et al. 2012). The manual includes the description of the concept of professional сollaboration, understanding its role and place in the context of an inclusive educational environment. The main indicators are represented, which demonstrate the level of organization of the activities towards сollaboration in the inclusive school. The special focus is paid to the strategy and tactics of realization of professional сollaboration as an instrument of implementing inclusive education. During the organization of inclusive learning ‘each of the professionals who acquire narrow profile skills starts to feel the lack of knowledge, which is the prerogative of other professionals’ (Kolupaijeva et al. 2012, р. 57). It happens because inclusive education in ECEC includes different aspects. Among them: acceptance of children’s diversity; building of the positive attitude towards inclusion of the ECEC staff; designing enabling learning environment also for children with SEN; flexible classroom schedules and opportunities for individual and small-group assignments; providing additional specialist services when required (speech therapist, deaf educator, etc.); encouraging the atmosphere of care and respect of differences; and finally introducing curriculum modifications and necessary teachers’ support (Kolupaijeva et al. 2012).

The Ukrainian Context Legislation provides a framework around the entire education system. It provides the framework for what is highlighted in everyday educational situations. Further, this legislation is put into practice through teacher education programs. Their educational contents of different programs describe the interpretations of the legislations and common understanding of the ECEC. In the next sections we describe closely both the legislative perspective of the Ukrainian education system, especially regarding the SNE, and how these guidelines are put into practice through ECTE programs.

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

67

Legislation on Special Needs Education in a Collaborative Framework Inclusive education is one of the main priorities of current educational reforms, which is demonstrated in Ukrainian legislation. The main Law of Ukraine ‘On Education’ includes two separate articles, which are aimed to support inclusive education in the system of preschool and secondary education (Supreme Council of Ukraine. Law of Ukraine ‘On Education’, 2017). Article 20 of this law mentions that inclusive education is based on the principles of non-discrimination, consideration of the human diversity and effective involvement of all participants of educational process. It also emphasizes the role of psychological-pedagogical support to children with SEN, which should be provided by Inclusive Resource Centers (IRC) established by local administrations. In addition to psychological-­ pedagogical support IRC should realize other functions: providing complex assessment of child’s development, special education, and psychological-pedagogical services (Supreme Council of Ukraine. Law of Ukraine ‘On Education’, 2017). More importantly, these services can be provided by IRC specialists not only at IRC, but also in preschools and schools. This is especially critical when relevant specialists are not in place in the educational establishments. The team construction is defined by the Model Regulations on the Team of Psychological and Pedagogical Support of a Child with SEN approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science in June 2018 (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2018). This document describes the composition of the team, which should include following members at early childhood institutions. There should be both permanent participants as well as other specialists. Permanent participants consist of principal or ECEC teacher-methodologist (provides methodological support and organizational process in early childhood institution; jointly with the director of early childhood institution coordinates the work of the pedagogical staff; participates in the development and implementation of the educational programs and plans), ECEC teacher (provides education, development, and upbringing of children of aged 2–6 years old), ECEC teacher assistant (provides assistance to ECEC teacher in an inclusive early childhood classroom), psychologist (provides psychological support for children and consultations to their parents), SEN teacher (specialist, who provides services for children with SEN, consultations to their parents and to ECEC teachers within inclusive classrooms),

68 

N. SOFII ET AL.

teacher-rehabilitator (provides complex support to children with disorders of the musculoskeletal system), and parents of children with SEN. Other specialists consist of medical workers from the preschool, doctor, child assistant, specialists from the system of social care. Further, the main principles of the team activities are defined as following (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2018). There needs to be respect to individual characteristics of a child with SEN in compliance with the interests of a child with SEN, prevention of any forms of discrimination and breaking his/her rights. Further, team approach, active collaboration with parents of a child with SEN, their involvement in the educational process and development of the child’s individual development program, confidentiality, and compliance with ethical principles and interagency collaboration are also needed. The main activities of these types of teams include collection of information on a child’s development, his/her interests, difficulties, educational needs in the process of development and monitoring the individual educational program. Further, it includes defining the SNE services, which can be provided at the early childhood institution based on the recommendations of Inclusive Resource Centre (IRC), development of individual educational programs for children with SEN and its monitoring. It also includes methodological support of pedagogical staff to organize inclusive learning environment, providing consultative support to parents of children with SEN and informational work with other parents and pedagogues to prevent any forms of discrimination of all children, including children with SEN (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2018). In July 2022 the draft of the Concept of development of ECEC was discussed by the wider educational community and parents’ organization (Draft of the Concept of development of ECEC, 2022). The development of the concept is the important step before the adoption of the new Law ‘On Preschool Education’. The concept included following characteristics of quality preschool education: (1) Accessibility. Accessibility is developed by the network of kindergartens, providing access to socially vulnerable families including families with children with SEN. These should be barrier-free educational environments. (2) Motivated and competent teacher. ECEC teachers should have opportunities for professional development as well as adequate salaries.

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

69

(3) Safe and developmental learning environment. These environments should be designed to go hand in hand with child individual characteristics or needs. (4) Contents of education. The content of ECEC should be based on competence-­based approach, learning through play principle, and active parental involvement. (5) Governance. Governance of ECEC should be effective and management systems based on meaningful monitoring systems (Draft of the Concept of development of ECEC, 2022). Other important documents organizing the SNE and inclusive education in ECEC settings are the professional standards for preschool teachers (2021) (Order on Approval of the Professional Standards ‘Teacher of Preschool Institution’, 2021a) and professional standards for principals (2021) (Order on Approval of the Professional Standards ‘Principal of ECEC Institution’, 2021b). Both standards include information about conditions for admission to the profession and conditions of professional activities, ways of pre-service and in-service training, legislative base, which regulates professional activities. The most important part of these documents is the description of professional functions, general and professional competencies. The professional standards of ECEC teachers demonstrate several competencies that are important for teachers’ capacities to organize an inclusive learning environment, through the collaboration with parents of children with SEN and with other professionals. Among these general competencies, we can find civic competence which is the ability to act responsibly based on human rights and freedoms, recognize open society values, and the need for sustainable development. Social competence of ECEC teachers requires their ability to work in teams with other professionals. Ability to respect diversity in a society is demonstrated in cultural competence. In fact, we can find mention of the issues of diversity, human rights, leadership in all six general competencies, which are transversal for all professional competencies of the preschool teachers. Although the professional ECEC teachers’ standards do not contain mentions of inclusive competence, we can find references to inclusion when it comes to the professional function, such as the teacher’s collaboration with other participants of the educational processes (Order on Approval of the Professional Standards ‘Teacher of Preschool Institution’, 2021a).

70 

N. SOFII ET AL.

Interprofessional Collaboration In ECTE According to the Law of Ukraine (Law on Higher Education, 2014) each higher educational institution has its autonomy, including academic autonomy in admitting the students, selection of educational programs, and providing a quality education. In this section we will take a closer look at two ECTE programs (bachelor’s degree). This is done to highlight what type of competencies newly graduated early childhood education teachers will have today, and it will also serve as an indication on how ready they will be for IPC. These two universities are National Pedagogical Dragomanov University and Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University. National Pedagogical Dragomanov University provides professional ECTE in its program called ‘Preschool and inclusive education’ (2018). The program has multiple goals for their students general (G) and professional (P) competencies (C), that relate to professional collaboration. After the program, the students will have an/a: • ability to collaborate and interact in the team (GC-6) • ability to create the team, motivate its members, and to achieve the common goals (GC-13) • ability to provide individual and differentiated development of children with SNE of early and preschool age according to their possibilities (PC-11) • ability to study individual developmental peculiarities, interests, and abilities of children with SEN (PC-15) • ability to adopt educational materials considering individual peculiarities of educational activities of children with SEN in the inclusive educational environment (PC-16) • ability to conduct educational, developmental, social-adaptational activities, using technologies of inclusive education during the work with children with SEN in the inclusive preschool classrooms (PC-17) • ability to cooperate with the specialists of the psychological-­ pedagogical team of support of children with SEN and their parents (PC-18) (Educational program ‘Preschool and inclusive education’ of the first (Bachelor) level of higher education, 2018). Further, most educational courses include such a theme as the development of parental partnership, but they do not include collaboration with other professionals.

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

71

Pedagogical Institute of Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University has a bachelor’s program in ECEC (2020). It aims at developing the following general and professional competencies of their students. After the program, the students will have an/a: • ability for interpersonal interactions (GC-6) • ability to develop individual developmental program and other documents, necessary for learning of children with SEN; ability to use universal design principles and reasonable accommodations (PC-10) • ability to provide individual and differentiated development of children with SEN of early and preschool age according to their possibilities (PC-15) • ability to develop the tolerance and respect to others, prevention and combatting the bullying (PC-16) • ability to communicate with children, parents, and colleagues (PC-19) (Educational program ‘Preschool education’ of the first (Bachelor) level of Higher Education, 2020). Further, the Pedagogical Institute’s program also focuses on the development of interprofessional collaboration, although indirectly. This can be found in the subject studies of ‘Pedagogy’, which includes content modules like ‘general pedagogy’, ‘preschool pedagogy’, ‘inclusive education’, and ‘pedagogical partnership’. For example, the module ‘inclusive education’ includes the theme of pedagogical support of the development of children with SEN in ECEC. Suggested Model For IPC for Children With SEN This descriptive literature review was conducted in the context of recent educational reforms in Ukraine, where the main aim was to develop relevant quality conditions for inclusive ECEC. This paper has been focusing on interprofessional collaboration as the premise of providing quality inclusive education during ECEC in Ukraine for children with SEN. Since this area has received very little attention in Ukrainian research the aim of this chapter was to give an overview of both the research conducted on the field and to highlight the legislative and teacher training premises for organizing professional collaboration of the country, for the benefit of SNE. As our methodological approach we have used descriptive literature review. As a summary of this literature review, we will now present a figure that

72 

N. SOFII ET AL.

describes the interprofessional collaboration on three different levels in Ukraine. These levels are adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological theory from the 1970s (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). We have chosen Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological theory as one of the most popular models, which explains the factors that influence a child’s development. The model is based on the environmental factors both at the level of microsystem (the closest child’s environment/family) and macrosystem level (sociocultural norms, the system of social attitudes and dispositions). According to the model of IPC in the early childhood institution, children with SEN are the key figures, who are influenced by the state level, level of early childhood institution and by ECEC teachers (level of early childhood classroom) as well. Therefore, we focus our attention on the role of families, teachers, other specialists, local community, and the state on the holistic development of children. These levels (activities at the state level, levels of early childhood institutions and early childhood classrooms) are demonstrated through concentric circles, which are situated within one system. This model demonstrates flexible straight lines and connections between these three levels as well as their interactions and influence on a child with SEN. The structure of the model includes three levels. The first level activities are provided by the state. IPC in Ukraine as the premise to provide quality inclusive education at the level of preschool education is provided by the Law of Ukraine ‘On Education’ (2017), ‘On Preschool Education’ (2001), the concept of preschool education development (2020), the concept of education of children of early and preschool age (2020), the basic component of preschool education (national educational standards of preschool education) (2021). All these documents normalize the ways of meeting the challenges, which arise in the modern ECEC in the process of realizing inclusive education in the ECEC establishments. The political decisions in a sphere of ECEC inclusive education are very important because they speed up the solving of the problems. The permanent dialogue between practitioners, community representatives, educational ombudsman, authorized representatives on human rights, and others provides the opportunity to assess and to define the measures necessary for increasing the quality of ECEC.  Therefore, the process of IPC in the ECEC establishments is provided by the timely and immediate legal actions at the state level.

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

73

The second level is the level of ECEC educational establishment. This level anticipates maintaining by the administration of the preschool of the main regulations defined by the Ministry of Education, other international organizations regarding establishment of partnership relationships with other stakeholders—local educational authorities, inclusive resource centers, non-governmental and other organizations; creating conditions for the increasing of the professional level of preschool teachers on interprofessional collaboration; creating conditions for providing pedagogical support of children with SEN and their parents; using the management instruments to prevent and to solve the conflicts, which might arise in the preschools. The third level presents ECEC teachers’ activities in the ECEC classroom. An important step in the defined model is a purposeful training of a competent and competitive specialist at pre-service higher educational institutions who would be able for interprofessional collaboration. Such training and further readiness of the teacher will provide an effectiveness of collaboration, which will influence the development of child with SEN. The main factor at this level is the ability of ECEC teachers to establish effective interactions with all participants of the educational process based on the principles of pedagogical partnership—founders of preschool educational establishments, parents, preschool administration and preschool teachers, other specialists providing different services to children. Here we should put a special emphasis on the collaboration between the preschool teacher and parents of children, which is a powerful, modeling, social, communicative, and cultural institution of upbringing, education, and self-actualization of growing personalities. It is, however, important to note that the effectiveness of collaboration at the level of ECEC teacher depends directly on the policy of ECEC establishment regarding establishment partnership with different institutions as well as on the legal documents and legislation adopted at the national level.

Discussion SNE in the early years have received a lot of attention internationally during the last years (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022a, 2022b). A joint understanding is that with high-quality early education children can reach their potential now and later in life. This will not only benefit the individual but also the society in the long run. Therefore, many countries have undergone educational reforms on multiple levels of the systems (Garvis et al.,

74 

N. SOFII ET AL.

2018), like Ukraine has done during the last years. Good quality ECEC goes hand in hand with high-quality teacher training but also with practice-­ training. High-quality education produces high-quality teachers that support the development of the education system in general. One area of research that has been discussed in literature is the development of inclusive learning environments and the importance of IPC in these settings (Riis Jensen et al., 2022). This is an area that has received less attention in the Ukrainian education research settings and was therefore an interest of this study. In this study our aim was to give readers an overview of both a) the research conducted on the field and b) highlight the legislative and ECTE premises for organizing IPC of the country for the benefit of SNE. As a result of this descriptive literature review, we developed a suggested model that describes the professional collaboration in Ukraine on three levels. These three levels are adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological theory from the 1970s (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The Ukrainian legislation and also the different ECTE programs that we have reviewed do highlight professional collaboration on multiple levels. However, it is important to note that teaching professions have changed rapidly during the last decades and not all teachers have received the same education. Therefore, a lot of attention should be directed towards teacher in-service training (see for instance Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, 2021). Thereby, we have identified that IPC is based on the model, which includes three levels and criteria, which provide full understanding of this concept. Analysis of the model has discovered the processes which are related to the development of an effective interprofessional collaboration at three levels—the state level, the level of ECEC institution, and the level of ECEC classroom. Those levels allowed to identify the aspects, which require improvements for more effective interprofessional collaboration in ECEC institutions: development and implementation of legislative documents; providing purposeful professional training and professional development of ECEC teachers in a field of interprofessional collaboration. Therefore, the following issues can be perspectives for further studies: the issue of the effectiveness of this model for IPC in Ukraine; the content of pre-service training of ECEC teachers in a field of IPC and studying the readiness of ECEC teachers for interprofessional collaboration.

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

75

References Alila, K., Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Kangas, J. (2022). Elements of the pedagogical process in Finnish early childhood education. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, J.  Kangas, & S.  Garvis (Eds.), Finnish early childhood education and care: A multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice, 1 (pp.  195–208). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­ 030-­95512-­0_14 Basic component of preschool education (The state educational standards of preschool education). (2021). https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/rizne/ 2021/12.01/Pro_novu_redaktsiyu%20Bazovoho%20komponenta%20doshkilnoyi%20osvity.pdf Borg, E., & Drange, I. (2019). Interprofessional collaboration in school: Effects on teaching and learning. Improving Schools, 22(3), 251–266. https://doi. org/10.1177/1365480219864812 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­ 066X.32.7.513 Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU). (2016). Resolution On approval the concept of realization of the state policy in a field of general secondary education ‘New Ukrainian School’. https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/249613934 Draft of the concept of development of ECEC. (2022). https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/gromadske-­obgovorennya/2020/06/03/ostatochne.docx Educational program ‘Preschool and inclusive education’ of the first (Bachelor) level of higher education. (2018). National Pedagogical Dragomanov University. https://pf.npu.edu.ua/images/Programy/%D0%9E%D0%9F%D0%9F_%D 0%94%D0%9E%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%B 8%D0%B2_1.pdf Educational program ‘Preschool education’ of the first (Bachelor) level of higher education. (2020). Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University. https://kubg.edu. ua/images/stories/Departaments/vstupnikam/pi/OPP_bak_DO_012. 00.01.pdf Engzell, P., & Tropf, F. C. (2019). Heritability of education rises with intergenerational mobility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(51). EU Council recommendations on high quality early childhood education and care systems. (2019). https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX:32019H0605(01)&rid=4 Fitzgerald, M. M., & Theilheimer, R. (2013). Moving toward teamwork through professional development activities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 103–113. Fukkink, R. G., & van Verseveld, M. (2020). Inclusive early childhood education and care: A longitudinal study into the growth of interprofessional collaboration.

76 

N. SOFII ET AL.

Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13561820.2019.1650731. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record. uri?eid=2-­s2.0-­85073984270 Garvis, S., Phillipson, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2018). International perspectives on early childhood education: Early childhood education in the 21st century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730553 Gerdes, J., Goei, S. L., Huizinga, M., & de Ruyter, D. (2020). Analytic framework for interdisciplinary collaboration in inclusive education. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(5), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-­08-­2019-­0099 Harju-Luukkainen, H., Bahdanovich Hanssen, N., & Sundqvist, C. (2022b). Special education in the early years. Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic countries. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-­ 3-­030-­91297-­0 Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2021). The Role of Early Childhood Teachers in Finnish Policy Documents: Training Teachers for the Future? In W. Boyd & S. Garvis (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood teacher education in the 21st century (pp. 65–80). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Kangas, J., & Garvis, S. (2022a). Finnish early childhood education and care—Multi-theoretical perspective on policy and practice. Springer Nature. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­95512-­0 Hynek, K. A., Malmberg-Heimonen, I., & Tøge, A. G. (2020). Improving interprofessional collaboration in Norwegian primary schools: A cluster-­randomized study evaluating effects of the LOG model on teachers’ perceptions of interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care. https://doi. org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1708281 Jensen, C.  R., Molbæk, M., Schmidt, M.  C. S., & Hansen, J.  H. (2022). Developing inclusive learning environments—When collaboration is (not) the answer. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, N.  B. Hanssen, & C.  Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years: Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic countries (International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development) (Vol. 36, pp.  103–117). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-­3-­030-­91297-­0 Kolupaijeva, A. A., Danilavichute, E. A., & Lytovchenko, S. V. (2012). Professional cooperation in the inclusive educational establishment: Educational-­ methodological manual. Editing group «А.С.К.». Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. (2021a). Order on approval of the professional standards ‘Teacher of Preschool Institution’ [In Ukrainian]. MEU. https:// www.me.gov.ua/Files/GetFile?lang=uk-­U A&fileId=6804b9ce-­3 985-­ 405e-­bc2b-­6ec93450add2 Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. (2021b). Order on approval of the professional standards ‘Principal of Preschool Institution’ [In Ukrainian]. MEU. https:// mon.gov.ua/ua/npa/pro-­zatverdzhennya-­profesijnogo-­standartu-­kerivnik-­ direktor-­zakladu-­doshkilnoyi-­osviti

5  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION… 

77

Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. (2018). Letter regarding the work of inclusive classrooms in the pre-school settings [In Ukrainian]. MESU. https:// mon.gov.ua/ua/npa/list-­mon-­shodo-­organizaciyi-­diyalnosti-­inklyuzivnih-­ grup-­v-­zakladah-­doshkilnoyi-­osviti Reeves, S., Zwarenstein, M., Espin, S., & Lewin, S. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325027 Salminen, A. (2011). Mikä kirjallisuuskatsaus?: johdatus kirjallisuuskatsauksen tyyppeihin ja hallintotieteellisiin sovelluksiin [What literature review?: An introduction to literature review types and applications in management science]. https://osuva.uwasa.fi/handle/10024/7961 Saltkjel, T., Tøge, A. G., Malmberg-Heimonen, I., Borg, E., Lyng, S. T., Wittrock, C., Pålshaugen, Ø., Fossestøl, K., Christensen, H., & Lund, T. (2018). Research protocol: A cluster-randomised study evaluating the effects of a model for improving inter-professional collaboration in Norwegian primary schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 91, 41–48. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.07.001 Supreme Council of Ukraine. (2001). Law ‘On Preschool education’. VRU. https:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2628-­14#Text Supreme Council of Ukraine. (2014). The law ‘On higher education’. https:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1556-­18#Text Supreme Council of Ukraine. (2017). Law of Ukraine ‘On education’. VRU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2145-­19 Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Varpanen, J. (2020). Integrated initial and continuing training as a way of developing the professional agency of teachers and student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, 103189. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103189 UN Resolution of the General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Adopted by the Decree of the President of Ukraine (№722/2019 as of 30.09.2019). https://www.president. gov.ua/documents/7222019-­29825 United Nations (UN). (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Ratified by the resolution of VRU (№789-XII as of 27.09.1991). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/995_021#Text Wiedebusch, S., Maykus, S., Gausmann, N., & Franek, M. (2022). Interprofessional collaboration and school support in inclusive primary schools in Germany. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(1), 118–130. https://doi. org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1853971

CHAPTER 6

Caught Between Expectations and Ambitions: Finnish Early Childhood Special Education Teachers’ Experiences of Consultation as Interprofessional Collaboration Eva Staffans

and Christel Sundqvist

Introduction Inclusive education and day care has been a guiding principle in Nordic countries for the last three decades (UNESCO, 1994), and this principle is also visible in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) (Finnish National Agency for Education [EDUFI], 2018). Even though it lacks a common definition, participation and equality are central aspects of inclusion that have impacted the organisation of support for children with

E. Staffans (*) Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_6

79

80 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

special education needs (SEN) (Pihlaja, 2022). This puts great demands on ECEC professionals (Heiskanen & Viitala, 2019). There are expectations that ECEC staff, including teachers, child carers and teaching assistants, can meet the needs of a wide variety of children, including children with SEN (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022; UNESCO, 1994). However, research has indicated that ECEC staff often have a lack of knowledge regarding children with SEN (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016; HarjuLuukkainen et  al., 2022; Pihlaja, 2022), and even lack of knowledge regarding inclusive practice (Lundqvist et  al., 2016). Collaboration between professionals with different competences is one way to ensure children with SEN receive appropriate, but still inclusive, support in regular education settings (EDUFI, 2018). In Finland, consultative support to staff in day care centres delivered by early childhood special education teachers (ECSETs) is a common collaborative approach (Heiskanen & Viitala, 2019). In this chapter, the consultative role of Finnish ECSETs is in focus. Consultation between ECSETs and other professionals in ECEC (teachers, child carers and teaching assistants) can be defined as a problem-­ solving process that aims to help the professionals to develop attitudes and skills that make it possible for them to deliver adequate support to a child or a group of children (Newman & Rosenfield, 2019). The development of the ECSETs’ role from a teacher role towards a consultative role is a common trend in Nordic countries (Gäreskog & Lindqvist, 2020; Heiskanen & Viitala, 2019; Riis Jensen et  al., 2022). There is some research regarding the role of ECSETs but research regarding the consultative role is still limited. This role has been recognised in some research focusing on special education teachers working in schools (Ahlefeld Nisser, 2009; Bladini, 2004; Riis Jensen, 2017; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). Research has indicated that the lack of descriptions and definitions of the consultative role in addition to poor conditions in which consultation is to be delivered, such as a lack of time, leads to ambiguities in how consultation should take place in practice (Rantala et al., 2018; Sundqvist et al., 2014). Special education teachers in schools are still often expected to

C. Sundqvist Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

81

teach children with SEN, and consultation is often consigned to short moments of knowledge transferring and advising (Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). For the development of inclusive practice, researchers have highlighted the need for more collaborative and reflective consultation in which different professionals can share their knowledge and focus on adaptations and changes needed in the environment rather than on problematising the child (Ahlefeld Nisser, 2009; Bladini, 2004; Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist et al., 2014; Riis Jensen, 2017; Riis Jensen et al., 2022). In addition, the positive aspects of conducting consultation with groups of teachers have been pointed out in research (Riis Jensen, 2017; Ahlefeld Nisser, 2009). Even though research regarding special education teachers’ consultative role in schools can shed light on the ECSETs’ consultative role, there is an urgent need for bridging the research gap in the field of ECEC consultation. The consultative role among special education teachers and ECSETs differs since special education teachers often work in one school and thus often have an internal consultative role (Sundqvist, 2012), while ECSETs can be described as external experts, since they support children and staff in several kindergartens (Pihlaja & Viitala, 2018). This probably affects both the current conditions for consultation and how consultation is delivered. The aim of the study presented in this chapter is to examine how ECSETs experience their consultative role. Two research questions have guided the study: 1) How do ECSETs experience the prevailing conditions surrounding the consultative work task? 2) How do ECSETs experience the implementation of consultation and the use of consultation strategies?

The Finnish Context Finnish ECEC is committed to the values of inclusion (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 2018) and this is visible in practice by the fact that most children with SEN receive individualised instructions and interventions within regular groups (Heiskanen & Viitala, 2019; Viljamaa & Takala, 2017). Children’s right to support is furthermore assured in the core curricula and legislation for ECEC (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 2018; EDUFI, 2014, 2022). From August 1st there is a unified support system for all children participating in ECEC (EDUFI, 2022).

82 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

Since 2011, a three-tiered support system has been mandatory in pre-­ school education and basic education in Finland. In 2022, the three-tiered support system also became mandatory in ECEC (EDUFI, 2014, 2022). The three-tiered support model consists of the following support levels: general support, intensified support and special support. General support is the first response to children’s need of support. Support on this level is usually short termed (2014, 2022) with a focus on pedagogical support: routines and interaction, clear structure of the day and communication in a way that is accessible for all. Personnel working in the group are responsible for support provision on this level. If a child needs support on a regular basis or various support provision simultaneously and general support is no longer enough, intensified support is offered. If a child receives intensified support the ECSET have a more prominent role in planning and executing support strategies and solutions in collaboration with ECEC personnel (EDUFI, 2014, 2022). Special support is the strongest support level and if children receive this it is assumed that these children cannot adequately achieve goals set for their growth, development and learning. Children that receive special support have their own individual educational plan with individual goals to achieve. In the plan, it is clearly stated who is responsible for providing the support and arrangements for the child’s learning. Nationally, about 10% of children in ECEC receive SEN support on tier two or three within the three-tiered support system (Statistics Finland, 2020; Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017). Most children with SEN need support for language difficulties (Laasonen et al., 2018; Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017) and other common needs for support are difficulties in concentration, attention and socioemotional functioning. To ensure that children in need of support receive appropriate learning ECSETs can offer direct or indirect support to the child. ECSETs are expected to serve as consultants for the personnel who support children on a daily basis (EDUFI, 2022).

Theoretical Framework Abbott’s (1988) theory of jurisdiction of work tasks has been used to reach an understanding of the current conditions for ECSETs fulfilling the consultative task, while two different approaches to consultation (Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015) have been used to understand the implementation of the consultation and the use of consultation strategies.

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

83

Jurisdiction of Work Tasks According to Abbott (1988) a profession is a group that has autonomy in performing specific work tasks. A profession operates within a system including different professions that are dependent on each other for their “jurisdiction” (control) of certain work areas and working tasks. Changes in one profession affect other professions and give rise to tensions between them. Jurisdiction and changes in jurisdiction of certain working areas can be reached at three different levels. At the legal level, policy documents and regulations affect the professions’ work tasks. For ECSETs, the national core curriculum for ECEC and local work descriptions are centrally regulated (EDUFI, 2018). At the public level, political discussions as well as the occupational groups’ ability to assert its importance and knowledge have an impact. Finally, professions can also claim jurisdiction in the workplace, where they communicate what working tasks they should or wish to have. An Expert-Driven and Participant-Driven Perspective of Consultation Consultation can be delivered in different ways, and different consultation models have been described in research (Crothers et  al., 2020). These models can be understood in the light of an expert-driven and participant-­ driven approach to consultation (Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). Within both these approaches, consultation is defined as a problem-­ solving process characterised by a triad relationship including the consultant, the participants and one or several of the participant’s clients (children) (Crothers et  al., 2020). The choice of approach affects the focus, the relationship between the consultant and the participant(s) and the use of consultation strategies. The consultant uses expert knowledge and gives suggestions to the participant regarding suitable interventions. This means the relationship between the consultant and the consultee risks being asymmetric due to the dominance of the consultant (Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). In contrast, a participant-driven approach, primarily based on humanistic psychology and constructivism, is built on a strong belief in a participant’s own capacity to develop an understanding of problems and find new ways of acting (Lambert, 2004). When employing a participant-driven approach, the consultant tries to help the participant change attitudes and working methods through the use of communication skills, such as affirming listening and questions, to

84 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

stimulate the participant’s thinking. As the consultant does not provide expert advice, the relationship between the consultant and the participant is generally considered as more symmetric (Newman & Ingraham, 2019). These two approaches should not be considered as dichotomies, rather as a continuum in which the consultation can be expert- or participant-­ driven depending on the situation (Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). Despite this, researchers have claimed that a pure use of an expert-centred approach in consultation in SEN risks maintaining the teacher’s view of the child as a problem, which rarely leads to long-term changes in practice and in how they respond to certain children’s needs. In contrast, a participant-driven perspective is concerned with placing greater focus on the teacher’s practice and changes in the environment, and can thus lead to more sustainable changes (Bladini, 2004; Riis Jensen, 2017; Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015; Svenkerud & Opdal, 2019). Thus, the consultation approaches also appeal to an individual and a relational perspective on SEN (Bladini, 2004; Sundqvist, 2012).

Methods, Participants and Ethics The present study aims to examine how ECSETs in Finland describe prevailing conditions and the practical implementation of the consultative task. For reaching an in-depth understanding of the nature of consultation, a multiple-case study design was chosen since it is an effective methodology to study multifaceted issues in real-world settings (Yin, 2014). This study is designed as a descriptive case study constituted of ECSETs in four municipalities. Case studies are defined and conducted in various ways depending on the purpose and fields of the study (Schwandt & Gates, 2018). Characteristics of a case study include a lengthy concentration on the case and thorough analysis of issues and themes. Case studies can be seen as a preferred research strategy when how or why questions are being posed (Yin, 2014). Moreover, the analytical approach varies since there are no definite approaches (Schwandt & Gates, 2018; Yin, 2014). Furthermore, a descriptive case study usually requires participant observation, drawing on methods of document review and in-depth interviews to understand the experiences, perspectives and worldviews of people in a specific context (Schwandt & Gates, 2018). In the first step of the present case study, focus group interviews provided a rich collection of views.

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

85

Participants and Data Collection The target group was ECSETs with several years of work experience as ECSETs. When searching for possible participants, previous knowledge about ECSET work (Author 1) combined with information from the municipalities’ webpages were used. The authors contacted potential participants by e-mail and invited them to participate in the study. All contacted respondents agreed to participate, and in total, ten participants from four different municipalities were represented. The participants formed three interview groups, with three participants in two groups and four participants in one group. All participants were women; further background information is presented in Table 6.1. For this study, data were collected through group interviews. Due to COVID-19, all group interviews were conducted via Zoom. The group interviews took place in late autumn 2021 and the beginning of 2022. The interviews were conducted as semi-structured interviews. The themes were prevailing premises and possibilities for the consultative task, the implementation of consultation and the impact of consultation. The focus group interviews lasted between 55 and 70 minutes.

Table 6.1  Background information of the participants Participants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10b

Focus group

Age

Year of exam

Years of work experience

Number of childrena

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

55 58 55 59 62 26 47 62 37 –

1989 1994 1992 2014 2006 2020 1999 1993 2014 –

32 23 1.5 10 16 2.5 22 14 5 –

200 200–220 300 200 200 200 200 160 130 –

a Number of children = Estimated total number of children in groups ECSETs are responsible for (includes children with or without SEN) b Participant 10 has chosen not to give any information due to the risk of recognition

86 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

Data Analysis Method The analysis was conducted in an abductive fashion with focus on the research questions outlined in the literature review and the theoretical framework but without using a hypothesis or predetermined codes (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Thus, we initially tried to understand each case in an inductive manner without actively using the theory. In the final cross-case analysis, the theory was used to interpret the participants’ descriptions and reach an understanding of patterns between the cases (Yin, 2014). The analytical process of each case can be described in four steps: 1. gaining an overview; 2. focusing attention on themes in each case relevant to the research questions; 3. developing case narratives; and 4. developing themes by a cross-case analysis. Initially, the researchers became familiar with the data by listening to and simultaneously transcribing the interviews, enabling them to obtain an understanding of the individuality of each case and note apparent trends. By reading and rereading the transcripts with the research questions in mind, trends and themes within each case became apparent. Individual comments within each case were summarised to identify its essence. The researchers read each other’s summaries, compared results and cowrote them into a single summary. The case analysis was written as a narrative report for each case. In the case descriptions, metaphors and quotations were used to illustrate common trends and themes. Finally, a cross-analysis of the cases was made to find shared patterns and themes. In this phase, the theory was used as an interpretative tool. Ethics and Trustworthiness In each part of this research, Finnish research ethics principles (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, 2019) have been followed. Informants received information about the study’s aim and how the results would be processed, analysed and presented. They were also informed about their rights regarding participation and the option to withdraw at any time, and they gave their consent to be recorded and participate. Finally, the confidentiality of the participants was secured by excluding aspects that would allow recognition of participants or settings in the respective contexts. For reaching trustworthiness, peer debriefing, triangulation in analysis and control of preliminary findings and interpretations against raw data were used.

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

87

Results Even though the ECSETs in the present study have similar contextual and working conditions (Table 6.1), the analysis revealed similarities and differences regarding current conditions for implementing the consultation task that also affected the use of consultation strategies. In this section, an in-depth description of each of the three cases is presented as three narratives: (a) frustrated knowledge sharer, (b) adapted and collaborative quick-­ fixers and (c) satisfied reflection supporters. In the discussion section, themes and common patterns across the cases are discussed through the lens of theory and previous research. Case 1: Frustrated Knowledge Sharer The first narrative is characterised by frustration over current conditions and staff expectations that force the ECSETs into the role of knowledge sharers and experts even though the ECSETs themselves wish to use a more process-oriented consultation. This group represents ECSETs in a municipality where the consulting role has diminished in recent years. Instead, the ECSETs are expected to provide direct support to children with SEN. Changes in the national policy documents regarding children’s right to support have influenced the expectations of the ECSETs’ role: The law now states that children have the right to special education, and we are expected to realise that … And there definitely is less time for consultation nowadays. The staff don’t see the necessity, they don’t value it as highly as they did before.

The participants also discussed the inclusion policy and the staff expectation for ECSETs to be more visible in the children’s groups: “The more the diversity of the group increased, the more helpless they felt, and the more they began to demand and expect from our presence in the groups.” On the other hand, the ECSETs also experienced that their participation in the children’s groups improved the quality of the consultation and the trust from the staff: Still, it is an important part of consultation to visit the group and get to know the children. At least I feel that if I have seen and heard and observed, I also understand what the staff tells me in a different way. We also automatically get more trust from the staff when we know the children and the group.

88 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

The ECSETs visit the groups where there are children with SEN one day every two weeks. In addition to the direct support of the children, they offer consultation to the staff during these visits. There are practical barriers to hold discussions with all staff members at the same time, which influences the quality of the consultation: One of the teachers stays with me inside during the children’s outdoor time, and sometimes the assistant also … but it is not always possible … You can see the staff are stressed. The consultation is not structured in a way that I think everyone would get more out of.

Regarding consultation strategies, the participants described how the staff overall asked for concrete guidance for supporting individual children. “I think the expectation is that you just give straight answers and tell the personnel, ‘Now you should do this or this.’” The ECSETs try to motivate the staff, ask the staff questions, give them advice and get them to reflect, but often nothing happens between their visits: I’m keen to listen and ask questions so they can describe the situation. I also share my opinion of the children and then we try to understand what the problem is about and how we can respond to the child. How to proceed and what kind of support this child needs … Even though the consultation is not very well structured from time to time, I always try to give them a task something they can try or reflect on. But when I get back, they say they haven’t had time.

The participants expressed how rewarding a more process-oriented consultation in which they use communication skills rather than advice would be, but there are few possibilities to implement such a consultation in the current situation: I have had the opportunity to try that kind of consultation during my education, and both the staff and I were very satisfied. I think we should have more opportunities to develop that kind of consultation. But given the current situation, I think it is difficult.

The ECSETs expressed that staff and the head of ECEC do not understand the value of a more long-term consultation process and called for more support from the leaders:

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

89

It would be important for others, such as the head of ECEC, to understand the importance of staff being able to spend time on this type of consultation. … If the staff have the opportunity to experience a longer period of consultation regarding a particular child’s case, they will also see the difference between that kind of consultation and the short advising occasions we now give.

Case 2: Adapted and Collaborative Quick Fixers The second narrative is characterised by how the ECSETs in the group continuously adapt their work tasks and consultation to the needs of the staff and the children by balancing between a coteaching role and a consultative role, as well as between offering concrete tools and asking questions that help the staff develop support at the group level. This group represents ECSETs from two smaller nearby municipalities that have a close collaboration. In contrast to the first narrative, the participants in this group state that they have great opportunities to influence how they work, adapting to the needs and demands of the staff at the day care centres. The consultation happens continuously and naturally after they have worked with the children individually or in their group. These ECSETs also visit the groups of children they are responsible for about a full day every other week (though not during the pandemic). During the visits, they work within the children’s group as coteachers or provide direct support to the children. Coteaching is a new way of working that ECSETs link to the consultation: So that I will gain a greater understanding of how staff experience things. It is quite an easy way to give consultation towards something specific without being too predetermined about what you want or where you are heading. But you show the way.

The presence in the children’s groups is presented as something that strengthens the opportunity to understand the context, the staff and the children, and the participants thought coteaching had a positive effect on the quality of the consultation. In this group, it can be noted that the ECSETs are quite satisfied with the conditions and adapt the amount of consultation as needed:

90 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

I feel that after I have been to a group, I give consultation to the personnel so the amount of consultation varies. The consultation also varies depending on the staff or the staff’s experiences and knowledge and so on. Some are more independent and others less so.

ECSETs express that the staff in the day care centres trust them and ask for their consultative support. However, there are some units where ECSETs find consultation difficult because the staff prioritise other work. Even if they participate in departmental meetings, the consultation, even in this group, mostly takes place through short conversations with individual staff. This group of ECSETs have a vision of how consultation opportunities could be developed to become more structured where all the staff together can reflect on the activities and individual children: I have received positive feedback from staff about scheduling consultation in advance … the whole team can participate … they can prepare themselves if there is something specific they want to discuss … I think regularity has a great impact.

ECSETs implement consultation in various ways depending on the actual group: “Often not so structured, we take it as it comes.” ECSETs usually mention what they have been doing and offer tips and give material to personnel. Furthermore, consultation varies depending on the staff that receives consultation or what type of knowledge and experience they have: “Some of the staff know what to do and others do not … so each time I am sharing what we have been doing and why, plans for the forthcoming time giving them material and so forth.” The staff wants support from ECSETs, and above all they ask for concrete tools. ECSETs express that staff possess knowledge but need affirmation. By asking questions concerning the child and environment, ECSETs motivate personnel and affirm their belief in their own competences, but it is not always easy to stimulate their own thinking and the pressure to give quick fixes is obvious: They want tools. That is something you often hear. My thought then is that you should collect your own tools and see what you have there. A lot of staff possess the knowledge and have the tools, but it is so messy in their toolbox that they can’t find the right tools.

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

91

Case 3: Satisfied Reflection Supporters The third narrative is characterised by contentment about the current possibilities for implementing the consultative task. Thanks to the support of foremen, the ECSETs in this group expressed that they had the opportunity to not only act as advisors but to conduct the consultation as reflective conversations with the entire staff. They also stated that consultation is clearly included in their work description, and personnel receive consultation in the day care centres continuously in accordance with needs. Consultation is carried out during visits, sometimes by telephone or in digital meeting places: I feel that personnel take their time when I am coming to them. When you are coming there and are there from 9 to 14, the personnel are trying their best so that we can talk in between. I feel that they want to ensure that there is time for discussions.

The ECSETs highlighted the shared responsibility that they and the teachers have: ECSETs are dependent on the staff’s insights regarding the children to be able to offer appropriate consultation. The emphasis is on where the consultation is needed most, and they experience consultation as being as important as the direct support they give to the children: “Sometimes you just need to support staff by giving them consent that it is okay even though all children have not done the same thing.” In this group, it also appears that the combination of working with the children and having continuous conversations with staff makes it possible to develop adequate support for the child. These ECSETs also stated that they have received support from day care centre heads to create opportunities for more process-oriented and continuous guidance for the entire team, for example to support personnel in relating to a child perceived as very demanding: When you are working with tough cases, you should not do the work alone. The consultation made the staff feel that they were not left alone, they had a psychologist, ECSETs and head of ECEC backing them up, and really felt that we do this together.

The ECSETs in this group used a wide range of consultation strategies. Even though they mentioned sometimes offering advice to staff, they talked a lot about the importance of giving space for reflection and letting

92 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

the staff find the solutions themselves through reflective discussions. They mention how they as consultants lead the staff to solutions and how they use different strategies (e.g. notes) to support these reflections: The staff wrote three notes each about what kind of change they want, and we looked at everybody’s thoughts. Then they got three more notes to write what they believe should be done for these changes to occur.

The ECSETs have experienced good results from consultation, which is designed as reflective conversations with the entire staff and talks about magical moments when the staff find solutions. When the staff themselves come up with solutions together, the motivation to make the necessary changes also increases: “The staff themselves found out the same things I had been thinking about, it was just like: Hallelujah, it worked.”

Discussion The aim of this study was to examine how ECSETs describe their consultative role. By comparing patterns in the three narratives and understanding these patterns through the lens of theory and earlier research, two themes addressing the research questions emerged: poor conditions—weak jurisdiction for conducting the consultative task and balancing between quick fixes and the use of reflection as consultation strategy. Poor Conditions: Weak Jurisdiction for Conducting the Consultative Task The first research question focused on the prevailing conditions surrounding the consultative task. The results revealed similarities and differences related to conditional aspects, such as time issues, but also regarding expectations of how ECSETs should work. Earlier research has indicated that poor conditions, such as a lack of descriptions and definitions of the consultative role and a lack of time, make it difficult to implement consultation (Rantala et al., 2018; Sundqvist et al., 2014). An apparent pattern in the results is that interpretation of policy documents regarding support to children with SEN impacts the fulfilment of the consultative task. Even though inclusive education is a guiding principle in the national core curriculum for ECEC, the children’s right to appropriate support in combination with the staffs’ lack of knowledge in how to deliver this support

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

93

means that ECSETs have a double role: They should support certain children and the staff. This is also highlighted in current policy documents (EDUFI, 2018). In addition, the results revealed a lack of time to implement consultation, especially in the form of group consultation, which the research suggests is important (Riis Jensen, 2017; Ahlfeld Nisser, 2009). Even though ECSETs can manage their time to a certain degree, the staff in kindergartens seldom have time for consultation. In line with earlier research (Rantala et al., 2018; Sundqvist et al., 2014), the participants also experienced expectations from the staff regarding their work tasks as an aggravating circumstance. In addition, support, or the lack thereof, from the heads of the day care centres was an aspect that framed current conditions surrounding the consultative work task. The ECSETs in two municipalities seem to be chameleons who adapted to staff expectations and prevailing time opportunities, even though they have ambitions to work in a different way and use more time for consultation. One group had calmly accepted the situation and did their best to meet staff and the needs of the children, while the other group expressed frustration regarding the conditions. The ECSETs seem to balance between expectations that they should deliver direct support to certain children and their own ambitions to support the staff to develop competence through consultation. In one group, the ECSETs received support from the head of the day care centre to set aside time for more long-term consultation with the entire staff. These ECSETs were also more satisfied with the conditions and the implementation of the consultations. Seen in the light of Abbott’s (1988) professional theory, the results indicate that the ECSETs’ jurisdiction to carry out the consultative task is weak due to conditional barriers existing in the legal system, such as a lack of visibility in political educational documents and a lack of definition of the consultative task in work descriptions. There also seem to be tensions between ECSETs and ECEC staff regarding who should deliver concrete support of children with SEN. In addition, our interpretation is that ECSETs may not have made sufficiently clear claims about the consultative role in the public system and the workplace system. The question is to what degree they can reach jurisdiction without support from leaders in promoting the consultative task. In addition, practical issues such as staff resources at the centres, as well the number of children to whom the ECSETs are expected to deliver support, impact the conditions and the jurisdiction of the consultative task.

94 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

Balancing Between Quick Fixes and the Use of Reflection as Consultation Strategy The second research question focused on the implementation of consultation and the use of consultation strategies. A common pattern is that the ECSETs balance between staff expectations of concrete instructions on how to support individual children and their own ambition to get staff to reflect on possible solutions and working methods in the group. This is in line with earlier research regarding how special education teachers in schools implement consultation (Bladini, 2004; Riis Jensen, 2017; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). As a result of the above described time constraints, the ECSETs often deliver quick-fix advice when they visit the children’s group or after they have delivered support to a child outside the group. They are expected to be experts with the solution for “fixing” certain children. Thus, our interpretation is that they act in accordance with a child- and expert-centred approach to consultation (Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015). Even though the ECSETs considered expert advice regarding certain children as sometimes necessary, they stated the importance of developing participant-driven consultation in which they could support the entire staff to develop current work methods and inclusive SEN practices. Researchers have pointed out that collaborative and reflective discussions in consultation are essential for developing inclusive practice. The focus should move from problematising the child to problematising the environment (Ahlefeld Nisser, 2009; Bladini, 2004; Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist et al., 2014; Riis Jensen, 2017; Riis Jensen et al., 2022). The results of the current study confirm that the individual perspective on SEN seems to dominate the consultation task. This perspective becomes both natural and difficult to move away from when the ECSETs also provide direct support to children and lack the possibility of regularly sitting down with the whole staff for more in-depth consultation. On the other hand, coteaching as a complement to consultation seems to have a positive impact on the trust in the relationship between ECSETs and the staff as well as on the collaborative aspect of consultation. This is a new approach that should be further examined.

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

95

Conclusion The study presented in this chapter examined how ECSETs describe their consultative role. Our conclusion is that the prevailing practical conditions and a weak jurisdiction hinder the delivery of high qualitative consultations. Even though ECSETs are expected to take on a consultative role, the consultation is not clearly stated or implemented in policy documents or in  local work descriptions, and is not clearly communicated in the ambits that ECSETs operate in. Due to the difficulties of meeting with staff and staff expectations of receiving concrete instructions regarding how they can support certain children, the consultation mostly entails a quick fix that seldom leads to changes in practice. Thus, the current conditions and the fulfilment of the consultation task are closely connected. There is an obvious need to change current conditions and create time and staff receptivity for a participant-driven consultation where staff, together with ECSETs, can reflect on the environmental obstacles and opportunities for all children to develop knowledge and skills based on their current abilities in an inclusive environment.

References Abbott, A. (1988). The System of professions. An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago. Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (2018). https://www.finlex.fi/sv/ laki/alkup/2018/20180540 Bladini, K. (2004). Handledning som verktyg och rum för reflektion: En studie av specialpedagogers handledningssamtal [Consultation as a tool and space for reflection: A study of special pedagogues’ consultation dialogue]. Karlstads universitet, Institutionen för utbildningsvetenskap. https://www.diva-­portal.org/ smash/get/diva2:5804/FULLTEXT01.pdf Crothers, L. M., Hughes, T. L., Kolbert, J. B., & Schmitt, A. J. (2020). Theory and cases in school-based consultation: A resource for school psychologists, school counselors, special educators, and other mental health professionals (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429029974. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). National core curriculum for pre-­primary education. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/ 174850_grunderna_for_forskoleundervisningens_laroplan_2014_0.pdf Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/ documents/grunderna-­for-­planen-­for-­smabarnspedagogik-­2018_0.pdf

96 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. (2019). Responsible conduct of research. https://tenk.fi/en/research-­misconduct/responsible-­conduct-­ research-­rcr Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/ documents/Grunderna_for_planen_for_smabarnspedagogik_2022_0.pdf Gäreskog, P., & Lindqvist, C. (2020). Working from a distance? A study of special educational needs coordinators in Swedish preschools. Nordic Studies of Education, 40(1), 55–78. Hannås, B.-M., & Bahdanovich Hanssen, N. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625 7.2016.1194576 Harju-Luukkainen, H., Hanssen, N. B., & Sundqvist, C. (2022). Special education in the early years: Summary and outlook. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, N.  B. Hanssen, & C.  Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years. International perspectives on early childhood education and development (pp. 277–285). Springer. Heiskanen, N., & Viitala, R. (2019). Special educational needs and disabilities in early childhood education (Finland). In J. Kauko & M. Waniganayake (Eds.), Bloomsbury education and childhood studies. Bloomsbury Academic. https:// doi.org/10.5040/9781350995925.0004 Laasonen, M., Smolander, S., Lahti-Nuuttila, P., Leminen, M., Lajunen, H.-R., Heinonen, K., Pesonen, A.-K., Bailey, T., Pothos, E., Kujala, T., Leppänen, P., Bartlett, C., Geneid, A., Lauronen, L., Service, E., Kunnari, S., & Arkkila, E. (2018). Understanding developmental language disorder—the Helsinki longitudinal SLI study (HelSLI): A study protocol. BMC Psychology, 6(24) https://doi. org/10.1186/s40359-­018-­0222-­7 Lambert, N. M. (2004). Consultee-Centered consultation. An international perspective on goals, process and theory. In N.  M. Lambert, J.  Sandoval, & I.  Hylander (Eds.), Consultee-Centered consultation: Improving the quality of professional services in schools and community organizations (pp. 3–19). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lundqvist, J., Westling Allodi, M., & Siljehag, E. (2016). Characteristics of Swedish preschools that provide education and care to children with special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 3(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108041 Newman, D., & Rosenfield, S. (2019). Building competence in school consultation: A developmental approach. Routledge. Newman, D.  S., & Ingraham, C.  L. (2019). Consultee-Centered consultation: Contemporary perspectives and a framework for the future. Journal of

6  CAUGHT BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND AMBITIONS: FINNISH EARLY… 

97

Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10474412.2016.1175307 Pihlaja, P. (2022). Early childhood special education in Finland. In H.  Harju-­ Luukkainen, N. B. Hanssen, & C. Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years. International perspectives on early childhood education and development (pp. 13–30). Springer. Pihlaja, P., & Neitola, M. (2017). Varhaiserityiskasvatus muuttuvassa varhaiskasvatuksen kentässä [Special education in a changing early childhood education field]. Kasvatus ja aika, 11(3), 70–91. Pihlaja, P., & Viitala, R. (2018). Varhaiserityiskasvatus [Special education in early childhood education]. PS-kustannus. Rantala, A., Uotinen, S., & Räikkönen, E. (2018). Konsultoivan varhaiserityisopettajan perhelähtöiset toimintatavat [Itinerant special education teachers’ ways of working with families]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 7(1), 3–24. Riis Jensen, C. (2017). Vejledning af lærere—en samskabende proces: når lærere støttes i at udvikle inkluderende læringsmiljøer [Teacher guidance—A cocreative process: When teachers are supported in developing inclusive learning environments]. Doctoral thesis, Aarhus University. Riis Jensen, C., Molbæk, M., Secher Schmidt, M., & Hedegaard, J. (2022). Developing inclusive learning environments—When collaboration is (not) the answer. In H. Harju-Luukkainen, N. Bahdanovich Hanssen, & C. Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years. Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic countries (pp. 103–117). Springer. Schwandt, T., & Gates, E. (2018). In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 600–630). Sage. Statistics Finland. (2020). Statistikcentralen. https://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2019/ erop_2019_2020-­06-­05_sv.pdf Sundqvist, C. (2012). Perspektivmöten i skola och handledning: Lärares tankar om specialpedagogisk handledning. Åbo Akademi University Press. https://www. doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/84814/sundqvist_christel.pdf?sequence= 2&isAllowed=y Sundqvist, C., & Ström, K. (2015). Special education teachers as consultants: Perspectives of Finnish teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(4), 314–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014. 948683 Sundqvist, C., von Ahlefeld Nisser, D., & Ström, K. (2014). Consultation in special needs education in Sweden and Finland: A comparative approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856257.2014.908022 Svenkerud, S., & Opdal, L. (2019). Roller og relasjoner. PP-rådgiveren mellom sakkyndig ekspert og skoleutvikler [Roles and relations. The PP- advicer

98 

E. STAFFANS AND C. SUNDQVIST

between expert and educational developer] Psykologi i kommunen (PIK), 3(2), 7–18. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf Viljamaa, E., & Takala, M. (2017). Varhaiserityisopettajien ajatuksia työhön kohdistuneista muutoksista [Early childhood special education teachers’ thoughts about changes regarding work]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 6(2), 207–229. Ahlefeld Nisser, D. von. (2009). Vad kommunikation vill säga–en iscensättande studie om specialpedagogers yrkesroll och kunskapande samtal [What communication says—An engineering study on the role of special educators and knowledge-­ creating dialogues]. [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholms Universitet]. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Sage.

CHAPTER 7

Developing Interprofessional Collaboration: Learning Communities in Early Childhood Education and Care in Iceland Edda Óskarsdóttir , Anna Katarzyna Wozniczka, and Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir

Introduction A focus on the upbringing and education of children is fundamental to the development of any society. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has been gaining increased recognition because of its importance for their knowledge and development, equal opportunities for learning, gender equality and the impact on economy (Marope & Kaga, 2015). Including diverse actors, like teachers, counsellors and other professionals in the development of ECEC practices, facilitates all children’s well-being, participation and learning. By developing a collective inquiry and “leading from the middle” (LfM), ECEC can get closer to the

E. Óskarsdóttir (*) • A. K. Wozniczka • H. Guðjónsdóttir University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_7

99

100 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

children and the learning. Such collaboration is “about coherence and how things fit together” and means taking initiative, responding to the diversity of the people one knows best and supporting and developing a community together (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). According to the Icelandic law, the first stage of schooling in Iceland is called a preschool. The preschool practice should be based on equality, inclusion and respect for the diversity of human life and other cultures (Lög um leikskóla 90/2008). Although attending preschool is not compulsory in Iceland, the municipalities are responsible for offering children preschool education but with no age limit being specified. Attendance has been steadily increasing in Iceland, with on average 96% of all 2–5-year-­ old children attending preschool in 2020 (Statistics Iceland, 2022a). The accountability for running preschools is divided between the Ministry of Education and the local municipalities (Lög um leikskóla 90/2008). The ministry formulates an educational policy for the preschools and publishes the National Curriculum Guidelines, while the local authorities are responsible for monitoring and financing. Each preschool writes their own school curriculum guidelines, and the respective municipality monitors the implementation of the guidelines for each school. The emphasis on equality and inclusion present in the legislative framework for the early childhood education in Iceland means that the municipalities are responsible for accommodating for children with special needs and children at risk of disadvantage. Municipalities are to include these measures in their general policy on preschools within their district. Diversity in the children’s group, such as their origin, heritage language, religion and social and economic status, has been increasing in the past two decades (Statistics Iceland, 2022b). This growing diversity has been an occasion to develop new emphasis in the practice of preschools. According to the national curriculum for preschools, the concepts of upbringing, care and education are integral to all preschool activities (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti, 2011). Children should be regarded as full participants in the preschool community and accordingly shown respect and care and given appropriate encouragement and challenges throughout their school day. Overall, research shows that all children have access to preschools in Iceland, this includes vulnerable children such as those with disabilities that have a legal right to support, children living in poverty and children with diverse linguistic backgrounds (Hreinsdóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2019). Furthermore, the curricula are

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

101

flexible and provide guidance towards creative and diverse education for all. The support system around preschools is coordinated between the state, municipalities and preschools. Each municipality is required by law to ensure that preschools have access to appropriate school services regarding pedagogical, psychological, developmental and sociological issues (Reglugerð um skólaþjónustu 444/2019). The aim of the school service system is to strengthen schools as professional institutions that can solve most of the issues arising in the day-to-day practice and to provide school staff with guidance and assistance in their work. A recent act on the welfare of children further supports this emphasis with a legal obligation for education, health and welfare sectors services to provide coordinated service to children, youth and their families (Lög um samþættingu þjónustu 86/2021). The main challenge facing ECEC in Iceland is the lack of preschool teachers and a high turnover of staff. This shortage of certified preschool teachers has been persistent for a long time and staffing in pre-schools is far from being in accordance with the law, which assumes that two thirds of the employees are preschool teachers, but is in fact about a third (Ríkisendurskoðun, 2017). This means that preschool teachers, with their valuable professional knowledge, are a minority of staff in most preschools. Therefore, it is important to nurture the professional capital present in ECEC through learning communities that can create a space for and develop professional discussion and practice (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2012). The purpose of the study was to understand what kind of space has been created in a community in Iceland, the Riverside community that supports the formation of a learning community between professionals at preschool level and school and social services. The aim was to explore how the collective inquiry between various professionals, including teachers, special education teachers, (multicultural) teaching counsellors, preschool principals and a refugee programme manager, has developed and analyse how it impacts professional development and inclusion of immigrant children in ECEC practices.

The Icelandic Context To explore how an interprofessional collaboration is developed and its impact on practices of inclusion in ECEC, an example from Riverside, a municipality in Iceland, was chosen. Riverside has around 10,000

102 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

inhabitants and six preschools. Many children in these preschools have multicultural backgrounds and are of diverse origin. In most cases, both parents use a different language than Icelandic, but this group also includes children who have one parent with Icelandic as their mother tongue. A total of 27 languages are spoken in preschools and compulsory schools in the municipality. The largest group are children whose parents speak Polish and children whose parents speak English. An audit of the school services in the municipality carried out in 2012 led to some structural changes and the reformed school services officially began operations in 2014. The new structure was intended to facilitate all consultations in schools and increase opportunities for principals, teachers and parents to influence the development of the school services. Emphasis was placed on a strong relationship between schools and the local community. Thereby, also seeking to bring together school administrators, teachers, school staff and key stakeholders in a team that is heading in the same direction. In 2015, due to these structural changes and a growing immigrant population in the municipality, the local school services decided to establish a team of professionals focused on planning and policy making for multilingual students and their families in the local schools. The team, called the multicultural team (Fjölmenningarteymi), consists of representatives from all the local preschools, compulsory schools and the local upper-secondary school and representatives from school services and social services. The team has regular meetings, and each school is responsible for choosing one topic to present and discuss. During the meetings the team also works on preparing and revising various teaching and learning material, including a Handbook on Multiculturalism and an Illustrative booklet for preschools, and discusses the latest research and changes in laws and regulations concerning education. The municipality is also one of the pioneers in Iceland in mapping the knowledge of immigrant students with the use of so-called Mapping of Newly Arrived Students or “Stöðumat”. Since the fall of 2016, a representative from the Riverside municipality has been in professional cooperation with professionals from two other municipalities on translating and adopting a tool that is useful for schools in mapping the learning skills, knowledge and experience of immigrant students in their strongest language. The content was initially intended for compulsory schools, but now the team is working on developing a similar tool for the preschool level.

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

103

Theoretical Framework This chapter builds on the theories of professional learning communities and Leading from the Middle. It discusses international and Icelandic research on interprofessional collaborative ECEC.  This focus assists in understanding the space for collaboration created in interprofessional learning communities. Professional Learning Community The ideology of a professional learning community (PLC) is prominent in the national curriculum guide for preschools, stating that they should be a democratic forum and learning community where staff, parents and children are active participants and influence decisions on preschool issues (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti, 2011). A professional learning community is a community of peers where staff share experiences and learn together in a purposeful way with the aim of empowering the children (DuFour & Fullan, 2013). This community is characterised by support and trust, independence and freedom to act where members have equal rights to express themselves as they develop their professional growth (Harris et al., 2017; Thornton & Cherrington, 2019). A professional learning community can also be formed with professionals outside the preschool, such as with specialists from the health and welfare systems. This interprofessional learning is built on the premise that no one profession possesses sufficient knowledge and skills for the optimum holistic benefit of the child (McMillan et al., 2020). In professional learning communities that are structured around developing practice, there is a focus on critical reflection and problem solving. Critical reflection is the ability to think about the practice and develop an understanding of it. This can be done by questioning and systematically mirroring the practice in theories and research (Loughran, 2002). The ability to analyse and make meaning from one’s own experience is crucial for the development of professional knowledge and helps in making decisions to respond or act. Problem solving tends to be understood as a professional activity. However, professionals do not simply solve problems that are given to them but are also involved in “problem setting” and need to work out what the problem actually is (Biesta, 2019). In everyday practice, problems are rarely predetermined. Rather, they are uncertain and ever changing (Schön, 1987). This requires exploring own practice and

104 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

conversing with the “real situations” that enable practitioners to frame a certain issue or situation within its theoretical underpinnings and develop an awareness and understanding for the practice (Biesta, 2019; Björnsdóttir et al., 2021). However, school staff experience great workloads and feel that school reforms are both time and energy consuming and difficult to add PLC meetings to their daily work (Svanbjörnsdóttir, 2019). Leading from the Middle The collaboration of administrators, teachers and other employees and their common vision has the possibility to strengthen both school development and the implementation of new ideas and act as a synergistic force in students’ education (Cowan et  al., 2012; Fullan & Quinn, 2016). Developing and nurturing such collaboration facilitate the shift from the culture of “my students” to the culture of “our students” (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Distributing the leadership and tasks, ideas and implementation increases the likelihood of goals being achieved rather than when the directive comes entirely from the school authorities. Trust needs to be built so that those involved in the school converse and listen to each other and make use of the knowledge of everyone (Þórsdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2020). Jónsdóttir (2022) scrutinised the work of administrators, at different units on the border between the pre- and comprehensive school levels. Her focus was on how equality among students and staff regarding multicultural education was guaranteed. She learned that where a learning community had been developed, there was both more continuity in all interactions and more collaboration. The idea of Leading from the Middle (LfM), coined by Hargreaves and Shirley (2020), regards those in the middle layer of the education system not just as a mediating layer that connects the bottom to the top in school development, but as encouraging and addressing the heart and soul of leadership at its core. LfM endeavours to support those professionals who are closest to the work of teaching and learning so they can collaborate purposefully, responsibly and transparently. It affirms the value of professionals having the local and collective authority, expertise and confidence to develop new strategies to educate the children they interact with every day and genuinely know better than the distant administration at the top (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). For managers to achieve their goals, it is important that they are willing to go outside their comfort zone and to protect the equality of all children, the administrators and the staff need to

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

105

critically reflect on stereotypes and inequalities and put aside their own prejudices (Jónsdóttir, 2022). Principal to the LfM approach are: responsiveness to student diversity through cooperation between various professionals; taking collective responsibility for all students’ success by working in professional learning communities; seizing the initiative together to acknowledge and respond to challenges; designing supporting structures, tools and processes to respond to local needs and diversities; sharing strategies and results with each other and a commitment to learning from each other (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). When talking about educational development one should not only look at schools, but rather consider improving the entire school systems (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). Educational authorities, including local school services, should be aware of an interplay of different elements of the educational system when shaping the educational policy and professional development. This development, however, should apply not only to teachers but also to other professionals outside the school. Such holistic approach calls for building connections, trust and a shared commitment. It is important that all professionals involved in education feel shared responsibility for the well-being and meaningful learning of all students (Björnsdóttir et al., 2021). The theoretical framework has provided knowledge and understanding to analyse the space that supports the formation of a learning community between professionals at preschool level and school and social services. Thus, the main question guiding this research was: How is the space for a learning community in ECEC formed and nurtured in the Riverside community?

Methods, Participants and Ethics This chapter builds on an intrinsic case study in which we explored one case—a multicultural team that had a merit in and of itself and was separated in terms of time and place (Creswell, 2008). The study was conducted in the school year 2021–2022. We used extensive data, including semi-structured interviews, documents and materials developed by the team and nonparticipant observations. Participants were chosen through purposive sampling and were diverse in terms of their position, professional and personal background and years of experience. Among participants were preschool department managers,

106 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

preschool teachers, support staff, teaching consultant and multicultural teaching consultant. We conducted interviews with three of the participants, Guðrún, Kristín and Sigríður, to explore how being a member of the team impacts the professional development of diverse professionals working towards inclusion of children with multicultural background in ECEC. We prepared a set of open-ended questions related to the main research question and support questions: What elements support the development of a learning community? How does the learning community impact the diverse professionals working towards inclusion of children with multicultural background in early childhood education and care? Together, we collected meeting minutes from all the meetings in the preschool team in the school year 2021–2022, Handbook on Multiculturalism, Word Play and an illustrative booklet developed by the team to help us gain a deeper understanding of the development of the collective inquiry between the team members. Additionally, one of the authors observed meetings during the same school year and took field notes to learn how the space for a learning community is nurtured within the team. The content analysis of data involved horizontal analysis of written and visual material, and vertical analysis of data obtained through the interviews with the participants (Gaudet & Robert, 2018). The results were categorised into five categories that were partly shaped by the questions in the interviews, but also based on the field notes from observations, meeting minutes and other materials. We noted harmony when comparing the answers from the interviews with the remaining data, but the interviews offered more depth and reflection. We used the written and visual data to mirror the results of the participants’ data and highlight the development of a learning community. The triangulation of our data collection, that is including various data, taking interviews in pairs and with diverse representatives of the multicultural team, enhanced the trustworthiness of the study as the results draw on multiple sources of information, individuals and processes (Creswell, 2008). A letter of invitation to participate in the research was sent to the manager of the Family Division of the Riverside municipality. Upon his approval, a letter of consent was sent to all participants. Throughout the study and dissemination of its results, we had the Code of Research Ethics for Public Higher Education Institutions (University Council, 2020) as a guiding light. We endeavoured to show respect for the values of others

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

107

and to stand up for human dignity. We assumed the principle of causing no harm and maintained anonymity when citing the words of participants.

Results The aim of this case study research was to explore the development of a learning community, the multicultural team, in Riverside municipality and analyse how that impacts professional development and inclusion of immigrant children in preschool practices. Establishing a Multicultural Team The participants found that it was important to understand the foundation of the multicultural team to be able to discuss how it has developed. According to Guðrún, “the schools in Riverside were calling for more consultation and discussion”. In response the school service staff found that it was important to secure the participation of various professionals, including representatives from the social services in the consultation. Thus, the multicultural team was established in 2015 as a result of restructuring the school service in the Riverside community. The reason for this was that schools needed support regarding how to work with students with immigrant background and the school service was thinly spread out to try and reach all the schools. There was a pressing need for the school service to step up and find new and more effective ways of providing support to children of multicultural background from the earliest stage. According to the meeting minutes, the core team in the school year 2021–2022 consisted of representatives from the six preschools, three compulsory schools and one upper-secondary school, three professionals from the school service and from after-school programmes for school-age children and for the teenagers. Since the emphasis in the team is on matters that relate to different ages of students and children, a decision was made in 2021 to create two sub-teams—one for preschool and the other one for compulsory and upper-secondary level. However, the core team meets at the beginning and end of the school year. The representatives from the school service are a multicultural teaching counsellor, a preschool counsellor and a refugee programme manager, and they attend all team meetings.

108 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

Each school principal in the municipality chooses a representative to the team based on a person’s interest in the matter, their knowledge and experience and the aim is to have at least two representatives from each preschool. From most preschools it is the coordinators for special education, deputy principals or department heads who participate in the team. According to Guðrún, because of the high turnover in preschool staff “the challenge is the constant rotation. Some people are completely new… There is much more stability in the other sub-team [for compulsory and upper-secondary school]”. Forming a Multicultural Team The team meets every six weeks for 1.5 hours. The emphasis is on active participation of all members. To begin with, it was the professionals at the school service that led the meetings and set the agenda of discussions. However, through evaluation with all team participants it was decided last year that each preschool will be responsible for preparing an agenda and lead one meeting every year. This change has given team members agency and strengthened their active participation. The topic selection for the meeting is then up to each preschool—it can be research, examples of good practice, a teaching method, stories of own experience, discussion about changes in rules and regulations and how to implement them or as Guðrún said The idea is to share—what did I learn? What is it that I need to improve in terms of working with children with multicultural background? With this change in the organisation of the meetings I can really see more active participation.

Apart from the regular meetings, the team also has access to a common online platform where they can share their opinions and collect various documents, including meeting minutes. Kristín explained this as: Many team members are still getting used to online discussions and they do not always have time to check the platform but in the last school year we were less shy to ask questions and post links to interesting research or teaching material.

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

109

Sigríður had a vision for the future of the multicultural team that “members of the team would work together on developmental projects with certain goals to reach. So, the collaboration could be between preschools, between preschool and compulsory school, or with the school services”. Her ideas are that the projects could for example “focus on bridging between school phases, language stimulation or on parent empowerment through parenting education”. Lifting Professional Practice: Exchange of Good Practices By creating a team focused on the needs of children with multicultural background and of professionals working with them, Kristín said “we make a statement that they matter. We can place emphasis on this group and keep track of the developments in the field”. The staff at the school services has found that “we are more aware of what is going on and we can build bridges and we can see that there is a continuum”. The team meetings have thus given them stronger connections to all preschools, and they have a better overview of the development in each school, whereas before their expertise was more scattered. According to Guðrún, “We do not discuss individual cases. Rather, we are interested in the general organisation of work with children with multicultural background, of teaching methods”. The focus is on the professional aspects of work. An example of that was a meeting that was observed by one of the authors, where the topic in focus was Word Play (Icelandic “Orðaleikur”). Word Play is a teaching material which is intended to support the teaching of Icelandic as a second language in preschool. Word Play consists of a gallery of pictures which present things and situations related to a preschool and to life of children, and a collection of tasks and ideas that can be used to support vocabulary acquisition. During the meeting, the preschool that set the agenda brought some real-life examples of how they use the material. The preschool also decided to use the material to document children’s progress in acquiring new vocabulary and during the meeting they presented the results of their study. Other team members were very impressed with the work and reflected on how they themselves use the material or would like to apply it in their practice. Sigríður said: We noticed how it is useful for all the children in our preschool, not only for immigrant children. Next step for us would also be to document children’s progress, not only for ourselves, but also for the children and their parents to know.

110 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

The participants in the team learn from each other and bring the acquired knowledge back to their preschools and as “two of the preschools have a high share of children with multicultural background, the other preschools have a chance to learn from their experience and ask them questions”. Developing Learning Communities Apart from the team meetings, the multicultural teaching counsellor visits all the preschools regularly, so all the team members as well as other staff can have direct access to that person. Guðrún explains, “There is a strong and has always been a strong net of communication and cooperation between the school services and preschools but having regular team meetings strengthens it a lot further”. What characterises the team is a sense of trust between colleagues of diverse professional background and also support from the top management in the municipality. A new department head has decided to join the team recently and has been actively involved in revision of the “Handbook on Multiculturalism”, one of the materials developed by the team during previous school year. Kristín stated that “this kind of work is rather unusual in Iceland, so we need to make sure to talk about it more—share our experiences with other municipalities, write articles and present the work of the team at the conferences”. Keeping the team going involves more than sustainability as it needs to, in the words of Sigríður, “incorporate ideas of how to regenerate to survive”. Nurturing Interprofessional Collaborative ECEC Practices One of the biggest challenges for the team is lack of time, mostly for work between meetings. Sigríður mentions how the hours spent on preparing for and attending the meetings are sometimes difficult to find but are important, as “these can have an impact on each child’s development”. In their words it is clear that team members have managed to build resilience and as Guðrún points out, “the reason why we meet is because we all have a genuine interest in the matters of children with multicultural background we care about their learning and well-being”. All the ideas for discussion come from the team members and the topics that they choose are relevant and useful. The strength lies also in the diversity in the group, including diversity in terms of cultural background or as Guðrún puts it, “Our team reflects the changes that are happening in the society”. If a preschool

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

111

encounters a new challenge in their work, they know who has experience or knowledge that could help them work on it and can easily reach out to other preschools as well as the school service for assistance.

Discussion and Conclusions The aim of this research project was to explore the multicultural team in the Riverside community in Iceland and how the collective inquiry between teachers, immigrant counsellors and other professionals has developed. Furthermore, to analyse how the team impacts professional development and inclusion of immigrant children in ECEC practices. At the beginning, the multicultural team meetings were organised by the school services. The agenda and discussion were decided and steered by them. As the team developed, it became necessary to empower the participants from the preschools to take more ownership and initiative in setting the agenda. Distributing the leadership and tasks for the meetings, by asking the preschool participants to bring ideas for discussion, increased the likelihood of goals being achieved rather than when the directive came entirely from the school services (Þórsdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2020). The multicultural team is an example of how those in the middle layer of the education system can be encouraging and addressing the heart and soul of leadership at its core. Looking at the team with the ideas of Leading from the Middle shows how the team participants who are closest to the work of teaching and learning can collaborate purposefully, responsibly and transparently. Professionals having the local and collective authority, expertise and confidence to adopt and develop new strategies to educate all children are of great value (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Established professional learning communities are characterised by increased continuity and collaboration (Jónsdóttir, 2022). For PLC to be sustainable practice, it is important to attend to the space and time provided in the daily work of practitioners (Svanbjörnsdóttir, 2019). The team participants experience that by creating the team the school services have made a statement that they and their work matter and that the children with multicultural background matter as well. This has resulted in an awakening in all staff as they are more conscious of what they do in their daily practices, with all children and not only the ones that have a multicultural background. By exploring and reflecting on their own practice through discussions in the team, they started to frame certain

112 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

situations within their theoretical underpinnings and enhance awareness and understanding for the practice (Biesta, 2019; Loughran, 2002). The passion and care of team members for the education and well-­ being of all children supported them in overcoming the challenges of lack of time and high staff turnover. Still, it is necessary for the school services to focus on the high turnover in preschools and how to reorganise time so that this important professional development has a space in the workday. Educational reform requires a holistic view on a school system and awareness of the interplay of its different elements in shaping educational policy and professional development (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). The team is characterised by a sense of trust between colleagues of diverse professional and cultural backgrounds and by the support from the top management in the municipality. This diversity in the group is a strength as well as the common ideology that is witnessed. Through the diverse topics discussed and the diverse experience and knowledge of the team members a synergy of new knowledge and collaboration is created. For a learning community to develop the next steps are to move from sharing knowledge to creating new knowledge through developmental projects (Biesta, 2019). Administrators and staff need to go outside of the comfort zone, protect the equality of all children and critically reflect on stereotypes, prejudices and inequalities (Jónsdóttir, 2022). When development and reform work is based on a common ideology, trust between professionals and their belief in each other’s competences, it is more likely that they can have a holistic impact on development and reform and act as a synergistic force in children’s education and upbringing (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Thus, a learning community develops when its members are ready to share responsibility and decision-­ making processes and when they shift from thinking about “my children”, “my challenges”, “my projects” to think of “our children”, “our challenges” and “our projects” (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020).

References Biesta, G. (2019). How have you been? On existential reflection and thoughtful teaching. In R. Webster & J. Whelen (Eds.), Rethinking reflection and ethics for teachers (pp. 117–130). Springer. Björnsdóttir, S., Sigurðardóttir, S. M., & Jóhannesdóttir, A. M. (2021). Faglegt lærdómssamfélag og starfsánægja í leikskólum. Tímarit um uppeldi og menntun/Icelandic Journal of Education, 30(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.24270/ tuuom.2021.30.4

7  DEVELOPING INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION: LEARNING… 

113

Cowan, D., Joyner, S., & Beckwith, S. (2012). Getting serious about the system. A fieldbook for district and school leaders. Corwin. Creswell, J.  W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage. DuFour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Systemic PLCs at work. Solution Tree Press. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2012). Reviving teaching with ‘professional capital’. Education Week, 31(33), 30–36. Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin. Gaudet, S., & Robert, D. (2018). A journey through qualitative research: From design to reporting. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716733 Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2020). Leading from the middle: its nature, origins and importance. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-­06-­2019-­0013 Harris, A., Jones, M., & Huffman, J. (2017). Teachers leading educational reform: The power of professional learning communities. Routledge. Hreinsdóttir, A. M., & Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2019). Að tilheyra, taka þátt og læra í leikskóla margbreytileikans. Evrópuverkefni um menntun ungra barna án aðgreiningar. Netla—Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands [To belong, participate and learn in the inclusive preschool. A European project on the inclusive education of young children]. https://doi. org/10.24270/netla.2019.7 Jónsdóttir, A. (2022). Jafnræði á mörkum skólastiga í leikskólum, grunnskólum og á frístundaheimilum: Samstarf um nám og aðstæður barnanna. In J. Einarsdóttir (Eds.), Leikandinn: Greinar um menntun ungra barna [The player: Articles on the education of young children] (pp. 403–430). Háskólaútgáfan. Lög um leikskóla 90/2008 [Preschool Act 90/2008] Lög um samþættingu þjónustu 86/2021 [Act for integration of services 86/2021] Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In the search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Marope, P. T. M., & Kaga, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Investing against evidence: The global state of early childhood care and education. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/ default/files/resources/investing_against_evidence_pdf.jpg_.pdf McMillan, D., Walsh, G., & Doherty, A. (2020). Getting a better picture of the ‘whole’ child: A case for interprofessional learning in early childhood staff training. PRACTICE, 2(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578385 8.2020.1831735 Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti. (2011). Aðalnámskrá leikskóla. Almennur hluti [National curriculum guide. Introduction]. Reglugerð um skólaþjónustu sveitarfélaga við leik- og grunnskóla og nemendaverndarráð í grunnskólum 444/2019. https://island.is/reglugerdir/nr/0444-

114 

E. ÓSKARSDÓTTIR ET AL.

­2019 [Regulation for school services in municipalities for preschool and comprehensive schools and student protective councils in comprehensive schools 444/2019] Ríkisendurskoðun. (2017). Kostnaður og skilvirkni kennaramenntunar. Háskóli Íslands og Háskólinn á Akureyri [Cost and effectiveness of teacher education. University of Iceland and University of Akureyri]. https://rikisendurskodun. is/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2017/02/SU-­k ostnadur_og_skilvirkni_kennara-­ menntunar_HI_og_HA.pdf Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass. Statistics Iceland. (2022a). Börn og leikskólar í desember 2020 [Children and preschools in December 2020]. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/ Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__0_lsNemendur/SKO01000. p x / t a b l e / t a b l e V i e w L a y o u t 1 / ? r x i d = f d 1 1 4 9 3 9 -­5 a c 6 -­4 0 0 2 -­9 6 2 5 -­ a11a43f73e87 Statistics Iceland. (2022b). Börn í leikskólum með erlent móðurmál 1998–2020 [Children in preschools with a foreign mother tongue]. https://px.hagstofa. is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__0_lsNemendur/SKO01103.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=ea58dbc8-­a d06-­ 4a0e-­b991-­a3d90c891a30 Svanbjörnsdóttir, B.  M. (2019). Teymisvinna og forysta: Birtingarmynd fimm árum eftir að innleiðingarferli faglegs lærdómssamfélags lauk [Teamwork and leadership: Manifestation five years after the completion of the induction process of a professional learning community]. Netla—Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands. https://doi.org/10.24270/ netla.2019.3 Thornton, K., & Cherrington, S. (2019). Professional learning communities in early childhood education: A vehicle for professional growth. Professional Development in Education, 45(3), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19415257.2018.1529609 Þórsdóttir, H. S., & Sigurðardóttir, A. K. (2020). Samvirkni og samvinna í þróunar- og umbótastarfi [Coherence and collaboration in school development and system improvement]. Netla—Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. https://doi. org/10.24270/netla.2020.2 University Council. (2020). Code of research ethics for public higher education institutions. https://english.hi.is/sites/default/files/bryndjo/pdf/code_of_ research_ethics_for_public_higher_education_institutions.pdf

CHAPTER 8

Communication in Interprofessional Teams Meeting Special Educational Needs of Children in Lithuanian ECEC Settings Stefanija Ališauskienė and Daiva Kairienė

Introduction A growing body of literature argues that integrated services, where a range of professionals including early childhood professionals work together in teams, offer potentially highly effective Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services (Wong et al., 2012). Despite the growing literature suggesting strategies for supporting interprofessional teamwork, there are relatively few empirical studies of how such teams operate in practice (Wong et  al., 2012). Well-trained and motivated professionals help to ensure high-quality ECEC is provided to all children and families (European Commission, 2021). Interprofessional work in the field of ECEC and support is emphasised as an important condition for quality

S. Ališauskienė (*) • D. Kairienė Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_8

115

116 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

services. However, the interprofessional team may overcome some challenges in its building and development process because of subjective and differently interpreted and comprehended forms of communication and lack of presumptions for success and efficient communication in the teams (D’Amour et al., 2005; Nolte, 2005). The efficient communication in a team, as it is emphasised in the research (Brown, 2004; Poell, 2005; Rosen, 2008; Lapuum et al., 2020), includes the following issues: (a) communication and dialogue space, for example, close, intensive and sufficient communication, regular meetings, sharing of information, match of points of view, estimation of justice, openness and honesty when expressing opinions; (b) focusing of professional competences, for example, deep professional dialogue, sharing of knowledge, ideas, strategies, constructive conflict, assessment of various perspectives, perfection and exchange of competences, search for resources and their usage; (c) practice exchange: constant reflection, re-consideration with regard to innovations while solving problems and critical thinking. A vast majority of the literature on interprofessional communication is mainly related to the context of health care (Foronda et al., 2016; Hamid et al., 2016; Verhaegh et al., 2017) rather than ECEC context. However, the ECEC sector is expanding, the expectations on staff are growing and there are increasing opportunities to work with young children in a wider range of occupations (European Commission, 2021). Alongside mentioned-­above issues, there is a growing need to gather empirical data aiming at deeper understanding how the communication in teams between various professionals is realised in inclusive and special education ECEC practice. Listening to professionals’ voices, identification of nature, strengths, barriers and presumptions of successful communication lead to conceptualisation of interprofessional collaboration in teams and create a possibility to learn from shared experiences. In this chapter, we focus on interprofessional communication within two selected ECEC teams. The main focuses of interprofessional team communication include issues of informal and formal communication as well as efforts towards holistic approach to child development, support and education. The aim of the study presented in this chapter is to identify and interpret communication experiences among various professionals, who are working together in different type of ECEC teams to meet special educational needs (SEN) of children.

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

117

The main research question has guided the study: What are the main components of interprofessional communication identified by various professionals’ working within different contexts of special and inclusive ECEC?

The Lithuanian Context Lithuania follows one of the international education priorities that is emphasised in UN Sustainable Development Goal 4: ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all (United Nations, 2022). Inclusive education, including ECEC, of children with SEN in Lithuania is regulated and justified by laws (Law on Education, 2011). ECEC in Lithuania falls under the category of informal education (ibid). Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that every child under the jurisdiction has access to education including an adapted learning environment and resources and any additional psychological, educational or social support, if needed. According to legislation, each educational setting, including ECEC, should have an interprofessional team to provide educational support to children and their families and ensure quality education for all. In educational settings in Lithuania, interprofessional team work is recognised as usual practice, however, still meets with a lot of challenges, including interprofessional collaboration (Šapelytė et al., 2021). Up until now, in the national legislation, much attention is paid to duties and functions of pedagogues and support professionals (Education Sector and Library Activity Professional Standard, 2019). Among these, interprofessional collaboration, joint problem solving, sharing information and providing counselling for families and pedagogues are emphasised. For this research, we have selected two ECEC settings, for example, ECEC setting providing special needs education and providing inclusive education. The context of each particular ECEC setting that took part in the research is presented below. The context of ECEC setting providing special needs education. ECEC setting (kindergarten) is located at the centre of a small town. In the kindergarten, special attention is paid to education and support for children with moderate and severe SEN. Kindergarten provides general education as well as special needs education for the groups of children with language and communication disorders, and also for children with moderate/severe developmental disabilities. Professionals from different disciplines work as interprofessional team that comprises five members, including ECEC

118 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist and a team coordinator. The team is responsible for the education and support provision to children with SEN within special needs education group that consists of six to eight children. The context of ECEC setting providing inclusive education. ECEC setting (kindergarten) is located in the big city centre. According to research participants, it is assumed as one of the prestigious kindergarten in the city. The kindergarten works in the competitive environment with other kindergartens; however, it does not need to solve “survival” issues, because there are a lot of parents who want that their children attend this particular kindergarten. Kindergarten is described as open and modern, following democratic principles and innovative methods of education. Children with diverse educational needs (mostly mild and moderate) are included in general groups together with their pairs. Children receive professional support and services according to their needs. Professionals from different disciplines work as interprofessional team that comprises seven members, including ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist, psychologist, social pedagogue and a team coordinator. The mode of the support provided by the team is flexible to better address educational needs of children, families and pedagogues. Most of the team members are also the members of a kindergarten Child Welfare Committee that is responsible for initial assessment of children needs and educational support provision.

Theoretical Framework In the process of the growth of inclusive ECEC for young children, interprofessional collaboration and communication are being emphasised. Relatedly, there is a growing interest in the role of interprofessional teams of community-based settings for young children (Fukinnk, 2019). Interprofessional collaboration and communication is defined by active relations among various (educational support, health care, social support sectors) professionals working together and aiming at joint problem solving and provision of services (Barrett & Keeping, 2005; Reeves et  al., 2010). It is obvious that a match of people of different professions inside the team provides possibilities for effective provision of quality services, their complexity and integrity (Hall, 2005; Barker, 2009; European Commission/EACEA, 2014). In the context of ECEC and support for a child and family services, interprofessional collaboration is based on a

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

119

holistic approach and is considered as the precondition for equal, partnership-based relationship, complexity and integration of services (Barrett & Keeping, 2005; Nolte, 2005; Barker, 2009). Holistic approach towards child development, support and education focuses on the fullest possible development of the person, encouraging individuals to become the very best or finest that they can be and enabling them to experience all they can from life and reach their goals (Marshman, 2010). According to Drew (2020), from a holistic perspective, education including ECEC becomes a broad concept that should be well communicated and implemented in interprofessional team. The concept of communication as an important component of interprofessional collaboration is explained from the perspective community of practice (Wenger, 1998; Mercieca, 2017). Community of practice is characterised as group of people involving representatives of various professions for the purpose of mutual activities; they are united by common professional interests, they strive for the same aims, share common values, knowledge, problems, search together for their solution (Lavie, 2006; Lawthom, 2011; Mercieca, 2017). The theory states that communities exist because of a shared practice and domain, including the community’s identity and unitary values, and these two shape each other in community cooperation. Strong cooperation and communication are crucial for communities’ identity and unitary values as this promotes participation (Heikkinen et al., 2022; Wenger, 1998). Lawthom (2011) maintains that communities of practice are impossible without social relations, communication and collaboration. Experiences are created during joint activities in meetings, case stories, critical events and via formal and informal communication (Sargeant et al., 2008). Formal communication represents a repertoire of communication genres that are goal oriented and function related, flow through the hierarchy, follow prescribed norms and transcend time and space (Gómez & Dailey, 2017; Polat et al., 2018). Formal communication often deprives organisational groups of their voice and may filter out critical information. The strength of formal communication lies in its capacity to standardise communication in order to ensure reliability (ibid.). Informal communication refers to the interpersonal exchange of messages, thoughts and feelings, which can be previously arranged or spontaneous interactions. It is a compelling requirement for people working in teams and supports a number of different functions, work-related as well as social, and plays a crucial role for the success of collaborative work (Rocker, 2012).

120 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

Efficient formal and informal communication is linked to critical thinking, including analytical abilities, constructive feedback, creativity and reflectivity; information management, for example ability to collect, analyse and interpret information; and problem solving, including identification of a problem, individual and joint decision-making (Baker et  al., 2005; Carnwell & Carson, 2008; Engel & Gursky, 2003; Freden & Nillson, 2003; Getha-Taylor, 2008; Taatila, 2004; Žydžiūnaitė et  al., 2007). Research shows that difficulties in collaboration usually arise due to inefficient and low-result communication, when meetings and activities are being planned but rarely implemented, when conversations proceed but no decisions are made, conflicts are not being managed and criticism is unacceptable (Boon, 2004; Dainton & Zelley, 2005; Kayes et al., 2005; Kheswa, 2015).

Methods, Participants and Ethics The research presented in this chapter is a part of a wider study of an interprofessional collaboration in ECEC teams while providing early support to children and families. The research follows ethnographic case study research design, including cases of two ECEC settings. Ethnography focuses on the meanings, not measurement, of the narratives and brings a deeper understanding of the participant experience (Elliot, 2005; Holloway et al., 2010; Fusch et al., 2017). The study focuses on the subjective meanings of the participants to explain interprofessional communication in two different ECEC settings, in particular, how communication is implemented and what meanings are manifested in professionals’ narratives. Narratives are used to unravel consequential stories of people’s lives as told by them in their own words (Elliot, 2005; Ntinda, 2020). It helps to understand the meaning of research participants’ experiences from the perspective of the participants, viewing the researcher as a narrator. The qualitative methods, including individual and group interviews and observational journals, have been employed to collect data. Qualitative thematic analysis has been carried out following the inductive logics of data analysis (Sundler et al., 2019). A prerequisite for the analysis is that it includes data on lived experiences, such as interviews and/or narratives. Themes derived from the analysis are data driven (i.e., grounded in data and the experience of the participants). The analysis aims to better understand the complexity of the meanings in the data rather than measure their frequency. It involves researcher engaging in the data and the analysis as

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

121

well as reflective process designed to illuminate meanings (ibid.). The findings move between concrete expressions and descriptive text on meanings of lived experiences (Van Manen, 2016; Sundler et al., 2019). Data of each of the two ECEC team as a single case have been analysed separately still following the principle of common consistency of the thematic analysis process and inductive empirical data-driven logics and sequence. The collected data have been analysed following the six step process (Braun & Clarke, 2006): familiarisation, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and finally reported to the research participants in the form of group discussion and validation (to ensure that the reported findings match the meanings of the participants). In this chapter, the research findings are presented in the form of group narratives, which have been co-constructed by the researchers and research participants. The thick narratives are presented purposefully in order to provide shared meanings of interprofessional communication of the participants. Two perspectives of research data interpretation (Uprety, 2009) are provided to the reader within the frame of the ethnographic case study: emic (insiders’)—perception of phenomenon from the research participants’ view—and etic (outsiders’)—the researchers’ view based on theory-­ driven conceptualisation of the research results. The research complies with qualitative research sampling requirements. Two interprofessional teams (N = 2 cases; see Table 8.1) providing ECEC and early support to a child and a family have been selected purposefully. Research sample has been formed by mixed sampling while applying purposeful criterion-driven and convenience case sampling (Patton, 2002). Purposeful sampling of two different team cases is based on Table 8.1  Characteristics of the research sample and participants ECEC team

ECEC team character

Team members

1st interprofessional team

ECEC setting, providing special needs education Inclusive ECEC setting

N = 5: ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist and a team coordinator N = 7: ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist, psychologist, social pedagogue and a team coordinator

2nd interprofessional team

122 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

common criteria of the teams: (a) early support services are provided in interprofessional teams of ECEC settings; (b) long-standing experience of interprofessional work in ECEC. In addition, the distinctive criteria of team selection have been taken into consideration: distinct type of ECEC setting (special needs education/inclusive), different level of children SEN (severe/mild) and different location of ECEC setting (town/city). The main principles of qualitative research ethics (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2003) were followed with respect to the research participants. Participation in the research is based on informed and voluntary consent. Collaboration agreements have been signed between the researchers and the organisations prior to the research. Research participants were notified on the aims of the research throughout all stages of the research. During collection of data, the participants have been given the option to make a voluntary decision on provision of answers to the questions asked, subjects relevant to the participants were taken into account and the participants were notified about the option to withdraw from the research in case they feel the risk of psychological or social vulnerability. The research follows the principles of data confidentiality and anonymity. Respectful and frank interaction between the researchers and research participants during collection and presentation of the data is based on the principles of participants’ privacy. The participants’ opinions that have been expressed during conversations have been coded without providing the names and any other recognisable information.

Results In this section of the chapter, the research findings, that is, the experiences of communication among professionals within two interprofessional teams are presented as group narratives. The narratives of both teams are presented separately. The group narratives, as shared meanings of professionals within particular team context, have been co-constructed by the researchers and research participants during the group discussions. Thick group narratives are presented from emic (research participants) perspective to avoid any prejudice of the researchers, while etic (researchers) perspective guides the reader to more conceptualised perception of the interprofessional communication phenomenon. The results show that professionals working in both ECEC interprofessional teams emphasise the following issues (themes) of communication as

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

123

most important while meeting children educational needs: (1) holistic approach towards child’s development and education; (2) informal everyday communication including sharing professional knowledge, experiences and joint problem solving; and (3) formal communication in team meetings including functional goals, structure of team discussions and ability to participate in team discussions. The Results of ECEC Setting Providing Special Needs Education Holistic approach to child’s development and education. According to team members, education success relates to holistic approach to child development and education. Professionals seek to exchange with the information related to child’s education content and educational strategies, and to coordinate their actions while providing systemic continuous support to a child: We exchange information about what child has learnt every day. … Work of all professionals is interrelated … we continue each other’s work. … Everyone looks from his/her professional side and share … then we have a whole picture of the child … our work is not the sum of individual functions, we need to use agreed strategies … to collaborate.

Informal everyday communication. The importance of immediate informal communication while meeting SEN of children has been expressed by the team members. They noted that intensive exchange of information “here and now” through informal conversations helps to urgently plan and provide individualised flexible support to a child: We talk informally before we start to prepare for working. A lot of things can happen … we must to discuss immediately … we should know it. During daily routine, team members continuously share their knowledge and experiences and discuss while searching for relevant strategies of child education and support: You share your knowledge … physiotherapist suggests what position is better for child’s respiration … speech therapist uses this information … special pedagogue aims at the development of fine motor in this position … we share our experience, what methods we should apply.

124 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

In the narratives, a cohesion of the team asserts while searching for the proper solution: If we have new child in a group, we need to focus on a new things … search for new methods … you can discover something new together. … We hear each other and try to suggest something if we have clue … in failure case you want to know other’s opinion. I apply to the team: “How we can act, what we must to do?”

Team members seek for common decision while solving the problems related to child education: We seek for agreed decision … not only knowledge determine decisions, experience is also important, because you know what can happen … you never decide alone … our work is not the sum of individual activities, we need joint strategies … we are working in our own specific areas, but are solving problems together.

Formal communication in team meetings. Team coordinator is responsible for the organisation of Child Welfare Committee meetings. She emphasised the importance of purposeful formal communication in order to share the information about individual activity planning, education process and results: In formal meetings, we discuss the programs of all areas—speech therapy, educational activities, we discuss problems … this is encouragement of activity planning and agreement, it is like a point making … and later, people work as they always work … it is useful, because all can be acquainted with the situation.

Team members have noted the need to improve quality of discussions in a team. It was suggested to focus on common problem solving instead of general character of a discussion: I do not think that these meetings are very useful … if we agree among themselves may be it is not necessary to talk there … we are wasting our time … may be it is better to allocate this time to discuss the problem situation … involvement and participation of all team members is needed when we try to solve common problems … actual problems are expressed … we can solve them together in the meetings.

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

125

Team members emphasised the importance of a team members’ abilities to participate in team discussions. The lack of their own and others’ initiatives to share with the opinions and experiences has been pointed out: You can discuss, ask, if you are interested in this, but nobody asks … professionals are afraid to express their opinion … others may avoid to open the mouth … others may think: “your children, your problem” … for successful professional discussion we must have abilities, run-in, traditions … we should learn all of this.

Interpretation of the Results The group narratives of the team members focus on three main issues, for example, holistic approach to child’s development and education, informal everyday communication and formal communication. It is evident that the team members acknowledge informal everyday communication as most efficient and flexible way to discuss and urgently solve emerging challenges. Joint working space of the team provides a possibility to interact, discuss and immediately plan the actions in order to address the needs of children. For the team, communication during the formal meetings seems important though challenging. Even if the team formally doesn’t have any vertical structure of management and is created on equal relationships, it requires initiatives for coordination of daily actions and decision-­making. Unstructured and unproductive discussions during the formal meetings can be the outcome of the mistrust in the team or lack of interprofessional communication abilities. However, shared challenges, concerns, suggestions and reflections of the participants show that the team members intend to communicate in different ways in order to learn from each other to provide quality ECEC services. The mentioned-above issues allow us to consider that the team is in the process of creating a community of practice as team members share common values, knowledge, problems and search together for their solution. The Results of ECEC Setting Providing Inclusive Education Holistic approach to child’s development and education. According to the team members, holistic approach to a child development, support, education and care provides a presumption for collaboration. Communication

126 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

and collaboration in a team enable professionals to systemically solve problems related to the complex needs of a child and a family: The problems are always complex: they relate to a child, parents and teachers … we seek to use a holistic approach—how to support all of them a child, a teacher, a family … we solve secondary problems, that impede our work.

Holistic-systemic approach is associated with integration of educational content. The exchange of information allows to better understand child’s problem and identify the need for the professional support. Team members seek for unity of educational content and strategies: Within a coffee break I share with a problem that child cannot name the colours, and we discuss how to play with them … physical therapist suggests what and why to teach a particular movement … it is useful to see holistically.

Informal everyday communication. Immediate informal communication relates to professional discussions while changing with urgent information in unplanned manner, that is, spontaneous informal meetings: We discuss the actual situations with a cup of coffee or at the dining table … we clarify a lot through direct communication … you come and share with the urgent issue, because you may forget it later … lively communication, responsiveness to the situations, sharing of information.

Participants of the research emphasised that sharing of opinions, advices and experiences is valued by the team. Variety of professionals working as interprofessional team creates a lot of opportunities to share knowledge and experiences, and make necessary decisions that may have a positive impact on a child’s progress: I do not feel like a “lonely solder in battlefield” … I receive a feedback … when I’m not sure I am going to a psychologist to check whether the right direction I take … the strength of the team is willingness to discuss, to share experiences and knowledge; it helps to find a solution.

Informal communication and interactions among team members allow to hear various opinions, views and ideas. Variety of shared and discussed ideas helps to find the best solution:

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

127

One person can’t decide how to deal with the problem … communication and collaboration encourages deeper analysis of the situation, allows to listen to others … it easier to find a solution … the teamwork facilitates a decision-making.

Formal communication in team meetings. The formal meetings, such as meetings of the Child Welfare Committee of the ECEC setting, are also valued by the professionals of the team. The formal meetings create an opportunity to exchange the prepared in advance information: In reality, the issues are dealt according to foreseen plan … in the beginning of the year, we discuss formal issues, for example, how many children there are with identified SEN in the list … at the end of the year, the final results are presented and discussed … there are many formalities that need to be written.

For the formal communication, functional goals and structure of team discussions are important. Team members have expressed the need for improvement of the discussions in order to make relevant decisions timely: There have been no cases that we all will sit together and deal with the problem … official meetings do not exist.

Team members suggest that planned and purposefully organised discussions would enable more rational allocation of working time. In addition, the importance of constructive discussions, addressing children problems, was highlighted: There is no appointed time (for the meeting) … it would be good to devote time for a meeting as a supervision once a week … we are always in hurry, chat shortly, slush something. This is a weak point in our team … if it would be like a supervision with the clear structure, then everyone would take a responsibility.

Team members emphasise the importance of constructive discussions, however they acknowledge that they need to improve their ability to discuss: It seems that we do not know how to discuss effectively … how to discuss situations … if it would be like supervisions with a clear structure, without any babble, everyone would take a responsibility, and the decision would be made … now, our discussions are unproductive … it is difficult to handle.

128 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

Interpretation of the Results For the particular team, holistic approach to child education and professionals’ communication in a team are considered to be the important issues for the ECEC setting team. The communication and collaboration enable professionals to systemically solve problems related to the complex needs of a child and a family. Informal communication allows to share an urgent information and to better understand the cause of the problem, to hear each other’s position and to discuss and make decisions. Formal meetings are also valued by the team. Although the formal team meetings are seen as a resource and a relevant form of structured communication, that are important for interacting, building relationships with others and making decisions, the need to improve the ability to organise formal meetings is evident. An identified and reflected limitation of communication both informal and formal by the team members leads to presumption, that the reflective practice is a characteristic of the particular interprofessional team.

Discussion and Conclusions It is becoming quite apparent that in terms of relationships with other professionals, one of the key areas of focus for the child worker discipline in ECEC is communication skills (Fukinnk, 2019). According to Weglarz-­ Ward (2016), communication among professionals is also a prominent factor that impacts collaboration and contributes to community of practice development. In both ECEC interprofessional teams, even if the context special or inclusive education is a little bit different, similar issues related to team communication have been highlighted, such as: holistic approach to child development, support and education, informal communication including sharing professional knowledge, experiences and joint problem solving, and formal communication including functional goals, structure of team discussions and ability to participate in team discussions. Immediate need of information exchange in both interprofessional teams is based on a holistic approach to a child’s situation. It allows to view the child as a whole, to understand better one’s abilities, to identify the need for professional support and to seek for unity of educational content and strategies. A holistic view means that education is focused on engaging and developing the whole person at different physical, emotional, mental and spiritual levels. It’s the concept that the human being is

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

129

multi-­dimensional (Varun, 2015). The team within inclusive education setting showed deeper comprehension of the holistic-systemic approach towards the child with regard to problem solving. The nature of the problem is viewed as complex, and, because of that, the flexibility and joint actions of various professionals in a team are highlighted as important while solving educational problems of children. As the findings of our research show, among other important issues, the informal as well as formal communication in both ECEC teams has been highlighted. According to Hoover (2020), both informal and formal communication are crucial for maintaining a clear and cordial work culture and creating a community of practice. As it is emphasised in the research (Ostermann, 2015; Hoover, 2020), it is important to disclose, how certain professional community becomes a community of practice and how one “learns” to be a member of a certain workplace environment. The communication that involves thinking together is introduced as a trans-personal knowing process through which tacit knowledge is ‘shared’ indirectly and that brings community of practice to life (Pyrko et al., 2017). In this context, the aspect of informal everyday communication as an important issue of interprofessional collaboration has been highlighted more often than other issues in both teams. According to Surbhi (2018), informal communication refers to the form of communication, which flows in every direction, that is, it moves freely in the organisation. Shared information and participation-based team working are assumed as high level of collaboration (Jones & Jones, 2011; Leathard, 2003). In addition to the mentioned-above issues that both interprofessional teams of ECEC highlighted as urgently important for their communication and collaboration, they value the processes of sharing professional knowledge and experiences, joint problem solving, following functional goals and ability to participate in team discussions. Numerous authors (Baker et  al., 2005; Getha-Taylor, 2008; Hall, 2005; Taatila, 2004) emphasize the importance of leveraging the diverse professional knowledge and experience of team members. Consequently, acknowledging and understanding each other’s competences within the team becomes essential, as it enables effective collaboration, saves valuable time resources, promotes mutual support, and facilitates opportunities for learning from one another. According to research participants sharing professional experiences within team is closely related to joint problem solving that was noted in both teams. According to both teams, joint problem solving is perceived as process of informal interactions, when decisions are made.

130 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

Joint problem solving is mainly described as a structured process (Forsyth, 1990; Teresevičienė & Gedvilienė, 2003). Unstructured discussions are not always meaningful (Neil et al., 2010; Rose, 2011). Formal communication in team meetings is also valued by both interprofessional teams. Although, the formal team meetings are usually associated with consideration of formal, educational orders regulated issues. Scientists (Boon, 2004; Kayes et al., 2005) argue that regular formal team meetings are the indicator of effectiveness of team activity. Formal communication is one that passes through predefined channels of communication in a team. As so, this kind of communication limits reflectivity, creativity and generation of new ideas to improve practice. According to the authors, communication demonstrates a high level of trust in the team (Sargeant et al., 2008). Professionals of both ECEC teams emphasise the need of rethinking team meeting goals and discussion content. The functionality of the actions and reflectivity has been emphasised. Team meetings centered on group reflection, constructive discussions, and supervision are regarded as vital elements of interprofessional collaboration. These meetings not only foster new insights but also serve as essential pillars in promoting effective teamwork and interprofessional work dynamics (Robinson et al., 2008). However, as the evidence shows (Hyrkas et al., 2002; Neil et al., 2010), professionals who work in teams are not always familiar with the purposes of team meeting. Supervisions and reflections are the types of professional discussions that are focused not only on the problem solving but also on interpersonal support (West & Carlson, 2007). However, according to the participants, the abilities of the team members to constructively participate in the team discussions are weak in both teams. Quality participation in team discussions—for example how to express own opinions, how to share experiences and how to listen to others—is identified as the area which needs to be improved. As such, one of the issues that can be helpful to follow is to follow a clear structure of the discussion. According to O’Daniel and Rosenstein (2008), structured communication enables to make decisions and plan activities faster. Active listening, questioning, expressing different attitudes and reasoning are important attributes of effective communication (Baršauskienė & Janulevičiūtė-Ivaškevičienė, 2005; Smart & Featheringharm, 2006; Neil et al., 2010). Summing up the research findings, it is evident that there is a need for further research searching for relevant ways of efficient interprofessional communication learning in the field of inclusive ECEC.

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

131

References Baker, D. P., Horvath, L., Campino, M., Offermann, L., & Salas, E. (2005). In S.  T. Murray, Y.  Clermont, & M.  Binkley (Eds.), The ALL teamwork framework. Measuring adult literacy and life skills: New frameworks for assessment (pp. 229–272). Minister of Industry Statistics Canada. Barker, R. (2009). Making sense of every child matters: Multiprofessional practice guidance. The Policy Press. Barrett, G., & Keeping, C. (2005). The processes required for effective interprofessional working. In G. Barret, D. Sellman, & I. Thomas (Eds.), Interprofessional working in health and social care: Professional perspectives (pp. 19–31). Palgrave Macmillan. Baršauskienė, V., & Janulevičiūtė-Ivaškevičienė, B. (2005). Komunikacija: Teorija ir praktika [Communication: Theory and practice]. Technologija. Boon, H. (2004). From parallel practice to integrative health care: A conceptual framework. Health Services Research, 4, 1–35. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 101–177. Brown, R. (2004). School culture and organization: Lessons from research and experience: A background paper for the Denver commission on secondary school reform. http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/culture_organization.pdf Carnwell, R., & Carson, A. (2008). The concepts of partnership and collaboration. In R. Carnwell & J. Buchanan (Eds.), Effective practice in health, social care and criminal justice (pp. 196–197). Open University Press. D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., Rodriguez, S.  M., & L., & Beaulie, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 116–131. Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2005). Applying communication theory for professional live: A practical introduction. Sage Publications. Drew, C. (2020). What is holistic education?—Benefits & limitations. Helpful Professor. https://helpfulprofessor.com/holistic-­education/ Education Sector and Library Activity Professional Standard [Del̇ švietimo sektoriaus ir bibliotekų veiklos profesinio standarto patvirtinimo]. Kvalifikacijų ir profesinio mokymo plėtros centro direktoriaus i ̨sakymas [Act of Director of Qualification and Professional Training Centre]. 2019  m. liepos 19 d. Nr. V1–143, Vilnius. Elliot, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. Engel, C., & Gursky, E. (2003). Management and interprofessional collaboration. In A. Leathard (Ed.), Interprofessional collaboration: From policy to practice in health and social care (pp. 44–55). Routledge.

132 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

European Commission (Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture). (2021). Early childhood education and care: how to recruit, train and motivate well-qualified staff: final report. Publications Office. https://data. europa.eu/doi/10.2766/489043 European Commission /EACEA/ Eurydice/ Eurostat. (2014). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice Foronda, C., MacWilliams, B., & McArthur, E. (2016). Interprofessional communication in healthcare: An integrative review. Nurse Education in Practice, 19, 36–40. Forsyth, R. D. (1990). Group dynamics. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Freden, K., & Nillson, F. (2003). The individual’s expectations on competence development in transnational organization. Linkoping University. Fukinnk, G. R. (2019). Interprofessional collaboration in early childhood education and care. Erasmus+ Closing Conference Social Inclusion, Education and Urban Policy for Young Children. Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences/Centre for Applied Research on Education. 10.13140/RG.2.2.20039.14241. Fusch, P.  I., Fusch, G.  E., & Ness, L.  R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-­ ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 923–941. Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 103–119. Gómez, L.  F., & Dailey, S.  L. (2017). Formal communication. In C.  R. Scott, J. R. Barker, T. Kuhn, J. Keyton, P. K. Turner, & L. K. Lewis (Eds.), The international Encyclopedia of organizational communication. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc083 Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 188–196. Hamid, N.  Z. A., Rasid, S.  Z. A., Ma’on, S.  N., Hasan, M.  N., & Suddin, L. (2016). Interprofessional communication and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among health care professionals. https://doi.org/10.15405/ EPSBS.2016.11.02.38. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2003). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge. Heikkinen, K.-M., Ahtiainen, R., & Fonsén, E. (2022). Perspectives on leadership in early childhood education and care centers through community of practice. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221091260 Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(1), 74–85.

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

133

Hoover, C. (2020). What is formal and Informal Communication? https:// harappa.education/harappa-­diaries/formal-­and-­informal-­communication/ Hyrkas, K., Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K., & Paunonen-Ilmonen, M. (2002). Expert supervisors’ views of clinical supervision: A study of factors promoting and inhibiting the achievements of multiprofessional team supervision. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(4), 387–397. Jones, A., & Jones, D. (2011). Improving teamwork, trust and safety: An ethnographic study of an interprofessional initiative. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 175–181. Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming, 36, 330–354. Kheswa. (2015). Exploring the impact of ineffective communication on educators’ teaching performance at primary schools. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(3), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/0975112 2.2015.11890405 Lapuum, J., St-Amant, O., Hughes, M., & Garmaise-Yee, J. (Eds.). (2020). Introduction to communication in Nursing. Ryerson University. https://pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca/communicationnursing/ Lavie, J. (2006). Academic discourses on school–based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 773–805. Law on Education of Lithuanian Republic. (2011). Actual version 2022-01-01–2022-08-31: I-1489 Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo i ̨statymas (lrs.lt). https://eseimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.1480/asr Lawthom, R. (2011). Developing learning communities: Using communities of practice within community psychology. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 153–164. Leathard, A. (2003). Models of interprofessional collaboration. In A.  Leathard (Ed.), Interprofessional collaboration: From policy to practice in health and social care (pp. 93–117). Routledge. Marshman, R. (2010). Concurrency of learning in the IB Diploma Programme and Middle Years Programme. https://kirrawatt.com/ uploads/2/4/7/2/24720749/holistic_education.pdf Mercieca, B. (2017). What is a Community of Practice? In J.  McDonald & A.  Cater-Steel (Eds.), Communities of practice. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­2879-­3_1 Neil, S. T., Nothard, S., Glentworth, D., & Stewart, E. (2010). A study to evaluate the provision of psychosocial supervision within an early intervention team. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 3, 58–70. Nolte, J. (2005). Enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration in primary health care. Primary Health Care: A Framework That Fits. EICP.

134 

S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ AND D. KAIRIENĖ

Ntinda, K., (2020). Narrative Research. In P.  Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp.1–12). Springer. https://link. springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­2779-­6 O’Daniel, M., & Rosenstein, A. H. (2008). Professional communication and team collaboration. In R. G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient safety and quality: An evidence-­ based handbook for nurses (pp.  271–284). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ostermann, A. C. (2015). Community of Practice. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Wiley-­ Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi117 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage. Poell, R. F. (2005). Learning organizations and communities of practice: A critical evaluation. In J. P. Willson (Ed.), Human resource development. Learning and training for individuals and organizations (pp. 99–111). Polat, V., Lynn, G., Akgün, A., & Emre, O. (2018). Formal and informal communication in new product development teams: The mediation effect of team trust. International Journal of Innovation, 6(2), 95–109. https://doi. org/10.5585/iji.v6i2.245 Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Thinking together: What makes communities of practice work? Human Relations, 70(4), 389–409. https://doi. org/10.1177/0018726716661040 Reeves, S., Lewin, S., Espin, S., Zwarensten, M., & Barr, H. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care: Promoting partnership for health. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Robinson, M., Atkinson, M., & Downing, D. (2008). Supporting theory building in integrated services research. National Foundation for Educational Research. Rocker, C. (2012). Informal communication and awareness in virtual teams—Why we need smart technologies to support distributed teamwork. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265375692 Rose, J. (2011). Dilemmas of interprofessional collaboration: Can they be resolved? Children et Society, 25, 151–163. Rosen, E. (2008). The culture of collaboration. Red Ape Publishing. Šapelytė, O., Ališauskienė, S., Ališauskas, A., Melienė, R., Miltenienė, L, & Ruplienė, D. (2021). Lietuvos pedagogineṡ psichologineṡ pagalbos teikimo modelio ekspertinis vertinimas. Tyrimo ataskaita [Expert evaluation of the Lithuanian pedagogical psychological support model. Research report]. https://www.nsa. smm.lt/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2021/08/PPP_modelio_eksper tinis_ vertinimas_2021m..pdf Sargeant, J., Loney, E., & Murphy, G. (2008). Effective interprofessional teams: “Contact is not enough” to build a team. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28(4), 228–234.

8  COMMUNICATION IN INTERPROFESSIONAL TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

135

Smart, K.  L., & Featheringharm, R. (2006). Developing effective interpersonal communication and discussion skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 276–283. Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6(3), 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275 Surbhi, S. (2018). Difference between formal and informal communication. https://keydifferences.com/difference-­b etween-­f ormal-­a nd-­i nformal-­ communication.html Taatila, V. (2004). The concept of organizational competence—A foundation analysis. Academic Dissertation. University of Jyvaskyla. Teresevičienė, M., & Gedvilienė, G. (2003). Mokymasis grupesė ir asmenybe ̇s kaita [Group learning and personality change]. Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. United Nations. (2022). The sustainable development goals report. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Uprety, L. P. (2009). Qualitative data collection, analysis and presentation: A theoretical overview. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 3, 83–122. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. Routledge. Varun, A. (2015). Holistic approach for early childhood education. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/297714485_Holistic_Approach_for_Early_ Childhood_Education Verhaegh, K.  J., Seller-Boersma, A., Simons, R., Steenbruggen, J., Geerlings, S.  E., de Rooij, S.  E., & Buurman, B.  M. (2017). An exploratory study of healthcare professionals’ perceptions of interprofessional communication and collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31(3), 397–400. Weglarz-Ward, J.  M., (2016). Project collaborative care: Experiences of child care and early intervention providers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. West, L., & Carlson, A. (2007). Sure start Millmead Children’s Centre. Claiming space: An in-depth auto/biographical study of a local sure start project (2001–2006). Centre for International Studies of Diversity and Participation, Canterbury Christ Church University. Wong, S., Sumsion, J., & Press, F. (2012). Early childhood professionals and interprofessional work in integrated early childhood Services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 81–88. Žydžiūnaitė, V., Mitkienė, L., & Mikulevičienė, A. (2007). Vadybineṡ kompetencijos realizavimas slaugoje: Mokslo studija [Realization of managerial competence in nursing: A scientific study]. Klaipėda.

CHAPTER 9

The Schooling Processes of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Early Childhood Education: Implications for Interprofessional Collaboration in Spain María Pantoja González, Gerardo Echeita Sarrionandia, and Cecilia Simón Rueda

Introduction This study is part of the project analysis and assessment of the inclusive education process of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from early childhood education to university: social participation as the axis of analysis (EDITEA/EDU 2017-86739-R), developed at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Among other issues, this project sought to analyse

M. P. González (*) • G. E. Sarrionandia • C. S. Rueda Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_9

137

138 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

how the educational process of students with ASD is being developed in regular schools and what are the main barriers and supports for the development of a more inclusive and quality education for these students. In this chapter we will focus on the early childhood education stage and family-­school collaboration as the focus of analysis. The Right to Inclusive Education for All In the research from which this chapter arises, we start from the unquestionable premise that inclusive education is an internationally recognised right in Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2016). Furthermore, UNESCO and other organisations (2016), in their Framework for Action for the realisation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 by 2030, have reaffirmed the ambition to promote equal learning opportunities through equitable and inclusive quality education. Recognising all students is essential, especially those with disabilities, as subjects of rights and claiming inclusive education as an indispensable requirement for quality education that excludes no one (UN CRPD, 2016) and directly urges public administration to create the necessary conditions to promote (for all learners), a fair articulation of opportunities for their presence (i.e. being together), their participation (i.e. feeling recognised, being part of a group, being listened to and valued) and their learning (i.e. developing those competences and self-determination to the maximum) (Ainscow et al., 2006). Most countries are currently embarking on processes of transformation of their respective education systems, but the evidence tells us that they are still a long way from what has been established in international agreements (UNESCO, 2020). And, according to the literature available, children considered to have special educational needs (hereinafter SEN) continue to be one of the most discriminated groups in terms of lack of equal opportunities and educational and social exclusion (Olsson & Nilholm, 2022). Therefore, our work focuses on students with ASD and their families to illustrate a reality that challenges the current policies and practices of most mainstream schools.

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

139

Students with ASD as a Vulnerable Group in the Education System The increase in the prevalence and, consequently, the presence of students with ASD in mainstream schools has encouraged the need to analyse how to implement more inclusive educational responses (González de Rivera et al., 2022). Currently, in the public health and education system in Spain and in many parts of the world too, when a diagnosis of ASD is made, the administration mobilises access to support for the person with ASD and their family. However, it is also worth asking whether these supports are sufficient and appropriate for these students, and whether they follow what is understood as support in the framework of inclusive education. In the case of Spain, current regulations have sometimes caused measures to develop from an inclusive perspective in the name of inclusion, which has been misunderstood or misapplied (Muñoz-Abarca et  al., 2020; Vigo-­ Arrazola et  al., 2022). Furthermore, many policies maintain a negative definition of diversity and adopt a deficit model in their intervention (Lai & Gill, 2014). Thus, studies show that people with ASD manifest a feeling of exclusion in mainstream spaces that affect their well-being (Majoko, 2016). Analysing the socialisation behaviours of students with ASD in early childhood education, Olsen et  al. (2019) found that one of the most effective strategies to promote the participation of these students was the personalisation and monitoring of support and objectives for students and families, favouring family-professional collaboration and the participation of the family in the negotiation processes. The idea that the families of these pupils are an indispensable part of the process is what led us to delve into the perspective and experiences of these families during the schooling process of their sons and daughters, as well as their main needs, strengths and their relationships with the different professionals and educational agents. The Voices and Attitudes of Families and Professionals Towards Inclusion Currently, the majority of families with children considered to have SEN are in favour of schooling in inclusive settings, while recognising the major changes that schools need to undergo (Friedman, 2019; de Boer et al., 2010). However, they are concerned that inclusion affects the quality of

140 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

the educational response their children need, as well as the lack of knowledge that many schools still have about SEN; all of which can lead to their social marginalisation or stigmatisation by peers and the school’s own families (Falkmer et al., 2015; Leyser & Kirk, 2004). One of the greatest challenges and frustrations faced by these families relates to the process of transition from home life to schooling at an early age (Hetherington et al., 2010). In this regard, they are concerned about safety, peer attitudes and acceptance and the quality of supports (Leyser & Kirk, 2004). In addition, they face new barriers related to administration, bureaucracy and lack of counselling for inclusion in schools in the field of educational psychology and psycho-pedagogical counselling teams (Byrne, 2013; Calderón-Almendros et al., 2022). Families therefore demand the support and involvement of different professionals in the process (Byrne, 2013). For their part, educators also have diverse and sometimes ambiguous attitudes towards inclusion (Most & Ingber, 2016). They believe that if the prevalence of ASD continues to increase, they will not have the necessary resources and therefore prefer, for example, schooling in specialised classrooms within schools. Others are directly opposed to inclusion, believing that inclusive policies “disturb the peace” of mainstream classes, which is unfair to the “rest” (Lai & Gill, 2014). Furthermore, they often see the difficulties of learners with ASD themselves as the main barrier to inclusion in the mainstream classroom (Majoko, 2016). These attitudes reflect a view that inclusion involves extra efforts in mainstream practice rather than its transformation. The Importance of Family-School Collaboration for Inclusion Inclusion is understood as a dynamic process of transforming the cultures, policies and practices of educational communities to provide a quality educational response to all learners. Therefore, as noted above, everyone has equal opportunities to access, participate in and learn in a school for all. To achieve this, teachers in the twenty-first century must be able to reflect on their own professional practice, have positive attitudes towards diversity and know how to use these for the benefit of the whole educational community (Mitchell, 2017). In this sense, it is essential that, as Simón and Giné (2016) point out, any initiative for a more inclusive education seeks and tries to guarantee an active and positive relationship between all the agents involved in school

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

141

education. As mentioned, when talking about pupils with ASD, research indicates that family-school collaboration is an influential factor in the achievements of participation, learning and development of pupils and points out that from early intervention there is a need to work directly in the natural environments of pupils (family, school and community) and to promote the competences of the people present in these environments in order to foster the development of all pupils (McWilliam, 2010). What Defines a Good Collaborative Relationship? Aiming to reflect on how to work with families in early childhood care, we start from the so-called Family-Centred Approach (Espe-Sherwindt, 2008), which corresponds to those models centred on the needs of pupils and families, based on collaborative work and the empowerment of families as the ultimate goal. Blue-Banning et al. (2004) identified six highly interrelated components that would define cooperative arrangements between families and professionals of children and young people with and without special educational needs, which we share: communication, professional competence, respect, commitment, equity and trust. These categories described by Blue-Banning et al. (2004) have been taken up by other studies such as Turnbull et al. (2008) to analyse how cooperation between families and professionals can facilitate inclusion in school. They have also been found to be relevant categories for analysing the competences of professionals working with families of students with ASD (Rodrigo et al., 2021). For collaboration to be effective, it is essential that families can actively participate in the school and that they feel encouraged to do so. It is not enough therefore to have the opportunity to participate, but it is also necessary to have plans and actions that motivate families. Participation implies then a reciprocal responsibility between the family and the school (Simón & Giné, 2016). In this regard, Epstein (2001) proposes a model of six areas of family participation in the school: (1) activities or spaces for communication; (2) activities to support or train families on aspects of the development and education of their children; (3) activities related to how to motivate or support learning at home; (4) leisure activities in the school or classroom in which family members are volunteers; (5) involvement of families in decision-making; (6) collaboration with the community. In order to deepen these analyses, it can be very useful to bear in mind the four axes which, according to Rodrigo et  al. (2021), should

142 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

characterise an interprofessional space in family care services or entities from a positive parenting approach: (a) defined by children’s rights, family support and professional ethics; (b) which takes into consideration the diversity of family situations; (c) which carries out actions aimed at prevention, promotion and preservation; and (d) within a framework of intersectorial and inter-administrative relations and collaboration together with third-­sector entities. These ideas underpin a broad and systemic perspective on educational support, understood as all school action that seeks to promote the necessary measures to enable an equitable response to the diversity of learners (Booth et al., 2002). Although education laws in most countries call for family participation, Tennant (2007) found, for example, that in the USA that only half of education plans included the voice of families. This results in a paradoxical, if not contradictory, situation. Although families are willing and able to participate, they feel that they are not considered valuable and their contributions are not considered relevant by the school (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). What Are the Attitudes of Different Actors Towards Such Collaboration? What the research tells us is that effective and quality collaborative relationships benefit not only students, but also families, professionals and other stakeholders. But lack of communication, support and uncoordinated and complementary policies between education and health and social services is often the main source of stress for families with children with ASD and other needs (Daniels et al., 2019; Keen et al., 2010; Starr & Foy, 2012). For their part, professionals recognise the benefits of collaboration but point to the existence of barriers in themselves and in the environment, such as the scarce training of professionals in collaboration strategies and efficient mechanisms, the weakness in the design of participation plans, or the use of methodologies that are not very inclusive and so on (Todd et al., 2014). The existence of these barriers means that schools miss out on a great source of information and support. Families know best about their children’s needs and strengths and their participation enriches inclusive strategies and professional practice (Simón & Barrios, 2019). Finally, it should be noted that the inclusion of students with ASD and the participation of their families in schools also have an impact on Family

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

143

Quality of Life. The quality of relationships and supports received influences family well-being (Zuna et al., 2009). Thus, a good family-school collaborative relationship contributes to empowering the family in the educational and social environment (Blue-Banning et  al., 2004). Conversely, if these experiences are negative, they can lead to feelings of exclusion and stigma (Keen et al., 2010). The research carried out sought to understand the barriers and support that students with ASD and their families encounter during their schooling in mainstream schools in the early childhood education stage. Despite the importance attributed to educational mediation at the earliest ages, this stage has been little studied (Olsen et al., 2019). The aim is to contribute to the improvement of the reflection processes of professionals and educational leaders to transform inclusive education policies by focusing on the following research questions: –– How is the schooling process of students with ASD being developed in ordinary early childhood education centres? –– What role are family-school partnerships and interprofessional collaboration playing in this process? –– What impact is it having on the quality of life of families?

Method and Participants To respond to the objectives of this study, which aimed to study specific experiences in the life trajectories of families with children with ASD, we opted for a qualitative methodology of an interpretative phenomenological nature, which resulted in the construction of life stories of each of the participating families (González de Rivera & Pantoja, 2021). To this end, a multiple case study is carried out. This allows us to examine a phenomenon from different approaches or experiences with the aim of understanding the reality studied and to seek, through the comparison of similar or very different cases, the relationships, intersections and interactions between the social dimensions analysed and the different experiences (Stake, 2007). Participants The cases of two of the families participating in the EDITEA project were used for this work. Both cases were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

144 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

–– Have a child with diagnosis of ASD (diagnosed by psychopedagogical teams specialised in ASD). –– Be enrolled in Pre-school Education (0–3) during the 2018/2019 academic year, in ordinary public or subsidised centres in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain. Thus, the selected cases had the following characteristics: Family A: 4 and a half-year-old child in the second year of pre-school in an ordinary public centre in Madrid where he receives specific support. Both parents are between 35 and 40  years old, both with university degrees. Family B: 4-year-old child in the first year of pre-school in a private school in Madrid. He was enrolled in a combined education system, in which there are specific support classrooms for children with ASD in which the children spend a significant part of the school day. Both parents are between 35 and 40 years old, both with university degrees. Instruments and Procedures To address the objectives of this study, we chose to use the qualitative technique of in-depth interviews with the intention of reaching the subjective experiences of the different agents (Taylor & Bogdan, 1987). Thus, in order to respond to the research objectives, interviews were designed for the families with the following dimensions: (a) personal and socio-­ family environment, (b) schooling process, (c) perception of the educational inclusion process (support and barriers, where the dimensions of family-school collaboration are included) and (d) impact and quality of life. A total of eight interviews were conducted with families, four in each case and at different times between February 2019 and March 2020. Both parents were sometimes interviewed and sometimes only the mother was interviewed. Data Analysis Method A thematic content analysis was carried out, following the process suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006). This was a mixed process involving both deductive and inductive analysis at different points in time. First, a broader category system was developed that responded to the analytical objectives of this study. In the interview design, in order to establish the

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

145

initial dimensions of analysis that acted as preliminary codes, the approaches of Booth et al. (2002) have been particularly relevant. Thanks to the qualitative analysis software NVivo 12, the interview transcripts were reviewed, and the most relevant quotes were extracted. These were coded in relation to the previous categories, which also served to identify and define new emerging codes. A summary table with the main emerging codes is shown below, each of them being further diversified into several more. To ensure the quality of the interpretation of the data, a triangulation was carried out at different times through a process of inter-judge reliability, seeking to reach an agreement on the description and categorisation of the data. We understand that the quality of information in qualitative research lies in the extent to which it allows us to construct narratives from which the voice of our participants emerges rigorously, helping us to consider multiple versions of a truth rather than attempting to homogenise these results (Stake, 2007).

Results The analysis of the household interviews resulted in 474 verbatim quotes and 91 final emerging codes. We believe that in qualitative research with a phenomenological approach such as the one carried out, the joint presentation of the results and the analysis or discussion of them can respond in a more integrated way to the objectives. The results are not independent of the discussion, as they make sense in the account that is given of them. In the following, for the presentation and discussion of the results, we have chosen to organise this section according to the objectives of this study. How Is the Process of Schooling of Students with ASD in Ordinary Early Childhood Education Centres Being Developed from the Voices of Their Families? Emotions and worries about the “first news”. Identifying that a child has developmental disorder has a great emotional impact on families as it shatters culturally shared expectations about what it is like to have a child and raise a family. You have expectations when your child is born and all of a sudden, they tell you; “Well, no, this is what awaits you from now on”. More fear, don’t you?

146 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

fear, you wonder what is going to happen in the future when you’re not there and your child is, in other words, thousands and thousands of things, fears of all kinds. (Family B)

The desire of every family to respond to the new needs of this son or daughter triggers a process fraught with fears, worries, waiting and stress, as found in the literature (Byrne, 2013). All in the search for answers both to receive a diagnosis and to get all the necessary support. The educator at the nursery was also suspicious. She didn’t say clearly the word autism, but she started to refer me to take the child somewhere, to a neurologist or something because she saw strange things in him … then from there we had an appointment at the private hospital where we went to a neuro-paediatrician and there they were telling us “possible maturational delay ASD” … So, from that moment on we started … they started all kinds of tests at the hospital. (Family 2)

This is how the first years of life of children with autism and their families go by, in this transfer from one professional to another and waiting for a diagnosis that, when it comes, is a decisive moment in their lives. First school experiences. The calm that precedes new storms. In the 0–3 years’ stage, these experiences take place in nursery schools or commonly known as kindergartens, where the experiences can be very varied depending on the educational action of those who work there, although they are generally lived in relative calm. As time goes by, this calmness is replaced by the uncertainty of the transition to a new school in which to attend the second cycle of infant education (from 3 to 6 years old). This is the time in Spain when, because it is closely related to primary school, the almost definitive decision is made about the type of schooling for their children (special or ordinary school), as well as between public and private schools. In this decision, the conceptions and values of each family come into play, but also the guidance they receive from professionals in the midst of a myriad of bureaucratic and technical procedures that will mediate their decisions (Calderón-Almendros et al., 2022). Bureaucracy makes decisions before schooling. According to the existing model in most of the Autonomous Communities in Spain, the schooling of students considered to have SEN is conditional on the results of a psycho-­pedagogical assessment carried out by the so-called Educational Guidance and Psycho-pedagogical Teams (Simón et al., 2021) which takes

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

147

the form of a schooling report (Calderón-Almendros et al., 2022), that is, a document necessary for the final administrative decision of the competent educational authority regarding the proposal or type of schooling finally offered to the family/pupil: integration/inclusion in mainstream schools (in one of the options provided for this purpose; mainstream with support, or specific classroom) or schooling in special schools (in one of the options provided for this purpose; mainstream with support, or specific classroom) or schooling in special schools. Well, the schooling process has been a pain at all times, it has been horrible. From the very first moment we were given the opinion of Special Education and we found out that this already conditioned you, that in all the public schools were already going to have that opinion and that we were no longer going to have option to enter a public school with ordinary (mode). From that the first thing we did was to inform you as much as possible about everything… so we left with the uncertainty of not knowing next year what it will be like, if we will have been assigned to the ASD classroom or not, and you spend the summer a bit worried about that. (Family 1)

As we can see, families face this process with a great sense of inexperience and lack of information, which places them in a very vulnerable situation when it comes to making decisions about their children’s future and trying to defend their needs in complete ignorance of their educational rights (Ruble et al., 2010). You have to find out about all the different orientation teams that there is in the process, of all the possibilities there are if you are a child with SEN or no, how the points go, who you have to complain to if it doesn’t appear on the lists or whatever … nobody could explain to us why we didn’t get the place … You don’t even know who you have to complain to, or where you have to go or who you have to talk to. (Family 1)

It should be borne in mind that in our study the participants were families with higher education and more than enough skills to cope with this learning process. Imagine the risk that other more vulnerable families will face in this same process given their lack of knowledge and social and schooling roots, such as migrant families, with low economic resources and little command of the host language (Byrne, 2013). When faced with a schooling decision that the family does not like, they have the option of formally expressing their disagreement with the

148 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

decision. However, this does not always lead to a change in the administration’s criteria, leaving families with the option of resignation or resorting to legal action, thus increasing family dissatisfaction, stress and the costs in time and money (Starr & Foy, 2012). And it seemed a little unfair to me because in the end we have to go a little bit against the system, against the people who guide where my son should be and in the end, it will be a person who will judge whether we are right or wrong. I felt that the situation was a bit violent and unfair because if we consider that we want to place our child in an ordinary school with support or even the option of an ASD classroom, which they had not even given us that option; because it seemed that the doors were closed to you, you had no alternatives. (Family 1)

What Role Are Family-School Partnerships and Interprofessional Collaboration Playing in This Process? At the beginning everything goes well. In these early stages everything points to educators who care and look after the children, who establish good relations with the families and try to adjust to the children’s needs, but, not always with the necessary means. Families usually have a positive perception of the work carried out. Even so, there are situations of dissatisfaction due to the disconnection between the educational contexts that take care of their children, which has to do with what Epstein (2001) would call Collaboration with the Community: I took them (to the nursery school) the reports from the early intervention centre where he was going, and I wanted them to see what they were working on with him there. And I don’t know if they took it into account because what they were doing there and at school was a bit independent. I also gave them the contact and I don’t think they ever got in touch. (Family 1)

It all starts to get complicated in the transition to the 3- to 6-year-old stage. It has been found that the role of the family and their participation in the transition process are limited to receiving information, without being involved in making decisions about the objectives to be worked on with their child, a key dimension according to Epstein (2001). This perceived lack of support and advice from professionals, coupled with the inexperience mentioned above, has led families to feel that there are no clear and effective channels in the administration (Blue-Banning

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

149

et al., 2004) to guide them through the process, in which they see that there are more administrative barriers for students with SEN (Byrne, 2013) than supports for an effective and calm transition. It is therefore not surprising that one of their first demands is the need to urgently review and improve this complex procedure for most families. One of the complaints I have about the system, is that there is no information none and no easy way to get it. (Family 1)

Finally, it should be noted that in transition processes, coordination and information transfer between the former school and the receiving school are generally non-existent. There is, therefore, no culture of interprofessional collaboration associated with protocols, programmes and practices of interprofessional collaboration to ensure the well-being of the family. When they arrive at the “grown-up” school. Partially following the model of cultures, policies and practices for analysing school contexts (Booth et al., 2002), if we talk about the culture of our schools and its leadership style, families highlight the existence of declared values in favour of inclusion and a certain involvement and commitment of the school heads at different points in the process. Yes, we saw that they were receptive to the fact that there are different children and they accepted that diversity. So, we said it was a good place and what we want for it. A place where from the very beginning they accept that the child has his or her different capabilities. And that, if a child fails, it is not the child, but perhaps it is the method that fails in that child, not the child that fails. (Family 2)

Both families in our study are predisposed and available to communication and participation in the school, willing to get involved in their children’s education. But, unfortunately, they do not see this attitude reciprocated or valued as it deserves at the school. The controversial role of educational counsellors. We have seen that throughout this process of schooling of students with SEN, the figure of the professionals of the educational guidance services (educational psychologists) has gained great weight, and how their professionalism or lack of it can greatly condition the pupils’ educational trajectory and have an impact on the quality of family life. Moreover, this role is critical when children are at an early age and families are faced with the need to face the

150 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

first of the educational transitions that will mark the future school development of their children. It (the psycho-pedagogical evaluation) defines the future of your child in a photo, which is what that woman (the counsellor) sees at one moment … It catches you with no experience, you believe everything, your critical capacity doesn’t exist because what they’re telling you is so hard that you don’t even have time to think, it all falls on you. (Family 1)

What Impact Is It Having on the Quality of Life of Families? Good and bad luck. In the process of schooling pupils with ASD in ordinary Early Childhood Education centres, families encounter barriers and support and establish different collaborative relationships with professionals that have an impact on their perceived well-being. If a family is lucky enough to get the school and the desired type of schooling, a certain calmness arrives. I’ve always had very good luck in that respect, I don’t know whether it’s because of the therapists who have touched me or why … But we have been very lucky, to be honest, both when it came to choosing a school and with the therapists. (Family 2)

But if a family is unlucky enough not to get a place in the school they want, an abyss of even greater anguish opens, because from that moment on they are left to the discretion of the educational administration. What we do see in both cases is that these families have to “do it themselves” when looking for a centre and supports because the system provides little or no specific help beyond informing them. This position is far from being directed towards family empowerment brought about by family-professional collaboration relations that involve families in the integral development of their children, providing them with the tools to be active agents in their own process (Epstein, 2001). This undesirable situation also extends to the model of early intervention that is mostly offered to families and their children and which is based on a traditional model. It is understood as an intervention based on the work of professionals in contexts separated from natural environments during short sessions and with hardly any joint and coordinated work with the school professionals and family (Jindal-Snape et al., 2005).

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

151

Conclusions We can see that, although in some respects, progress is being made towards more inclusive education, there are still many shadows, that is, barriers to the full exercise of this right for students with ASD and others SEN (Echeita, 2022). These barriers would be related, in the framework of this study, to two main areas: the weak collaborative relationships between families and professionals and scarce and equally weak interprofessional collaboration. Firstly, in the schooling process for students with ASD, the long timeframes, the complex administrative processes and the non-inclusive attitudes of the professionals in the different public services are not being, in early intervention services, conditions of quality from the point of view of collaboration and in providing families with adequate information, accompanying them in the process and promoting their decision-making (Hetherington et al., 2010). These cultures or models from which professional practice is approached in the contexts of educational psychology guidance and early care have a great impact on the concern and stress with which families experience the moment of transition to nursery school. Therefore, as the results of this study also show, these barriers to inclusion and collaboration are having a negative impact on the quality of life of families, personally, socially, economically and relationally (Zuna et al., 2009). In educational centres, differences in the culture of collaboration between professionals and families are closely associated with existing leadership models (Stosich, 2021) and give rise to different structures or working models in the centres (policies and practices that make these attitudes towards family and interprofessional collaboration effective or not). In any case, families are increasingly aware of this and are very critical of professional collaboration and the demands they make on centres and different services to promote it (Zablotsky et al., 2012). Delving further into the existing barriers to interprofessional collaboration, in Spain, more specifically in Madrid where this research was carried out, the Educational Guidance and Psychopedagogical Guidance Teams are external to the centres in public education. This makes interprofessional collaboration indispensable and, therefore, the existence of a collaborative family-school-community relationship is also fundamental if the inclusion of the most vulnerable students is to be guaranteed (Simón et al., 2021). But, as we have seen, the reality of what happens is that there

152 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

is very little legislation in this regard (and even less control over what is ordered). As a result, what is or can be done to establish strong collaborative relationships with the family and other professionals is, once again, left to the luck of encountering professionals, in the different public services through which families pass, who voluntarily want to try to facilitate this process (Majoko, 2016). In summary, the situations described above seem to point to the fact that we have an education system that does not ensure that in the early years pupils with ASD and their families are guaranteed to have the psycho-­ pedagogical support and counselling they need for their right to an inclusive education to be effective. As a result, we can ask ourselves what light this study sheds on the steps to take as professionals. We believe that the analysis of the families’ testimonies in this study demonstrates the need to change the way in which we as professionals relate to and engage with the problems of these families (Stosich, 2021) and urges a change in professional cultures. In this line, we also talk about the consideration of practices that, following Rodrigo et al. (2021), characterise an interprofessional space from the approach of positive parenting: family-centred, guided by a gender perspective, based on supportive relationships that strengthen the family context, carried out in collaboration with other professionals and always based on evidence. From this approach we can also speak of professional competences on at least three levels (organisational culture, the process of working with families and the implementation of evidence-based practices) and that would define a good professional as one who, among other characteristics: (1) places the rights of children and families at the centre of the service, favouring coordination and work in professional networks; (2) is able to establish communication with families that enhances the recognition of their strengths and promotes realistic and consensual action; and (3) is able to use an appropriate and quality methodology in the design, implementation and evaluation of projects and programmes (Rodrigo et al., 2021). Laying the foundations for this change and turning the ordinary school into an educational community with an inclusive culture is necessarily a collaborative task with families and professionals inside and outside the school. In this regard, we can always take as a reference the model of Booth et al. (2002), in which the educational community becomes a participatory action research agent that seeks to involve the different professionals and families in a process of reflection on existing barriers and how to undertake actions and practices that reduce them.

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

153

Perhaps the first aspect we should reflect on is something that has been pointed out in this study, but also by authors such as Stosich (2021), and that is the conditions surrounding the daily practice of these professionals and how they feel about it. Do they feel committed to the idea of dedicating their time to creating spaces for internal and external coordination with other community agents and families to think about improvements for students? Or do they feel so overwhelmed by the scarcity of time and the overload of functions that there is hardly anything left for the effort involved in a process of change such as the one we are facing? Research in Spain tells us that it is rather the latter (Calderón-Almendros et al., 2022; Simón et al., 2021). To be able to think about how to improve the inclusion of students with SEN, we must first think about creating conditions that allow the different professionals to have time and space for that much-needed collaboration in whose interaction the processes of change are negotiated, planned and sustained. This is not only for the well-being of families and students, but also for the professionals themselves (de Boer et al., 2010). Without losing sight of the limitations of this work, what is certain is that, nevertheless, it allows us to know and assess important aspects of the situation of pupils with ASD in ordinary Early Childhood Education centres and the role played by families and professionals in this process. The development of this type of research is a subject of great social transcendence, as analysing the inclusion of pupils considered to have SEN (in our case pupils with ASD) reveals the weaknesses and barriers of educational systems. Inclusion creates problematic situations in the centres, not because of the characteristics of these students, but because of the weakness of the cultures, policies and practices of many centres strongly rooted in the traditional exclusionary school that we have in most countries (Sapon-Shevin, 1996). In this way, the analysis of the experiences that we have shared reveals the existing barriers to their inclusion not only in Spain, but certainly in many other places, barriers that may entail a violation of their rights. But also, we have detected important supports that are proving to be key in the process, showing us where we need to improve here and all over the world (de Boer et al., 2010). Acknowledgments  Financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) (PID2021-124951OB-I00).

154 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

References Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge. Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Council for Exceptional Children, 70, 167–184. Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2002). Index for inclusion. Developing Learning and Participation in Schools, 2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Byrne, A. (2013). What factors influence the decisions of parents of children with special educational needs when choosing a secondary educational provision for their child at change of phase from primary to secondary education? A review of the literature. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(2), 129–141. Calderón-Almendros, I., Moreno-Parra, J.  J., & Vila-Merino, E.  S. (2022). Education, power, and segregation. The psychoeducational report as an obstacle to inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2108512 Daniels, H., Thompson, I., & Tawell, A. (2019). Practices of exclusion in cultures of inclusive schooling in the United Kingdom. Publicaciones, 49(3), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v49i3.11402 de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856251.0036.58694 Echeita, G. (2022). Progress, challenges, and barriers to the development of more inclusive education. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 10(1), 219–229. http://riberdis.cedid.es/bitstream/handle/11181/6567/Progress_challenges%20and%20barriers.pdf?sequence=1 Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press. Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2008). Family-centered practice: Collaboration, competency and evidence. Support for Learning, 23, 136–143. Falkmer, M., Anderson, K., Joosten, A., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Parents’ perspectives on inclusive schools for children with autism spectrum conditions. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(1), 1–23. Friedman, C. (2019). Family members of people with disabilities’ explicit and implicit disability attitudes. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 203. González de Rivera, T., Fernández, M.  L., Simón, C., & Echeita, G. (2022). Educación inclusiva en el alumnado con TEA: Una revisión sistemática de la investigación [Inclusive education of students with ASD: A systematic review of

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

155

the research]. Siglo Cero: Revista Española sobre Discapacidad, 53(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.14201/scero2022531115135 González de Rivera, T., & Pantoja, M. (2021). Análisis del proceso de educación inclusiva del alumnado con TEA desde educación infantil hasta la universidad: Historias de Vida (EDITEA) [Analysis of the inclusive education process of students with ASD from early childhood education to university: Life stories]. RISEI Academica Journal, 1(2), 4–19. Hetherington, S. A., Durant-Jones, L., Johnson, K., Nolan, K., Smith, E., Taylor-­ Brown, S., & Tuttle, J. (2010). The lived experiences of adolescents with disabilities and their parents in transition planning. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883 57610373760 Jindal-Snape, D., Douglas, W., Topping, K. J., Kerr, C., & Smith, E. F. (2005). Effective education for children with autistic spectrum disorder: Perceptions of parents and professionals. International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 77–87. Keen, D., Couzens, D., Muspratt, S., & Rodger, S. (2010). The effects of a parent-­ focused intervention for children with a recent diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder on parenting stress and competence. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(2), 229–241. Lai, Y.  C., & Gill, J. (2014). Multiple perspectives on integrated education for children with disabilities in the context of early childhood centres in Hong Kong. Educational Review, 66(3), 345–361. Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(3), 271–285. Majoko, T. (2016). Inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorders: Listening and hearing to voices from the grassroots. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(4), 1429–1440. McWilliam, R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention. Brookes Publishing. Mitchell, D. (2017). Diversities in education: Effective ways to reach all learners. Routledge. Most, T., & Ingber, S. (2016). Effects of exposure to inclusion and socioeconomic status on parental attitudes towards the inclusion of deaf and hard of hearing children. Deafness & Education International, 18(3), 124–133. Muñoz-Abarca, F., Figueroa-Céspedes, I., & Yáñez-Urbina, C. (2020). Escenarios de la Experiencia Escolar: una exploración desde la voz de estudiantes etiquetados con Discapacidad Intelectual [School Experience Scenarios: An exploration from the voice of students labeled with Intellectual Disability]. Polyphōnía Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 4(1), 72–95. Olsen, K., Croydon, A., Olson, M., Jacobsen, J.  H., & Pellicano, E. (2019). Mapping inclusion of a child with autism in a mainstream kindergarten: How

156 

M. P. GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

can we move towards more inclusive practices? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 624–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311 6.2018.1441914 Olsson, I., & Nilholm, C. (2022). Inclusion of pupils with autism—A research overview. European Journal of Special Needs Education. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/08856257.2022.2037823 Rodrigo, M.  J., Arranza, E., Balsells M.  A., Hidalgo, M.  V., Máiquez, M.  L., Martín, J. C., Martínez, R. A., Ochaita, E., & Manzano, A. (2021). Guía de competencias interprofesionales en parentalidad positiva. Un recurso para enriquecer y consolidar buenas prácticas en la atención a la infancia, la adolescencia y familias [Guide to interprofessional skills in positive parenting. A resource to enrich and consolidate good practices in the care of children, adolescents and families]. FEMP. Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030. Ruble, L. A., McGrew, J., Dalrymple, N., & Jung, L. A. (2010). Examining the quality of IEPs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(12), 1459–1470. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Full inclusion as disclosing tablet: Revealing the flaws in our present system. Theory Into Practice, 35(1), 35–41. Simón, C., & Barrios, A. (2019). Families at the heart of inclusive education. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 51–58. Simón, C., & Giné, C. (2016). Escuela, familia y comunidad: Construyendo alianzas Para promover la inclusión [School, families and community: Building alliances in order to promote inclusion]. Revista latinoamericana de educación inclusive, 10(1), 25–42. Simón, C., Palomo, R., & Echeita, G. (2021). The duty to promote an inclusive educational system: A phenomenological study on the assessment procedures of pupils with special educational needs in Madrid (Spain). International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311 6.2021.1968513 Stake, R. (2007). Investigación con estudio de casos [Case study research]. Morata. Starr, E. M., & Foy, J. B. (2012). In parents’ voices: The education of children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 207–216. Stosich, E. L. (2021). “Are we an advisory board or a decision-making entity?”: Teachers’ involvement in decision making in instructional leadership teams. Leadership and Policy in Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/1570076 3.2021.1995879 Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1987). Introducción. Ir hacia la gente [Introduction]. In S. J. Taylor & R. Bodgan (Eds.), Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación [Introduction to qualitative research methods] (pp. 15–27). Tennant, G. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: an agenda for research. Support for Learning, 22(4), 204–208.

9  THE SCHOOLING PROCESSES OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM… 

157

Todd, T. A., Beamer, J., & Goodreau, J. (2014). Bridging the gap: Teacher-parent partnerships for students with autism spectrum disorder. LEARNing Landscapes, 8(1), 287–304. Tucker, V., & Schwartz, I. (2013). Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school professionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health, 5(1), 3–14. Turnbull, A. T., Turnbull, H. R., & Kyzar, K. (2008). Family-professional partnerships as catalysts for successful inclusion: A United States of America perspective. Revista de Educación, 349, 69–99. UN. CRPD (2016). General comment N°4 (2016). Article 24: Right to inclusive education. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www. ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx UNESCO. (2020). 2020 global education monitoring report. Inclusion and education: All means all. https://gem-­report-­2020.unesco.org/ UNESCO (and other organisations). (2016). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. https://iite.unesco.org/publications/ education-­2030-­incheon-­declaration-­framework-­action-­towards-­inclusive-­ equitable-­quality-­education-­lifelong-­learning/ Vigo-Arrazola, M. B., Dieste, B., & Blasco-Serrano, A. C. (2022). Education recommendations for inclusive education from the National Arena in Spain. Less poetry and more facts. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 20(2), 275–314. Zablotsky, B., Boswell, K., & Smith, C. (2012). An evaluation of school involvement and satisfaction of parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(4), 316–330. Zuna, N. I., Turnbull, A., & Summers, J. A. (2009). Family quality of life: Moving from measurement to application. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6(1), 25–31.

CHAPTER 10

Interprofessional Collaboration in the Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care Context Tove Ingebrigtsen and Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen

Introduction In the Norwegian context, inclusive education, which means equal access, participation and meeting diverse individual learning needs in mainstream settings (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010), appears to be the goal of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC; UNESCO, 1990). As a result, ECEC has undergone a process of continuous change and development. To guarantee inclusive educational facilities, especially for children with special educational needs (SEN), considerable reforms have been carried out. One of these reforms has been to discontinue segregated preschools (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016). As a result, over the past two decades, inclusive educational settings have been well established in Norway, and

T. Ingebrigtsen (*) • N. B. Hanssen Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_10

159

160 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

children with SEN have attended ordinary ECEC (Ministry of Education and Research [MER], 2017). However, ordinary ECEC faces several challenges. The lack of qualified professionals is one of the greatest challenges; that is, ECEC teachers do not seem to have the adequate competence to give children appropriate SEN assistance (Hanssen & Olsen, 2022; Hanssen, 2018). This is particularly the case for children with long-­term and complex medical needs, as well as other children with SEN. The growing discussion regarding ensuring adequate competence for all children has made the interprofessional approach an important theme, not only in Norway, but globally (Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Melby et al., 2021). According to Bridges et al. (2011), an interprofessional approach allows for the sharing of expertise and perspectives that can form a common goal of restoring or maintaining children’s health, as well as improving children’s learning and social outcomes through, for example, counselling and guidance to staff, parents and children (Hanssen & Hansén, 2017). In ECEC, an interprofessional approach is usually secured through interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between professionals with diverse professional backgrounds (see Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Fukkink & Lalihatu, 2020; Fukkink & Verseveld, 2020; Nordahl et al., 2018). A number of researchers have claimed that successful IPC requires a team with strong collaborating individual professional experts who have complementary competencies (Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Fukkink & Verseveld, 2020; Hanssen, 2018). However, numerous studies have demonstrated that, on the practice level, the IPC and interprofessional approach in ECEC is often unsatisfactory and inadequate—in the sense of it being rare—while also apparently weakening the continuity and quality of inclusive ECEC (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016; Hanssen, 2018; MER, 2019). The reason for this can be linked to the lack of strong collaboration between different professionals. For example, Almqvist and Lassinantti (2018) point out that IPC may be built on various sources of funding, which can be an obstacle for strong collaboration because different professional experts act in ways that protect their own organisations, thus developing conflicting interests in the system. Moreover, the various services are organised differently and guided by different legal frameworks. As such, contact between services is minimal, and the various services may even be unfamiliar with each other’s work and methods (Leirvik, 2020; MER, 2021). Additionally, several researchers have indicated that IPC has predominantly focused on health care and specialised care settings; therefore, IPC

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

161

in ECEC settings are still new (Fukkink & Lalihatu, 2020; Morrison & Glenny, 2012). A weak system of IPC can also be explained by the lack of attention on the policy and legislation levels regarding central guidance and the coordination of services (The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 2018; Nordahl et al., 2018). Surprisingly, neither the Kindergarten Act (KA) nor Framework Plan has been able to provide a guide for IPC for how to draft the interprofessional approach, which has led to them being criticised for not being more detailed and specific about the content and design of IPC (KA, 2006; MER, 2017). Indeed, there is a reported lack of concrete measures and follow-ups on the progression of ECEC work with respect to quality and availability (The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 2018; Nordahl et al., 2018). At the same time, in Norway, there is a reported need for increased commitment to stimulate and improve IPC, especially for children with SEN, which can strengthen the quality of inclusive ECEC (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018; MER, 2019; Nordahl et  al., 2018; Skog Hansen et al., 2020). It is obvious that there is a need to understand the nature of IPC in Norway and achieve a more in-depth understanding of how IPC in ECEC should be facilitated and developed. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to give an overview of IPC in ECEC at the legal and legislative levels. More specifically, we have formulated the following question: How is IPC defined and described in Norwegian legal and legislative documents, and what guidelines are laid down for this collaboration?

The Norwegian Context To understand the conditions of the Norwegian context regarding IPC, a short exploration of the ECE system, its basic values and its legislative framework is scrutinised and briefly presented. In Norway, 91.7% of all children are enrolled in ECEC (MER, 2019). The Norwegian government acknowledges ECEC as the first step in a lifelong learning process (KA, 2006). The KA (2006) is the societal mandate through which all ECEC is established and regulated; it promotes equality, appreciation, solidarity and the safeguarding of the child as a subject, along with legislating children’s right to democratic participation (KA §§1, 2 and 3). Norway also has the Framework Plan for the Content

162 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

and Tasks of ECEC, which provides a binding framework for planning, implementing and assessing activities (Hanssen, 2018; Hanssen & Olsen, 2022; MER, 2017). The Framework Plan considers the development of children as a holistic, dynamic and closely knit interaction between children’s mental and physical states and the environmental circumstances in which they grow up, thus focusing on children’s democratic participation and free play (Hanssen & Olsen, 2022; MER, 2017). As mentioned earlier, inclusive educational settings are already well established in Norway, and children with medical and SEN attend ordinary ECEC (MER, 2017, p. 40). The workforce in Norwegian ECEC consists of a manager (head teacher), pedagogical leader and assistants. The manager and the pedagogical leader should possess professional ECEC teacher qualifications (KA, 2006 §§ 17 and 18) and should have a three-year university or university college programme with a bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Teacher Education ECTE (MER, 2017). The assistants are not required to have formal competence in ECEC, but many of them have a three-year upper secondary education. However, ECEC staff with or without formal education carry, in practice, out ordinary education and SEN assistance. The Norwegian Framework Plan has a clear focus on adopting general ECEC pedagogical practices to suit various children’s needs (MER, 2017). However, under Norwegian law, children who, as determined by expert assessment, need specifically adapted support or an interprofessional approach can get additional resources for the provision of such support (KA, 2006, chapter 7, §§ 31–40). According to Statistics Norway, 23% of all children in Norwegian ECEC requires SEN assistance (Statistics Norway, 2021). The law is very clear that all kinds of support must be drawn up in collaboration with the child and the child’s parents, and considerable emphasis must be placed on their viewpoints (KA, 2006, chapter 7, § 32). Still, to implement and maintain inclusive settings as intended, significant efforts have been made to build and implement IPC as ‘the team around the child’ (MER, 2019, p. 78). For example, ‘the team’ incorporates children themselves and parents with their needs and requests, focusing on parent involvement and empowerment. ECEC, schools and educational psychology services are always involved and ideally include, among other things, medical, health, psychological and special needs education competencies, as well as the child welfare service and policy, as shown in Fig. 10.1.

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

163

Fig. 10.1  The team around the child (MER, 2019, p. 79)

The Norwegian government believes that the competence of professionals with a high degree of interdisciplinarity should be as close to children as possible to improve the quality of ECEC and ensure inclusion (MER, 2019; Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2022). However, as previously mentioned, the current IPC system is inadequate, and in most cases, help comes too late (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018; Hanssen, 2018). A major reason for this inadequate IPC is a weak system for central guidance and coordination, here combined with unclear and overlapping divisions of responsibilities and tasks. As such, children and families experience being sent back and forth in the system (0–24-­programme, n.d.; Anvik & Waldahl, 2018; MER, 2019; The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 2018).

Theoretical Framework To better understand IPC, the conceptual framework should be clarified. Internationally, there are several definitions of IPC, but most of these focus on healthcare. For example, Bridges et al. (2011, p. 2) define IPC as a partnership or collaborative practice between a team of health providers and client in a participatory collaborative and coordinated approach to

164 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

shared decision making around health and social issues. IPC is also defined as a process that includes communication and decision making, empowering grouped knowledge and skills (Kasperski, 2000) and helping bridge diverse elements into a harmonious relationship in support of a common objective; for example, in the case of health care, this could include the quality of patient care (Ivanova & Sydnes, 2010, p. 142). In addition, IPC has been defined as a joint activity by two or more agencies that is intended to increase public value by working together rather than separately (Kapucu et  al., 2010, pp.  453–454). IPC concerns numerous aspects, such as responsibility, accountability, coordination, communication, collaboration, assertiveness, autonomy, mutual trust and respect (Bridges et  al., 2011; Morrison, 2007). As stated by Bridges et  al. (2011), the complex mutual relationships among the aforementioned aspects create IPC—a blending of professional cultures sharing skills and knowledge designed to work towards common goals to improve the quality of an individual’s care. IPC may also be explained as the act of coordinating—a ‘looser’ form of collaboration where shared knowledge and skills are seen as being less important. However, the act of coordinating requires shared accountability between individuals, some interdependence between individuals and clarity regarding roles and goals (Reeves et al., 2018). In the Norwegian ECEC context, interprofessional means that several disciplines and professions are represented together (IPC), giving a more nuanced insight into how to assist, for example, children with SEN and their families in the best possible way (Lauvås & Lauvås, 2004). However, there are a variety of concepts describing the IPC used in Norway. For example, the terms interaction, collaboration and coordination are often used interchangeably. However, these concepts have various definitions and are applied in different ways in ECEC (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018). Collaboration can be defined as any joint activity by two or more agencies intended to increase public value by working together rather than separately (Kapucu et al., 2010, pp. 453–454). Based on this definition, interaction is defined as a political term and refers to those actions that are implemented or tested as part of, for example, statutory collaboration agreements (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018). Collaboration consists primarily of clarifying responsibility (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018). The act of coordinating can be said to target tasks or matters more than the actors, focusing on the process of bridging various elements into a harmonious relationship in support of a common objective (Ivanova & Sydnes, 2010, p. 142). It also means making things work

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

165

together (Breimo et al., 2015) or correcting their actions in relation to the actions of others to realise common goals (Martin et  al., 2016). Collaboration or partnership refers to something relational—working or acting together—while coordination means bringing something together, preferably to a larger entity (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018). Coordination, in turn, points to an end product; the fact that something has been coordinated refers to the collaboration, interaction and coordination of ongoing processes (Ivanova & Sydnes, 2010). The assumptions that must form the basis for the IPC to provide new insights for the benefit of children and families should include security in one’s professional knowledge, mutual trust between the services, that representatives of the various professions have knowledge and understanding of each other’s expertise and the values and management of the professions (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Lone & Værnor, 2019; Moe, 2021). Lauvås and Lauvås (2004) suggest that IPC also requires clarification of the expectations for the various professions that will be part of IPC. The various professions’ contributions to IPC and any obstacles should be reviewed before collaboration starts so that the individual’s competence can also be developed in a community across subjects and professions. According to several researchers, successful IPC requires clear leadership at various levels (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Lone & Værnor, 2019). Managers must be able to adapt their management to use different management strategies as a way to promote and facilitate a well-functioning IPC. For a manager, this will involve focus on tasks, on relationships and on changes (Lone & Værnor, 2019). Management also involves the work of establishing a collective understanding, ethical guidelines and common vision for the collaborative project in question, as well as creating structures, frameworks and guidelines for collaboration. This involves collaboration between professional practitioners who recognise each other as equals and who can accept the same overriding values and basic conditions of collaboration (Rawls, 1987). For IPC to lead to a more holistic service offering to children and families, a collaborative culture is central (Lone & Værnor, 2019). In an interprofessional collaborative culture, it is essential that the various services have a common understanding of the child and of the needs of the family (Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Lone & Værnor, 2019; Moe, 2021). This common understanding of the child’s and family’s needs lays the foundation for looking at what the individual discipline or profession can contribute to the collaboration. A good collaborative culture is also characterised as

166 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

having a common understanding of the professional language of different services. For example, the specific interpretation of the concept of a child with SEN frames IPC in ECEC. For ECEC staff, work with children with SEN may often be more related to practical and nurturing rather than to educational experiences. As such, the ECEC staff’s role can frequently be seen to lean on maternal instincts, giving children protection and personal experience (Hanssen, 2018; Salamon et  al., 2016). Such interpretation potentially constrains the importance of formal professional competence and possibilities of the role of ECEC staff as qualified and knowledgeable agents in the IPC (Hanssen, 2018). For other professionals, the concept of children with SEN can be associated with a narrower medical approach, in which the children are often seen from the impairment focus and a perspective of training and treatment (Hanssen, 2018; Wong & Press, 2017). This statement can lead to an interpretation that other professionals can appear as experts and this factor can place the ECEC staff in a lower position which can hinder equal collaboration. Another significant factor that contributes to the promotion and possible inhibition of IPC is equality between subjects or professions (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Moe, 2021; Omdal & Barsøe, 2021). Equality also means acknowledging inequality and seeing the value of illuminating different perspectives. Focusing on one’s own subject or profession, the requirements for collaboration and access to resources can be an obstacle to looking at partners as equals. If one part has a greater gain or benefit from collaboration, this may also lead to a lack of motivation for collaboration (Glavin & Erdal, 2018). When the goal of good IPC is a better adapted service for children and families, user involvement becomes central. The child and parents must be heard and taken into account in the collaboration (Glavin & Erdal, 2018). In the IPC around children and family, parents should be heard and treated as equals, as well as be included in the IPC as a natural partner (Glavin & Erdal, 2018). In sum, there are a variety of complex definitions of IPC in ECEC. Still, the use of these concepts when it comes to giving children and families a high-quality IPC in ECEC indicates the same interest: reducing fragmentation in the service sector and creating better cohesion in the services of the individual service recipient (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018; Glavin & Erdal, 2018).

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

167

Striving to avoid ambiguity and confusion over the terminology and find lenses that make it possible to investigate IPC, in the current chapter, we have chosen to use the term IPC. This definition is used as an umbrella term to encompass the numerosity of definitions and is based on the ideologies of positioning various professionals as equals in collaboration aiming at providing support to early age children and their families.

Methods In line with the aim of the current paper, the empirical basis is a document analysis. The main criteria for selecting the documents were as follows: the documents should demonstrate how the legislation treats the concept of IPC, especially for children with SEN. Another criterion was representativeness regarding the actual use of the documents in ECEC. This means that the chosen documents are used federally, apply everywhere and have the most influence. Following these criteria, three main legal and legislative documents were chosen: –– Kindergarten Act 2006 (KA, 2006) –– Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of ECEC (MER, 2017) –– Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) Early intervention and inclusive education in kindergartens, schools and out-of-school-hours care (MER, 2019) In the current study, the data consisted of texts that were analysed with the help of thematic analysis using an inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The authors became familiar with the texts, made a list of preliminary codes and met to develop an agreement on the final themes. The process was as follows: the authors examined the preliminary codes and organised all these codes into subthemes; the subthemes were then reviewed and modified; and the main themes were developed. The main themes were how the IPC is defined and what guidelines are laid down for this collaboration.

Results The findings are organised according to the two identified main themes and described through excerpts from the documents.

168 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

How Is Interprofessional Collaboration Defined? The KA (2006) does not use the term interdisciplinary or interprofessional collaboration, nor is the concept of collaboration used in ECEC found within other institutions. In section 33, which focuses on educational psychological service, it is stated that the educational psychological service should collaborate with the ECEC. The documents note that educational psychological service will assist ECEC in the work of, among other things, facilitating the provision for children with SEN: The pedagogical-psychological service must assist (Norwegian: bistå) the kindergarten in the work on competence and organisational development so as to tailor the kindergarten programme offered to children with special needs. (KA, 2006, section 19c)

In the Framework Plan (MER, 2017), the term interprofessional collaboration is also not used. Collaboration between ECEC and other agencies is nevertheless mentioned. Part of the head teacher’s responsibility is to ensure good routines for collaboration between relevant institutions: The head teacher shall ensure that the kindergarten adopts procedures for co-operating with relevant institutions such as schools, health centres, the educational psychology service and the child protection service. (MER, 2017, p. 16)

IPC is highlighted in other key documents, such as Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) Early intervention and inclusive education in kindergartens, schools and out-of-school-hours care (MER, 2019). According to Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020), one of the goals of IPC is the care and inclusion of all children. Here, IPC is described as collaboration between different services and between different occupational groups internally in an individual ECEC institution. Good IPC requires that different academic communities see the offer to children in context, that a holistic and coordinated offer is provided, that the competence is close to the child and that parents should not have to take responsibility for coordinating the offer; this is described as ‘the team around the child’ (MER, 2019, p. 78). Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) (MER, 2019) emphasises that the management of each municipality will play a central role in creating a culture of collaboration and a shared commitment to children’s development. The

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

169

municipality is responsible for many welfare services that are important in children’s upbringing, including ECECs, schools, school-free time schemes, educational psychological services and health centres. These institutions should form ‘the team around the child’ (MER, 2019, p. 78). Structured and targeted work to strengthen IPC is highlighted among other things colocation of services (p. 81), collaboration between healthcare and ECEC (p. 82) and proposals of local organisation of IPC (p. 84). In this context, early efforts to prevent and identify children with challenges are also highlighted as areas of collaboration for various agencies (MER, 2019, p. 83). What Guidelines Are Set for Interprofessional Collaboration? The KA (2006) provides some guidelines for collaboration between ECECs and several agencies, schools, child welfare services and other municipal services. Both the KA and the Education Act require ECECs and schools to collaborate on the transition between ECEC and school (Education Act, section 13–5; KA, 2006, section 2a). This collaboration will ensure a good and secure transition for the child. In accordance with the Education Act, the school owner is given the overall responsibility for the collaboration between different professionals, as well as for developing plans for the transition between ECEC and school. Pursuant to Section 46 of KA, ECEC employees have a duty to notify child welfare services if there is reason to believe that the child is being subjected to abuse or neglect or if the child is deemed to be in need of help and is not receiving treatment or training. Child welfare services are obliged to cooperate with other public institutions, including ECECs, where it is necessary to provide the child with a comprehensive and coordinated offer (§3–2). Those children in need of coordinated measures and services over time are entitled to an individual plan that highlights and clarifies the responsibilities and collaboration between different institutions. Sections 31 and 32 of the KA describe children’s right to special educational assistance, which also highlights the child’s parents as a part of the collaboration:

170 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

The offer of special educational assistance shall as far as possible be designed in collaboration with the child and the child’s parents, and great emphasis shall be placed on their views. (KA, 2006, section 32)

Here, there is a need for collaboration between different subjects and institutions to provide the necessary assistance to children and parents. The Framework Plan also points to the necessity of collaboration with other institutions, such as schools, health centres, educational and psychological services and child welfare services. Collaboration between ECEC and primary school is especially mentioned. This collaboration is, as in the KA (2006), described as the exchange of knowledge and information between ECEC and school to ensure a safe transition for the child. In addition, the Framework Plan provides no guidelines for other forms of collaboration. Both the KA and the Framework Plan provide guidelines for collaboration with the children’s guardians. Section 1 of KA (2006) describes this collaboration as follows: The kindergarten must, in collaboration and close understanding with the home, safeguard the children’s need for care and play, and promote learning and formation as a basis for an all-round development. (KA, 2006, section 1)

Similar formulations can be found in the Framework Plan: Kindergartens shall work in partnership and agreement with the home to meet the children’s need for care and play, and they shall promote learning and formative development as a basis for all-round development. (MER, 2017, p. 7)

In the section on facilitating the general pedagogical provision for children who need additional support, the Framework Plan (MER, 2017) provides no guidelines specifically for IPC. Here, it is mentioned that it is the ECEC’s duty to inform the child’s parents of the right to require an expert assessment of whether the child needs SEN assistance. Collaboration between those responsible for an adapted general education programme and special needs teachers or other specialist services is not mentioned but can be implicitly interpreted as a necessity:

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

171

Kindergartens shall ensure that children receiving special needs support are included in the group and in mainstream activities. (MER, 2017, p. 40)

Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) Early intervention and inclusive education in kindergartens, schools and out-of-school-hours care (MER, 2019) gives strong recommendations that ECECs should collaborate with others and that the necessary competence should be available to children and families: Good interprofessional collaboration is an important precondition for creating an environment where everyone is included and experiences community and coping, and this may prevent problems from developing or that they become larger than necessary. (MER, 2019, p. 79)

Actions may be implemented within the ordinary educational offering, or special actions may be required; here, a goal is for the necessary competence to be strengthened through IPC, which is described as ‘the team around the child’. The goal is also for special educational competence to be strengthened, and there is an expectation that various agencies will be working purposefully to create a common culture of collaboration across the services to provide children and families with a holistic offering.

Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of the current study has been to give an overview of IPC in ECEC both on a legal and legislative level and to answer the following question: How is IPC defined and described in Norwegian legal and legislative documents, and what guidelines are laid down for this collaboration? Regarding the first part of the research question, the results show that no act or White Paper document provides a clear definition of IPC, instead denoting this as ‘the team around the child’ and that the team is explained as a collaboration between ECEC and various services, such as school, educational psychological services and child welfare. It is reasonable to assume that a lack of concrete definitions, on the one hand, may mean that different institutions with different professional backgrounds and cultures will create their own understandings of what such collaboration should be. When IPC is defined in different ways in the academic literature, this can also provide a basis for different institutions to defend their own definition and understandings of IPC acting in ways

172 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

that protect their own organisation (Almqvist & Lassinantti, 2018; Bridges et al., 2011; Kapucu et al., 2010; Morrison, 2007). This, in turn, can contribute to the development of conflicting interests in the system instead of strong collaboration regarding the care of children and their families (Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Hanssen, 2018; Lone & Værnor, 2019). This being said, however, when IPC is defined as a process and joint activity that includes communication and decision making, it is reasonable to assume that loose definitions and descriptions of IPC (Kasperski, 2000) may be appropriate. The loose definitions and descriptions of IPC may give each professional autonomous room for individual choice concerning sharing grouped knowledge and skills, as well as decision making and the clarification of roles and goals, so that different institutions can together regulate and manage the individual’s contribution to the collaboration (Reeves et al., 2018). However, this aforementioned autonomous room can also be considered isolating in terms of a lack of a common understanding of what IPC is and how it should be implemented (Hanssen, 2018; Reeves et  al., 2018). From another angle, the normative, clear and specified descriptions and definitions of IPC in legal and legislative documents can be interpreted as being too influential, thus lacking flexibility and the room for mutual trust, respect and individual choice. This is underscored in the homogeneous and uniform ways professionals conceptualise, implement and unfold IPC in practice. Previous studies have also reported that such uniform ways of governance may reduce professional autonomy, thus generating conformism and a mechanical and reproductive IPC (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016; Hanssen, 2018). Regarding the second part of the research question—what guidelines are laid down for the IPC in ECEC—our findings indicate that, to some extent, certain guidelines are laid down for collaboration, for example, among ECEC, school and child welfare. However, these guidelines are given on a general basis, without even mentioning the term IPC or giving directives for how the institutions should collaborate. The repercussion may be fragmented, personally orientated and ambiguous ways of collaboration, thus giving rise to the instability and diffuseness of the implementation of IPC in practice. It could also challenge the quality of help professionals can give, thereby threatening rather than supporting access to adequate competence for all children in ECEC (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Hanssen, 2018). Furthermore, the unclear guidelines for IPC may contribute to the professionals forming their own interpretation of how to

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

173

collaborate, thus maintaining certain practices without any possibility of redefining them to increase the quality of support for all children (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018; Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Hanssen, 2018). Our results have revealed the latent effects of Norwegian legal and legislative documents. These have relevance for IPC in Norway, perhaps steering and controlling differently than intended. As mentioned before, the risks might be present in dispersed and unclear guidelines, resulting in unsystematic IPC without a common understanding of what it is and how it should be. Therefore, it is necessary to have a high level of reflexivity and sensitivity over the key aspects constituting the high quality of IPC. IPC must have clear leadership (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Lone & Værnor, 2019), the partners must agree on a collaborative culture (Lone & Værnor, 2019) and there must be equality between professions (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Moe, 2021; Omdal & Barsøe, 2021). IPC is described as the act of coordinating (Reeves et al., 2018). This act of coordinating can also be understood as clear leadership. Clear leadership involves ensuring that the professional staff can use their expertise, establishing a common understanding, ethical guidelines and creating structures, frameworks and guidelines for collaboration (Lone & Værnor, 2019). Coordination of the ‘team around the child’ should ensure that all professionals can provide support to children and families, here aiming to implement common goals; if not, there is a risk that the family will be sent from one support service to another and that it is the family itself that must coordinate the overall support (MER, 2019). Clear leadership is also central in creating a good collaborative culture among the different professions. A good collaborative culture is characterised by a common understanding of the child’s needs and of the professional language of the different services (Cameron & Tveit, 2013; Lone & Værnor, 2019; Moe, 2021). As mentioned, a good interprofessional culture for collaboration also requires a common understanding of what such collaboration entails, which is not clearly stated in legal and legislative documents. This lack of understanding can also lead to various services entering collaboration without clarifying common professional language, which, in turn, can present challenges in the provision to children and families (Hanssen, 2018; Wong & Press, 2017). A well-functioning IPC based on appropriate guidelines will not only provide better support to children and families, but also provide new knowledge and experience to the individual professional practitioner (Lone & Værnor, 2019).

174 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

A lack of—or even vague—common culture for collaboration means that the responsibility for collaboration is largely imposed on the individual or county municipality (MER, 2019). The responsibility for coordinated and multifaceted support, ‘the team around the child’, can be destroyed; this can have unfortunate consequences, such as large variations in the support to children and family, here depending on the family’s place of residence. This could also have unfortunate consequences for various agencies. When a common understanding of what IPC entails is lacking, the danger is that different professionals will have different entrances to the collaboration and that these may also have different statuses in the collaboration. Equality between professionals has been highlighted as an important factor in promoting or possibly inhibiting IPC (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Moe, 2021; Omdal & Barsøe, 2021). Equality means that those who cooperate can see the value of what each professional can contribute to the collaboration. If the professionals do not see each other as equals, the risk is that important competence is not used and that various perspectives are not elucidated, which may ultimately affect the children and families. To a large extent, a well-functioning coordinated IPC with clear leadership will also be able to ensure that children and parents are heard and seen as equal partners. Here, codetermination is essential in the IPC; families must participate in interventions and processes (Glavin & Erdal, 2018). Thus, the key message from the current study is that there is a controversy regarding definition of IPC in ECEC. On the one hand, both the legal and legislative documents claim that the IPC determines whether children with long-term and complex medical needs and SEN can achieve strong academic and social outcomes. On the other hand, the guidelines for IPC in ECEC in the legal and legislative documents are weak, being combined with unclear and overlapping divisions of responsibilities and tasks. What is clear is that definition of IPC in ECEC seems to be vague, inadequate and disorganised. As mentioned earlier, a consequence may be that children and families have the experience of being ‘pinballs’ in the Norwegian ECEC system (Anvik & Waldahl, 2018; MER, 2019; Nordahl et al., 2018; Skog Hansen et al., 2020; The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 2018). That being said, we provide several suggestions for consideration. First, we recommend that the terms describing and defining IPC in ECEC should be clarified and explained more clearly and made more apparently related to each other, both in the legal and legislative documents.

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

175

We would like to point out that drawing up a common national strategy plan and common guidelines regarding IPC in ECEC can be an effective move the authorities could use to steer development in the education sector towards a more inclusive ECEC for children with SEN. Second, to enhance the quality of IPC, an increased emphasis should be placed on preparing various professionals who form ‘the team around the child’, ensuring that they are qualified to provide a supportive educational partnership with children with SEN. Finally, more research is needed to contribute to IPC in ECEC. Future research should seek to understand the conceptualism of IPC in ECEC, as well as what challenges, problems and obstacles exist and when and in what situations they arise. It is necessary to develop knowledge about how IPC can be put in place to improve the situation of children and families while contributing to increased knowledge for all involved.

References 0-24-programme. (n.d.). Samarbeid til barn og unges beste [Collaboration for the best interests of children and youth]. https://0-­24-­samarbeidet.no/wp-­ content/uploads/2019/01/Sluttrapport-­regelverksamarbeid-­sept-­18.pdf Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. Almqvist, A., & Lassinantti, K. (2018). Social work practices for young people with complex needs: An integrative review. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-­017-­0522-­4 Anvik, C. H., & Waldahl, R. (2018). Sustainable collaboration to support vulnerable youth: Mental health support teams in upper secondary school. Social Inclusion, 6(3), 282–288. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Breimo, J. O. N., Sandvin, T., Tveit, J., & Thommesen, H. (2015). Individuell plan. Samspill og unoter [Individual plan. Interplay and unnotes]. Gyldendal Akademisk. Bridges, D., Davidson, R., Odegard, P., Maki, I., & Tomkowiak, J. (2011). Interprofessional collaboration: Three best practice models of interprofessional education. Medical education. Online, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/meo. v16i0.6035 Cameron, D. L., & Tveit, A. D. (2013). Profesjonsutøvelse i tverrfaglig samarbeid rundt et barn med spesielle behov i barnehagen [Professional practice in inter-

176 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

disciplinary collaboration around a child with special needs in ECEC]. Tidsskriftet FoU i praksis [Journal FOU in Practice], 7(1), 9–26. Education Act. (2022, June 20). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/ lov/1998-­07-­17-­61 Fukkink, R., & Lalihatu, E. (2020). A realist synthesis of interprofessional collaboration in the early years: Becoming familiar with other professionals. International Journal of Integrated Care, 20((3), 16), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.5334/ijic.5482 Fukkink, R., & Verseveld, M. (2020). Inclusive early childhood education and care: A longitudinal study into the growth of interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13561820.2019.1650731 Glavin, K., & Erdal, B. (2018). Tverrfaglig samarbeid i praksis til beste for barn og unge i kommune-Norge [Interprofessional collaboration in practice for the benefit of children and young people in municipal Norway]. Kommuneforlaget. Hannås, B. M., & Hanssen, N. B. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08856257.2016.1194576 Hanssen, N.  B. (2018). Special educational needs in Norwegian and Belarusian preschools. Doctoral dissertation, Nord University. Hanssen, N. B., & Hansén, S. E. (2017). Special educational needs activities for children with language difficulties: A comparative study in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. Education Inquiry, 9(2), 172–192. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/20004508.2017.1380486 Hanssen, N. B., & Olsen, K. (2022). A survey into graduate students’ views on special needs education in ECE teacher education in Norway. In H.  Harju-­ Luukkainen, N. Hanssen, & C. Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years. Perspectives on policy and practice in the Nordic countries (pp. 151–167). Springer. Ivanova, M., & Sydnes, A. K. (2010). Interorganizational coordination in oil spill emergency response: A case study of the Murmansk region of Northwest Russia. Polar Geography, 33, 139–164. Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19, 452–468. Kasperski, M. (2000). Implementation strategies: ‘Collaboration in primary care— Family doctors and nurse practitioners delivering shared care.’ Ontario College of Family Physicians. http://www.cfpc.ca/English/CFPC/CLFM/bibnursing/default.asp?s = 1

10  INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN THE NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

177

Kindergarten act. (2006). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-0617-­64 Lauvås, K., & Lauvås, P. (2004). Tverrfaglig samarbeid -perspektiv og strategi [Interdisciplinary collaboration—Perspective and strategy]. Universitetsforlaget. Leirvik, B. (2020). Varige strukturer: Tverrsektoriell samordning på statlig nivå [Durable structures: Cross-sectoral coordination at the state level]. https://0-­24-­ samarbeidet.no/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2021/04/Sluttrapport-­Varige-­ strukturer-­151220-­002.pdf Lone, J. A., & Værnor, K. E. (2019). Samarbeidskultur på oppvekstfeltet i norske kommuner [Collaborative culture in the field of upbringing in Norwegian municipalities]. Stat og styring [State and Governance], 29(3), 61–64. https:// doi.org/10.18261/ISSN0809-­750X-­2019-­03-­19 Martin, E., Nolte, I., & Vitolo, E. (2016). The four cs of disaster partnering: Communication, cooperation, coordination and collaboration. Disasters, 40, 621–643. Melby, L., Kaspersen, S. L., Ådnanes, M., & Kalseth, J. (2021). Oppfølgingsteam som sammenhengskapende mekanisme for personer med store og sammensatte behov [Follow-up team as a cohesive mechanism for individuals with large and complex needs]. Tidsskrift for omsorgsforskning [Journal for Care Research]. https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/issn.2387-­5984-­2021-­02-­06 Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2017). Framework plan for the content and tasks of ECECs. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/ rammeplan/framework-­plan-­for-­ECECs2-­2017.pdf Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2019). Tett på—Tidlig innsats og inkluderende fellesskap i barnehage, skole og SFO [Close attention—Early intervention and inclusive community in ECEC, school and after-school care]. (Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020)). https://www.regjeringen.no Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2021). Endringer i velferdstjenestelovgivningen (samarbeid, samordning og barnekoordinator) Prop. 100  L (2020–2021) [Amendments to welfare services legislation (cooperation, coordination and children’s coordinator) Prop. 100  L (2020–2021)]. https://www. regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-­100-­l-­20202021/id2838338/?ch=1 Moe, T. (2021). Gjensidig ledersamarbeid mellom barnehage og barnevern [Reciprocal managerial cooperation between ECEC and child protection]. In I.  Iversen & L.  O. Moen (Eds.), Utadrettet barnehageledelse [Kindergarten management] (pp. 206–2017). Universitetsforlaget. Morrison, M., & Glenny, G. (2012). Collaborative inter-professional policy and practice: In search of evidence. Journal of Educational Policy, 27(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.599043 Morrison, S. (2007). Working together: Why bother with collaboration? Work Based Learning in Primary Care, 5(2), 65–70.

178 

T. INGEBRIGTSEN AND N. B. HANSSEN

Nordahl, T., Persson, B., Brørup Dyssegaard, C., Wessel Hennestad, B., Vaage Wang, M., Martinsen, J., & Johnsen, T. (2018). Inkluderende Fellesskap for Barn og unge [Inclusive community for children and young people]. Ekspertgruppen for barn og unge med behov for særskilt tilrettelegging [The expert group for children and young people with SEN]. Fagbokforlaget. Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir). (2018). https://www.bufdir.no/en Norwegian Directorate of Health. (2022). Plan for children’s mental health (2019–2024). https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-­121-­ s-­20182019/id2652917/ Omdal, H., & Barsøe, L. (2021). Samarbeid om barn med spesielle behov I barnehagen [Collaboration around children with special educational needs in the ECEC]. In H. Omdal & A. B. Thorød (Eds.), Ulike profesjoner, felles mål. Barn og unge I risiko [Different professions, common goals. Children and young people at risk] (pp. 67–83). Universitetsforlaget. Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1–25. Reeves, S., Xyrichis, A., & Zwarenstein, M. (2018). Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1400150 Salamon, A., Sumsion, J., Press, F., & Harrison, L. (2016). Implicit theories and naïve beliefs: Using the theory of practice architectures to deconstruct the practices of the early childhood educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 14(4), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14563857 Skog Hansen, I. L., Jensen, R. S., & Fløtten, T. (2020). Trøbbel i grenseflatene. Samordnet innsats for utsatte barn og unge. Fafo-rapport 2020–02 [Trouble in the boundaries. Coordinated efforts for vulnerable children and young people. Fafo report 2020–02]. https://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2020/20737.pdf Statistics Norway. (2021). https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/12376/ tableViewLayout1/ UNESCO. (1990, March 5–9). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs. Adopted by the World Conference on Education for All Meeting Basic Learning Needs Jomtien. Wong, S., & Press, R. (2017). Interprofessional work in early childhood education and care services to support children with additional needs: Two approaches. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(1), 49–56.

PART III

Family-Professional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care

CHAPTER 11

“To See a Shift in Parents’ Knowledge”: A Case Study of Family-Professional Collaboration in the United Kingdom Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Jonna Kangas

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

H. Harju-Luukkainen (*) University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] J. Kangas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_11

181

182 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

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

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

183

fun activities while the parents work. In another study conducted by Pianta et al. (2001) parental perspective of the teacher was in general positive and preschool staff was seen as an important and helpful source of support for the parents (see further Uusimäki et al., 2019; Purola et al., 2021). Teachers have different ways to implement parental participation in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) according to Venninen and Purola (2013). For example, they can take a professional perspective and an expert role in the discussion with parents. In the customer approach the teachers take a role that is liked with keeping the parents satisfied regarding the services. This can be highlighted especially in contexts where the parents are paying high fees for their child’s educational services. And finally, professionals can take a partnership perspective that combines these two previous perspectives, and this perspective has a possibility to overcome difficulties within the co-operational context. Teachers in general are found to have a positive attitude toward parental co-operation and parents’ involvement in early childhood education (Hakyemez-Paul et al., 2018). Mahmood (2013) suggested that teachers serving their first years observed challenges in their social interaction with parents and emotions regarding the nature and power issues of social interaction with parents. These challenges were identified to be caused by lack of reciprocity, difficulties of building relationships, power-dependence, and social identity of early childhood teachers. Further, Hakyemez-Paul et al. (2018) revealed that even though teachers expressed positive emotions regarding the collaboration with parents that these positive attitudes were somewhat superficial and ECEC educators wanted to restrict education to institutions and regard parents as passive. Both Mahmood (2013) and Hakyemez-Paul et al. (2018) found also that teachers felt some parents were not interested to participate, and poor motivation and lack of time of both teachers and parents caused difficulties in interaction. It is important to note, that different learning spaces in different cultures define partnership with the parents from different perspectives. The contemporary challenges of the parent-teacher partnerships in early childhood education were identified from a cross-cultural perspective in the research of International Parent-Professional Partnership study (Hujala et  al., 2009). There were differences in teachers’ approaches to parent-­ teacher partnerships between countries as well as within each country based on the level of public versus private services, level of educational policies and binding documents guiding the practices of ECEC services, and social understanding of the role of ECEC. The differences in the

184 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

professional teacher status in each country were connected to the parents’ role and power issues in the parent-teacher partnerships in ECEC services. In the UK the parental co-operation and partnership was found to be one of the key development points in early childhood services including ECEC through the Sure Start program (Lewis, 2011). Sure Start was started for parental and family services with the aim to “help to ensure that children, particularly those at risk of social exclusion are ready to learn when they arrive at school” where strong involvement of parents was in the central goal (Lewis, 2011). How the partnership between families and service providers is structured and understood is dependent on the political, societal, and cultural changes in the national context (see also Laloumi-Vidali, 1998). Also, according to Vlasov and Hujala (2017), a significant role in supporting families with young children lies with the ECEC services where families meet teachers and staff daily basis. Therefore, the parents’ nor teachers’ interpretation of the collaboration is not the only determinant, but other societal and cultural factors are premises for the success of this collaboration (Hujala et al., 2009). Family-Professional Collaboration in the UK In the UK (see also Chap. 4) early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework (2021) sets the standards that all school and childcare providers must meet when it comes to learning, development, and care of children from birth to five years. The EYFS seeks to provide the following for every child attending the early years’ education: • “Quality and consistency in all early year’s settings, so that every child makes good progress, and no child gets left behind; • a secure foundation through planning for the learning and development of each individual child, and assessing and reviewing what they have learned regularly; • partnership working between practitioners and with parents and/ or carers; • equality of opportunity and anti-discriminatory practice, ensuring that every child is included and supported” (2021, p. 5). EYFS also states the reasons for this partnership as follows (p. 7): “providers must work in partnership with parents and/or carers, to promote the learning and development of all children in their care and to ensure

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

185

they are ready for year 1,” and further it clarifies somewhat the role between the providers and parents: “Parents and/or carers should be kept up to date with their child’s progress and development. Practitioners should address any learning and development needs in partnership with parents and/or carers, and any relevant professionals” (p. 18). The EYFS definitions for parental involvement (PI) and collaboration provided by EYFS are very inexact, giving providers different possibilities to interpret the text. However, for EYFS there is also supporting material available by Foundation Years (2022) which provide the latest news, policies, and resources for early years professionals. It is important to note, that these are non-statutory. As stated before, there is research evidence that parental involvement in their child’s education leads to better academic attainment for the child in school (Clarke, 2010; Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Epstein, 2001; Lewis, 2011). While supportive parents who come along well with education services and teaching staff can scaffold children’s cognitive and social development, it is also shown that parent having lack of resources or suffering social problems can prevent children’s socialization and development. The concern with parental engagement, or lack of it, stems from a number of different motivations: reach those families and children who are “hard to reach” and being at risk of social exclusion; ensuring that ECEC services reflect and respond to parents’ and children’s needs; ensuring that services are genuinely universal and available in order to avoid possible stigma associated with child care and education services; and building social capital and communal capacities especially in socially excluded areas by reducing the costs associated with social exclusion (Clarke, 2010). This has been recognized by the government of the UK already decades ago (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). For instance, in 2003 the department for education and skills (2003, p. 39) published an important policy document called Every Child Matters and Sure Start program reflected the focus on parents as much as children (Lewis, 2011). In Every Child Matters program (2003), the government acknowledged that the bond between the parent and their child is the most crucial influence on a child’s life. In the Sure Start program parents’ involvement was shown to emphasize on children’s cognitive development (Lewis, 2011). Further, it highlighted parents have an important impact on their child’s behavior, mental health, and educational outcome. The Sure Start program also involved parents’ participation in ECEC services and put efforts to increase parental self-esteem and confidence through partnership and social

186 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

interaction with teaching staff in ECEC but also with other social care services (Lewis, 2011). In Scotland a national program called Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), founded in 2006, endorses new thinking and best practice for professionals working with families to promote a positive shift in the working culture. The program unifies and coordinates policies, services, and programs for children and young people. GIRFEC is based on children’s rights, and its principles reflect the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Their approach: • is child-focused; • is based on an understanding of wellbeing of a child in their current situation; • is based on tackling needs early; • requires joined-up working. This approach is also linked with governmental policies, and it has been highlighted as an important influencer for the UK as well (Cheung, 2018, p. 61). Despite these programs and policy guidance, there is a gap between rhetoric and reality, creating barriers for parental involvement (PI) (Bercow, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Further, the Bercow (2018) Report points out toward a system in the UK of fractured services and high levels of inequality for children. The support you get depends on where you live or where you go to school. According to Hornby and Lafaele (2011), there are multiple reasons for the gap between what is said and what is done. These barriers include (Fig. 11.1) (a) parent and family factors like parents’ beliefs about PI, parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement, and parents’ current life contexts, class, ethnicity, and gender; (b) child factors like age, learning difficulties and disabilities, gifts and talents, behavioral problems; (c) parent-teacher factors like goals and agendas, attitudes, language, and (d) societal factors like historic and demographic factors, political factors, and economic factors. This model is developed to help in identifying barriers within parental involvement. Further, a recent adaptation has been presented to the model to reflect the interactions among the different factors as well as to include the broader context of the society (Fan et al., 2018). This sociocultural-oriented research is largely influenced by latest empirical research connected to FPC. The aim of this chapter is to take a closer look at how, on practice level, teachers describe in one preschool their implementation of FPC as well as with children with SEN. This is

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

187

Fig. 11.1  Model of factors acting as barriers to PI (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011, p. 39)

done to highlight the professional’s view on collaboration, which has received less of research attention in the recent years. Our research question is “What practices based on the EYFS have been implemented regarding parental engagement in the case study preschool?”

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

188 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

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

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

Results The research question of this study was “What practices based on the EYFS have been implemented regarding parental engagement in the nursery?” The results of this study will be analyzed and presented with the help

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

189

of Hornby and Lafaele (2011, p. 39) model’s four factors working as barriers toward the parent involvement. These four factors are (1) individual, parent, and family factors; (2) child factors; (3) parent-teacher factors; and (4) societal factors. In the next section, we will explain our findings in these factors closer. Individual, Parent, and Family Factors According to the teachers the individual, parent, and family factors were visible only a few times in the parental engagement activities that were implemented. These factors included statements of parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement, and parents’ current life contexts, class, ethnicity, and gender. The nursery invited parents for events multiple times during the year but did only in a few statements take into consideration what type of thought the parents had about the nursery. For instance, the preschool sent feedback forms to parents to get their views on the settling­in process and the preschool sent out questionnaires to parents to receive their feedback on their experiences. The preschool stated this as follows: “We send parents feedback forms post settling in to get their views on how the process went” and “Twice a year we send out a questionnaire to parents on their overall experience of the nursery.” These all are communication that easily becomes one way, while the parents nor the personnel do not receive a possibility for a mutual discussion that creates mutual understanding. Child Factors Child factors are stated as important in both policy documents and across research literature. These factors include the child’s age, learning difficulties and disabilities, gifts, and talents as well as behavioral problems. Much of the information that the parents received, according to the nursery, was educative to its essence, and the communication was one way, going from nursery toward parents. The parents did receive information through a document at the begging when their child started his/her early education path. This document was created based on the feedback from the parents and included much of other information regarding child development: We have a pre-settle guide for parents with lots of advice and what to expect for parents during their child’s settling at nursery…The pre-settle guide was

190 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

created based on parents’ feedback on what they thought their child would be doing initial when starting nursery and with lots of issues with parents about their children experiencing sleep and food regression. This guide is such a useful tool for parents and has helped with parents being able to use this as a go to guide to measure their expectations.

Parents were also guided in health and educational questions by the nursery. They organized monthly classes for parents and worked with professionals to support the children. Monthly parent classes which give parents the chance to meet and talk and the theme of the talks is based on parents’ requests (Occupational therapy, sleep therapy etc.) and Working with health professionals to support children with seizures and creating health care plans for the children who attend.

Contact was kept with the family through an app, which made a more individual approach possible. This was seen as very helpful by the personnel for them to support the child in the best way possible. Daily messaging on our parents’ app to adjust their child’s routine based on how they slept at home or if they are under the weather.

Therefore, much of the child factors were connected to educating the parents. The nursery’s perspective on child development was seen as a very important one regarding, and they would hope that the parents would agree on that. This was stated by the personnel as follows: I would like to see parents truly understanding what is really important for their children to be learning in their first 5 years—and to see a shift in parents’ knowledge on what core skills the children should be supported with rather than just reading and writing.

Parent-Teacher Factors Parent-teacher factors include goals and agendas, attitudes, and language-­ related factors. The nursery personnel did not actively, at least in their statements, advocate for parent-teacher factors in other statements than by organizing parental evenings and council meetings. These were mentioned only two times throughout the answers. However, the nursery organized bi-monthly parental meetings and parental council meetings

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

191

three times per year, which can be considered often. Therefore, there are possibilities for personnel and families to meet; however, it is unclear if this leads to discussions about goals and provides opportunities to strengthen the mutual understanding. This was stated as following: We have a parent’s council which meet three times a year and bring the voice of the parents to the senior management.

Societal Factors Societal factors include factors like historic and demographic factors, political factors, and economic factors. Some of these are factors that are sometimes impossible to change. However, it is possible for instance to support parents in the societal support and governmental funding. The teachers specifically highlighted their role in applying for funding for the child with special needs for the child to receive the support needed. This was stated as following: Working with parents to create robust reports based on child’s needs, learning growth in order to receive government funding to support their child and costs associated with additional support for their daughter who had autism. Accurate, factual report keeping was paramount in order to show that there child needed additional funding in order to make progress and supporting them through the statementing process.

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

Discussion FPC has been identified to have a positive outcome on multiple aspects of the child’s development. It is therefore important that good professional collaboration with parents is highlighted through the child’s educational

192 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

path. Thus, it is important to understand that different countries define as well as implement family professional partnership from different perspectives. In the UK, the early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework (2021) sets the standards for this work throughout the country. The aim of this chapter was to take a closer look at how, on practice level, teachers describe in one preschool their implementation of FPC as well as with children with SEN. In this study we engage with a single case study. This case study generated a more in-depth understanding of what type of practices are implemented in a nursery context, in real-life. However, the results are also very limited to teacher perspective and raised multiple further questions, that we will take a closer look at toward the end of this section. Our interpretation of the results is that the communication was stated as very much as “one way” and educative, going from the nursery toward the parents. According to Alsuutari (2010) the professional collaboration with parents can sometimes be challenging. One challenge in this collaboration is to agree on the interpretation of partnership and participation for all partners (see also Cheatham & Santos, 2011). Finally how in prantal co-operation for instance power issues, social exclusion, and inclusion is structured and understood is dependent on the political, societal, and cultural context  of the country (Clarke, 2010; Laloumi-­ Vidali, 1998). Therefore, there needs to be enough of space also for joint discussion and interpretations of the partnership and moving away from teacher-dominated actions. Despite policy guidance, there is a gap between rhetoric and reality, creating barriers for parental involvement (PI) (Bercow, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Further, Hornby and Lafaele (2011) argue that there are multiple reasons for the gap between what is said and what is done to exist. In this study we were able to identify multiple gaps, at least in the statements. As stated by Venninen and Purola (2013), these different perspectives the ECEC teachers use when they approach parental co-­operation shape the forms of partnership and involvement the ECEC centers offer for parents. For example, teachers with the customer approach might understand the parent satisfaction as the driving force especially when parents are paying high fees for the education services and exclude parents with social or economic challenges while teachers with professional approach might use social power over the parents’ needs and wishes. Venninen and Purola (2013) suggest that participatory partnership that combines these two perspectives and has an opportunity to overcome difficulties in co-operation.

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

193

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

References Alasuutari, M. (2010). Striving at partnership: Parent–practitioner relationships in Finnish early educators’ talk. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(12), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502931003784545 Bercow, J. (2018). Bercow: Ten years on. An independent review of provision for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs in England. https://www.bercow10yearson.com/wp-­content/uploads/ 2018/03/337644-­ICAN-­Bercow-­Report-­WEB.pdf Bergroth, M., & Palviainen, Å. (2016). The early childhood education and care partnership for bilingualism in minority language schooling: Collaboration between bilingual families and pedagogical practitioners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 649–667. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13670050.2016.1184614 Brown, P. (2008). A review of the literature on case study research. Canadian Journal for New Scholar in Education, 1(1), 1–10. Burke, M. M., & Hodapp, R. M. (2014). Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family–school partnerships. Intellect Dev Disabil, 52(1), 13–23. 1 February 2014; https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-­ 9556-­52.1.13

194 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN AND J. KANGAS

Burke, M. M., & Hodapp, R. M. (2016). The nature, correlates, and conditions of parental advocacy in special education. Exceptionality, 24(3), 137–150. Chan, A., & Ritchie, J. (2016). Parents, participation, partnership: Problematising New Zealand early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 289–303. Cheatham, G., & Santos, R. (2011). Collaborating with families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Young Children, 66(5), 76–82. Cheung, R. (2018). International comparisons of health and wellbeing in early chilhdood. Research report march 2018. Nuffieldtrust. Retrieved from https://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/ficherosoia/documentos/5575_d_ Child-­health-­international-comparisons.pdf Clarke, K. (2010). Children’s centres and parental engagement: Lessons from the English experience. Sozialer Fortschritt, 59(4), 108–112. Cousin, G. (2005). Case study research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(3), 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260500290967 Department for Education. (2021). The Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS): Setting thestandards for learning development and care for children from birth to five. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: Research Report, 433. Department for Education and Skills. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family and community partnerships. Westview Press. Every Child Matters. (2003). Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/gover nment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/272064/5860.pdf Fan, W., Li, N., & Sandoval, J. (2018). A reformulated model of barriers to parental involvement in education: Comment on Hornby and Lafaele (2011). Educational Review, 70(1), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191 1.2018.1388614 Foundation Years. (2022). https://foundationyears.org.uk Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2019). Nordic families, children and early childhood education. Palgrave Macmillan. Garvis, S., Phillipson, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Sadownick, A. (2021). Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Routledge. Hakyemez-Paul, S., Pihlaja, P., & Silvennoinen, H. (2018). Parental involvement in Finnish day care – What do early childhood educators say? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(2), 258–273. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/1350293X.2018.1442042 Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00131911.2010.488049

11  “TO SEE A SHIFT IN PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE”: A CASE STUDY… 

195

Hujala, E., Turja, L., Gaspar, M. F., Veisson, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2009). Perspectives of early childhood teachers on parent-teacher partnerships in five European countries. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(1), 57–76. Krippendorf, K. (2018). Content analysis an introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). Laloumi-Vidali, E. (1998). Parental expectations of early childhood services for preschool children: The case of policy change in Greece. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(1), 19–30. Lewis, J. (2011). From Sure Start to children’s centres: An analysis of policy change in English early years programmes. Journal of Social Policy, 40(1), 71–88. Mahmood, S. (2013). First-year preschool and kindergarten teachers: Challenges of working with parents. School Community Journal, 23(2), 55–85. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Pianta, R., Kraft-Sayre, M., Rimm-Kaufman, S., Gercke, N., & Higgins, T. (2001). Collaboration in building partnerships between families and schools: The National Center for Early Development and Leanring’s Kindergarten Transition Intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(2001), 117–132. Purola, K., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2021). Parental participation in the Finnish ECEC context. Springer nature. In S.  Garvis, S.  Phillipson, H. Harju-Luukkainen, & A. Sadownik (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Taylor & Francis. Uusimäki, L., Yngvesson, T.  E., Garvis, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2019). Parental involvement in ECEC in Finland and in Sweden. In S.  Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families, children and early childhood education (pp.  81–99). Studies in Childhood and Youth. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi-­org.libproxy.helsinki.fi/10.1007/ 978-­3-­030-­16866-­7_5 Venninen, T., & Purola, K. (2013). Educators’ views on parents’ participation on three different identified levels. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 2(1), 48–62. http://jecer.org/fi/educators-­views-­on-­parents-­ participation-­on-­threedifferent-­identified-­levels/ Vlasov, J., & Hujala, E. (2017). Parent-teacher cooperation in early childhood education–directors’ views to changes in the USA, Russia, and Finland. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(5), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1356536 Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Xu, Z., & Gulosino, C. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effect of teacher-parent partnership on early childhood performance in public and private schools. Education Economics, 14(3), 345–367.

CHAPTER 12

Family-Professional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care in Ukrainian Policy Olena Martynchuk, Tetiana Skrypnyk, Nataliia Sofii, Natalia Babych, Jonna Kangas, and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen

Introduction The International Step by Step Association (ISSA, 2018) has provided evidence that the quality of parental participation in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has a positive impact on the education, upbringing, development, and social adaptation of children. Further, numerous studies have also demonstrated a positive connection between parents’ participation in the educational processes and

O. Martynchuk (*) • T. Skrypnyk • N. Sofii • N. Babych Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Kyiv, Ukraine e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_12

197

198 

O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

educational results and with the development of children’s social skills (Hill et al., 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Murray et al., 2015; Winder & Corter, 2016). International recommendations and research results have had an important impact on the development of the education policy of Ukraine. In Ukraine the education system is seen as holistic and a continuum towards individual lifelong learning that is stated in the ideas of the New Ukrainian School concept (Bibik, 2018;  Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU), 2016). Especially early childhood education has here been one of the developmental priorities of the government (Decree of President of Ukraine (DPU), 1996, 2002). Today, multiple policy documents are recognizing the parental partnership as well as defining it (Ministry of Education and Science  of Ukraine (MESU) 2012, 2019, 2020, 2022). Further, the Law of Ukraine “On Preschool Education” (Supreme Council of Ukraine (SCU), 1991, 2021) has a clear focus on the priority of family education and partnership between family and early childhood institutions. Thus, in these policies, there are numerous barriers between the partnership practices, especially regarding families of children with SEN (Belenka et al., 2021; Bekh, 2018; Fedirchyk & Didukh, 2019; UA, 2018). In Ukraine, in the analysed period of its history, the development of the education system has been fast (Bilan, 2017;  Grynevych, 2015, 2020; Lutsko, 2013; Trofymenko, 2012).  Simultaneously, there is a lack of research regarding the education system, and especially regarding the family-­professional collaboration. There is a lack of clarifying the notions as well as analysing the concepts around family-professional collaboration of providing special educational needs (SEN). Therefore, there is the need in Ukraine to achieve a deeper understanding and to develop more suitable forms of partnership between early childhood institutions and families of children with SEN (State Agency of Quality of Education of Ukraine (SAQEU), 2020; MESU & UIED, 2021; Ribtsun, 2012). This chapter will partly address this gap in research. The aim of this chapter is to describe how the concept of partnership between early childhood education and families of children with SEN is understood in the educational J. Kangas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] H. Harju-Luukkainen University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected]

12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

199

policy. As data we use 26 policy documents from 1991 to 2022 regarding Early Childhood Education and Care. This textual data is then analysed with systematic content analysis and divided into main categories.

The Ukrainian Context The Ukrainian early childhood education system policies are described in the Constitution of Ukraine (SCU, 1996; SCU, 2022). In it the accessible and free preschool education for children with SEN is stated (SCU, 2022, Article 3). Further, the law also dictates active and equal participation to educational processes between children, their parents, and teachers (SCU, 2022, Article 27). Within the development of Ukrainian education context two stages can be identified. The first stage (years 1991–2017), when the development and implementation of the basic legislative changes happened after Ukrainians independence. And the second stage (years 2017–), when a more strategic approach to educational reforms was put into practice aiming at developing the quality of ECEC of the country. During the first stage, Supreme Council of Ukraine ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child United Nations (UN) (1989) and several other UN acts (UN, 1993; UN, 1994). These then identified the main directions for the state policies regarding ECEC and special needs education (SNE). First, ECEC standards were adopted in 1998 and edited in 2012 (Ministry of Education and Science, Youth and Sports (MESYS), 2012). The standards, which were named as “Basic component of preschool education”, outlined the state requirements for the level of development of children in ECEC. In the year 2001, the first Law on Ukrainian ECEC was adopted. This declared the importance of family-professional collaboration within ECEC (SCU, 2001, Article 6). In the second phase, a new framework Law of Ukraine “On Education” was adopted in 2017 (SCU, 2017). Further, multiple policy documents of Ukraine (SCU, 2017; SCU, 2022, Article 36; CMU (1993); CMU (2003); CMU (2016); CMU, 2021) declared a new level of family-child-ECEC collaboration. A concept of “pedagogy of partnership” was then established.

Data and Methods As described earlier, a so-called quality shift towards the principle of the pedagogy of partnership as an innovative research-based pedagogy for the design of relationship-centred education started in the Ukrainian

200 

O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

education system in 2017, when the new Law “On Education” was adopted. However, multiple levels of system development as well as policy document development have happened since the independence (1991) of the country. To reach the aim of this research, which was how is the policy describing the concept of partnership between early childhood education and families of children with SEN in the educational policy, we engaged in content analysis of policy documents. In total 26 policy documents were chosen to the data starting from the year 1996. Content analysis can be considered as an “umbrella term” that refers to diverse research approaches. However, qualitative research involves purposeful use of describing, explaining, and interpreting collected data (Williams, 2007). Leedy and Ormrod (2001, p. 155) describe content analysis as “a detailed and systematic examination of the content of a particular body of materials for the purpose of identifying patterns, themes or biases”. “The method is designed to identify specific characteristics from the content” (Williams, 2007, p.  69). In this study our data is policy documents, produced by policy makers, reflecting the understanding of them as well as the education context of the country. The team of researchers was interested in exploring any description about family-professional collaboration and education of children with SEN. This data was then categorized into three themes, which we will present next.

Results The findings of this chapter were divided into three themes according to the content analysis (see closer Table 12.1). These three themes were (1) values in collaboration (2) roles in collaboration, and (3) activities in collaboration. In this section we will closely describe the content of these themes. Values in Collaboration This theme is focused on the values regarding parental collaboration, which were outlined in the main Ukrainian legislative and legal documents in ECEC.  The statement on preschool institution (CMU, 1993, p.  1) describes realization of the tasks of preschool education in close collaboration with families, which include “…developing physical and mental health of children, development of children’s interests and creativity, providing qualified support to minimize deficiencies of children’s development”.

Pedagogy of partnership for successful interactions, establishment of trust between preschool educational institutions, children, parents, and society

Values in collaboration

Unity of efforts of family and preschool institution as one of the principles of functioning of preschool education Children, teachers, and parents—active and equal participants of educational process

Partnership in educational process to provide quality of education

Concepts regarding collaboration

Themes

Table 12.1  Summary of the findings

Concept “New Ukrainian School” (2017), state educational standards of preschool education (updated, 2021) Methodological recommendations on creating internal system of quality improvement in preschool educational institutions (2020) The Law of Ukraine “On Preschool Education” (2022)

Document title

(continued)

Lack of descriptions of the essence of “educational impacts” and the mechanism of achievement of the unity in their realization by teachers and parents Declarative formulation, lack of explanations of the conditions, which would provide active parents’ participation as well as their equal role with teachers

Lack of explanations of how partnership will be realized and its impact on the quality of education

Lack of specific content, parameters, ways of achievements, specification of the roles of each participant of the educational process, indicators of implementation etc.

Interpretations of challenges 12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

201

Roles in collaboration Law of Ukraine “On Education” (2017)

Lack of indicators of parents’ participation in providing the information on a child and signing IEP (only) Law of Ukraine “On Descriptions of parents’ obligation to participate Education” (2017); state actively is not supported by their authorities—all educational standards “On decisions are made by teachers and principals. Preschool Education” Teachers’ role to support the partnership is limited (updated, 2021) to consultations, impact on parents’ “psychological culture”—parents are passive receivers of information in this case. Because it is mentioned that “the work of the Parents are permanent members of the support Order of the Ministry of support team is conducted during their working team Education “On Approval of the Typical Regulations on the hours”, description on parents’ participation is Team of Psychological-­ limited and not clear Pedagogical Support of Children with SEN (2018) Conditions, their parameters, and indicators of Principal of preschool institution has to create Professional standards “Director of preschool achievement are not identified conditions for effective work of the psychological-­pedagogical support team educational institution” Preschool teacher has to be able to cooperate Professional standards The concepts of cooperation and teamwork are not effectively and teamwork “Preschool teachers” specified enough Establishment of the teamwork, monitoring of Methodological Lack of specification of the indicators “establishing needs of participants of educational process to recommendations on creating the teamwork” and monitoring and adaptation of adapt educational environment internal system of quality educational environment improvement in preschool educational institutions (2020)

Parents have a right to participate in the development of individual educational program (IEP) Parents are obliged to participate actively in educational process as equal partners; the role of teachers—to support partnership with family of children with SEN

Table 12.1  (continued)

202  O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

Educational programme “Confident Start”

Educational programme “Ukrainian Preschool”

Realization of educational tasks in close cooperation with families, active parents’ involvement to educational process, their consulting on psychological-pedagogical issues Reporting to parents on child’s development

Educational programme “A Child” (2020)

Recommendations for parents to support child’s development and cooperation with preschool institution

To develop children with SEN life competence it is necessary to unite teachers’ and parents’ efforts Development of algorithm of partnership cooperation with families, motivating parents for productive partnership and reflection Informational-educational and informationalcommunication forms of interactions with parents

Partnership parents’ participation in assessment Methodological of quality of education and interpretation of recommendations on creating received results internal system of quality improvement in preschool educational institutions (2020) Pedagogical staff of the preschool institution National educational standards initiates different forms of parents’ (2021) participation in educational process

No requirement regarding similar action—parents reporting to teachers as equal members of the support team

In spite of valuable context of parents’ activities there is lack of parameters in the process of assessment of quality of education, therefore the criteria for interpretation of received results are not known Limited description on parents’ responsibilities to educate their child according to “all educational directions” (language development, social and other), following teachers’ recommendations Demonstration of the leading role of teachers who educate parents and provide psychologicalpedagogical support (not specified) All suggested activities can influence only on the relationships and cheerful climate at preschool institution, which is not sufficient for partnership cooperation. The subject for reflection—increasing effectiveness of cooperation and teachers’ reactions and emotions is not appropriate either Lack of content Recommendations are rather too general and do not consider individual child, his/her individual needs, which is especially important for children with SEN Lack of using modern technologies to develop educational environment for children, including children with SEN

Themes of the content analysis, concepts in different document types, and interpretations focusing on challenges

Activities in collaboration

12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

203

204 

O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

According to this quote, since Ukrainian independence, families have been identified as the main value, however at that time the medical paradigm was still dominant in special pedagogy and psychology. Gradually, values and tasks for partnership interactions transformed, which related to the selection of European vector course by Ukraine. In the governmental documents, in particular, the concept of realization of the state policy in a field of reforming general secondary education “New Ukrainian School” till 2029, following was stated: “The new school will work according to the principles of pedagogy of partnership, which is based on communication, interaction, and cooperation between teachers, students and parents” (CMU, 2016, pp.  14–15). The document development of the quality of the system states that “Strategy (policy) of providing quality of education should be focused on partnership in the process of development, education and upbringing of children as well as on professional cooperation” (SAQEU, 2020, p. 5). Therefore, one of the requirements is to recognize the cooperation with parents. Further, it is stated that “all preschool institution staff cooperates with each other”, and “constructive communication of pedagogical staff with parents in different forms based on the principles of mutual respect, trust, understanding and cooperation is established in preschool institution” (SAQEU, 2020, p. 7). This document (SAQEU, 2020) is therefore one of the most relevant and recognizes also international approaches towards ECEC.  The first principle, which enables management of the quality of education and achievement of the effective educational processes, can be named as customer focus (parents or caregivers as customers); it also includes the establishment of mutual trust and an intention to understand their current and future needs. In 2021 the basic components of preschool education—national educational standards—were updated. It included for the first time the principles of pedagogical partnership (MESU, 2021, p. 4). Therefore, one of the key components of the educational reforms is an implementation of the pedagogy of partnership as the condition of successful interactions of subjects of educational process aimed at the establishment of trust between educational institution, children, parents, and society. Principles, which are the basis of pedagogy of partnership (mutual respect, effective communication, and horizontal model of cooperation, right of free choice and other), begin to be reflected in all legislative and legal documents developed during the last years.

12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

205

Roles in Collaboration This theme is focused on the rights and responsibilities of teachers and parents of children with SEN, which are outlined in the main Ukrainian legislative and legal documents in a field of preschool education. Parents’ rights and responsibilities are defined in the Article 55 “Rights and responsibilities of acquirers of education” of the Law of Ukraine “On Education” (SCU, 2017). Parents have a right “to protect the rights and interests of their children; to choose educational institution, educational program, the form of education for their children, participate in the development of individual educational program and be informed about the activities of educational institution” (SCU, 2017, p. 31). At the same time parents are responsible for their active participation in the educational process of their child as partners. They support children in achieving educational outcomes and support the development of the child. Therefore, the cooperation between teachers and parents are defined in the law through mutual responsibilities. The parents and teachers should strive to comprehensive and harmonic development of the children, which is impossible to achieve by either parents or teachers only. One of the basic principles, mentioned in the basic component of preschool education—national educational standards (MESU, 2021, p.  4)—is the principle of social-pedagogical partnership between local communities and all participants of educational process. There are also some inconsistencies, limitations, and contradictions in legal documents regarding parents’ role of children with SEN. Parents are the permanent participants of the team “psychological-pedagogical team support children with SEN in secondary and preschool educational institutions” (MESU, 2018, p. 3), but according to further definition, their role is minimal in the process of developing an individual educational program (IEP). Their role is to provide information about their child and to sign the IEP only. Further, they are given a rather passive role as information receiver regarding IEP or regarding communication with specialists. It is also important to note that the work of the psychological-pedagogical team is conducted during the working time of pedagogical staff (MESU, 2018), meaning that the team is not necessarily available for the parents when they are free from work. Ukrainian legislation presents the content of cooperation between teachers and parents as the members of the support team of children with SEN; their collegial activities and their roles are described. Professional

206 

O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

standards identify preschool teacher’s role—to support partnership interactions with families of children with SEN—but these interactions are limited to “pedagogical education”, consultations, influencing psychological culture of parents and providing them information about their children. In other words, the content of real cooperation within multidisciplinary support is absent. We also can see some declarative character of definition of parents’ roles, for example, their participation in self-governance bodies, educational processes, and support teams together with such drawbacks as (1) lack of specification of the content, conditions, indicators, and criteria; (2) contradiction of different statements within one document (e.g. parents’ participation in the support team is limited by providing information about children and signing IEP). Activities in Collaboration This theme focuses on different forms of collaborative activities and engagement. Ideas regarding parental involvement into the education processes are presented in the “Methodological recommendations on development internal system of education in preschool institutions” (SAQEU, 2020; see also “A Child”, 2020). These include the ideas of parental participation in assessment processes, interpretation of received data, and parental involvement in team interactions (with preschool director, teacher-methodologist, and preschool teachers); parents provide observations on educational environment, on the quality of educational services, and on the effectiveness of management processes. Further, the educational programme “Confident Start” (Pirozhenko, 2017) includes a chapter called Advice to Parents. In these recommendations parents are presented with information regarding child’s development as well as uniting upbringing efforts both for parents and for preschool institutions. For example, “communicate with your child as much as possible, organize communication games … involve your child in creating stories” (Pirozhenko, 2017, p. 49). Such general advice cannot be considered as individually appropriate, especially regarding children with SEN. Also, the educational standards (MESU, 2021) define the interactions between preschool educational institutions and families as the participants of educational process as one of the requirements of preschool education realization. This interaction means that pedagogical staff must initiate different forms of parental collaboration in the educational processes, management, and self-governance. In this

12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

207

document, it is emphasized that parental involvement should take place in all educational aspects, which are usually provided by the preschool teachers: sensor-cognitive, social, language and personal development, play activities, creativity etc. Educational standards also state the main task of teachers regarding children with SEN is to develop their life competence, which requires combining of efforts of pedagogical staff and parents (MESU, 2021). However, these guides regarding parental collaboration have also some challenges. For instance, a rather big number of different interaction examples are presented across the documents (see closer “A Child”, 2020). These are joyful activities, which are important for developing a positive atmosphere, but they are not sufficient for educational processes. Communicational platforms like blogs, Viber groups, chats, and so on are presented as examples, but the content is not defined as well as the form of parental collaboration in these activities.

Discussion and Conclusion The reform of the Ukrainian education system has been an ongoing effort since 1991. In this chapter, these reforms, focused on early childhood education system and especially on family-professional collaboration with families of children with SEN, have been described closer. This was done to reveal how the collaboration with families with SEN children is defined in the education policy. For this chapter, textual policy document data was used. Ukrainian policy documents guiding the education system between 1991 and 2022 were analysed with the help of systematic content analysis. The results were then divided into three main categories. These were (1) values in collaboration (2) roles in the collaboration, and (3) activities in collaboration. Parental collaboration in education context is recognized as important according to the Ukrainian policy documents. It is reflected both in the legislation and in lower-level documents. However, at the moment family-professional collaboration is rather theoretical, and more specific content is needed in order to realize the parental collaboration in practice. There is also a lack of tradition in partnership between institutions and families and especially families of children with SEN. According to this study, there is a clear need in Ukraine to develop a deeper understanding of family-professional collaboration in policy documents. Also, barriers for this collaboration need to be studied further and identified. Further, this information needs also then to be transformed into practices.

208 

O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

Based on the literature review, there is also a need to develop this area in research further, taking into account European perspectives on family-­ professional collaboration.

References Bekh, І. (2018). Personality on his/her way to spiritual values. Kyiv – Chernivtsi. Belenka, H. V., Polovina, O. A., & Kondratets, I. V. (2021). Methodological recommendations on educational program for children aged 2–7 years old “A Child”. Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University. https://elibrary.kubg.edu.ua/id/ eprint/36475/1/DO_MRDPD_2021.pdf Bibik, N. М. (2018). New Ukrainian school: Manual for teachers. Litera Ltd. Bilan, О. (2017). Program of development of children of preschool age “Ukrainian Preschool”. Mandrivets. https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/programy-­ rozvytku-­ditey/Bilan_Programa_Ukrdoshkillja_2017.pdf Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU). (1993). National program “Education” (“Ukraine XXI century”). CMU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/896-­93-­%D0%BF#Text CMU. (1993). On approval the Statement on Preschool educational institution of Ukraine. CMU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/688-­93-­%D0% BF#Text CMU. (2003). On approval the Statement on Preschool educational institution. VRU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/305-­2003-­%D0%BF#Text CMU. (2016). On approval the Concept of realization of the state policy in a field of reforming the general secondary education “New Ukrainian School” for the period till 2029. CMU. https://osvita.ua/legislation/Ser_osv/54258/ CMU. (2021). On approval the Statement on Preschool educational institution (New ed.). CMU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/305-­2003-­%D0% BF#Text A Child. (2020). Educational program for children aged 2–7 years old [scientific project leader V.O.  Ogneviuk]. Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University. https:// elibrar y.kubg.edu.ua/id/eprint/31897/1/Pr ograma_DUTUNA_ KDO_2020.pdf Decree of President of Ukraine. (2002). National doctrine of education development. Supreme Council of Ukraine. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/ 347/2002#Text Decree of President of Ukraine (DPU). (1996). National program “Children of Ukraine”. Supreme Council of Ukraine. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/63/96#Text Fedirchуk, T., & Didukh, V. (2019). Pedagogy of partnership as a factor of formation of effective interaction of participants of the educational process in the conditions of the New Ukrainian School. Mountain school of Ukrainian

12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

209

Carpathians, 21, 50–54. https://journals.pnu.edu.ua/index.php/msuc/article/view/1929/2416 Grynevych, L. M. (2015). National pedagogical theory about the development of education in Ukraine in the context of European integration processes. The Pedagogical Process: Theory and Practice, 1/2(46/47), 5–10. Grynevych, L. M. (2020). The future of school education. pedagogy of partnership. EdCamp. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7npqORY-­P0E Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1491–1509. Hill, N.  E., & Tyson, D.  F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 3, 740–763. International Step by Step Association (ISSA). (2018). A systemic approach to quality in early childhood for children from 3 to 10 years of age. Documents’ research. ISSA. https://www.issa.nl/node/550 Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical Research: Planning and Design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Lutsko, K. (2013). Program of development of children of preschool age with hearing impairments. MESU. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/osvita/doshkilna-­osvita/ programi-­rozvitku-­ditej MESU. (2018). On approval the Statement on the psychological-pedagogical team of support children with SEN in secondary and preschool educational institutions. MESU. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/npa/pro-­zatverdzhennya-­primirnogo-­ polozhennya-­pro-­komandu-­psihologo-­pedagogichnogo-­suprovodu-­ditini-­z-­ osoblivimi-­o svitnimi-­p otrebami-­v -­z akladi-­z agalnoyi-­s erednoyi-­t a-­ doshkilnoyi-­osviti MESU. (2019). Better together. What is partnership pedagogy and why is it in NUS. MESU. https://nus.org.ua/articles/pedagogika-­partnerstva-­shho-­tse-­ take-­ta-­yak-­zrozumity-­chy-­vona-­ye-­u-­shkoli/ MESU. (2020). Road-map of organization of activities of preschools in 2020/2021 educational year. MESU. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/news/mon-­rozrobilo-­ dorozhnyu-­k artu-­o rganizaciyi-­d iyalnosti-­z akladiv-­d oshkilnoyi-­o sviti-­ u-­20202021-­navchalnomu-­roci MESU. (2021). On approval Basic Component of preschool education (State standards of preschool education) (New ed.). Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/npa/pro-­zatverdzhennya-­bazovogo-­ komponenta-­doshkilnoyi-­osviti-­derzhavnogo-­standartu-­doshkilnoyi-­osviti-­ nova-­redakciya MESU. (2022). Recommendations for pedagogical workers of preschool educational institutions for the period of martial law in Ukraine. MESU. https://mon.gov.

210 

O. MARTYNCHUK ET AL.

ua/ua/news/sergij-­s hkarlet-­r ekomendaciyi-­d lya-­p racivnikiv-­z akladiv-­ doshkilnoyi-­osviti-­na-­period-­diyi-­voyennogo-­stanu-­v-­ukrayini MESU, & UIED (Ukrainian Institute of Education Development). (2021). Key indicators of quality of preschool education. MESU–UIED. https://mon.gov. ua/storage/app/media/doshkilna/2021/01/25/Klyuchovi%20pokaznyky%20yakosti%20doshkilnoyi%20osvity.pdf Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (MESU). (2012). Educational program of development of children of preschool age with disorders of musculoskeletal system. MESU. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/osvita/doshkilna-­osvita/programi-­ rozvitku-­ditej Ministry of Education and Science, Youth and Sports of Ukraine. (MESYSU). (2012). Basic component of preschool education (New ed.). MESU. https:// mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/doshkilna/bazovij-­komponent-­doshkilnoyi-­ osviti-­na-­sajt-­ostatochnij.pdf Murray, E., McFarland-Piazza, L., & Harrison, L. J. (2015). Changing patterns of parent– teacher communication and parent involvement from preschool to school. Early Child Development and Care, 185(7), 1031–1052. https://doi. org/10.1080/03004430.2014.975223 Pirozhenko, T. O. (2017). Educational program “Confident Start” for children of preschool age. Ukrainian Academy of Childhood. https://vstart.com.ua/files/ programa_vpevnenii_start_2017.pdf Ribtsun, Y. V. (2012). Correctional work on language development of children aged 5 years old with phonetic-phonemic underdevelopment: Methodological complex. MESU. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/osvita/doshkilna-­osvita/programi-­rozvitku-­ ditej SCU. (1996). Constitution of Ukraine. SCU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/254%D0%BA/96-­%D0%B2%D1%80#Text SCU. (2001). Law of Ukraine on pre-school education. SCU. https://zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/2628-­14#Text SCU. (2017). Law of Ukraine on education. SCU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/2145-­19#Text SCU. (2021). Law of Ukraine on Pre-school Education with changes introduced according to the law. SCU. http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_ 1?pf3511=73109 SCU. (2022). Law of Ukraine on Pre-school Education with changes introduced according to the law. SCU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2628-­ 14#Text State agency of quality of education of Ukraine (SAQEU). (2020). On approval Methodological recommendations on development internal system of quality of education in preschool educational institutions. State agency of quality of education of Ukraine. https://sqe.gov.ua/law/nakaz-­derzhavnoi-­sluzhbi-­yakosti-­ osviti-­23/

12  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD… 

211

Supreme Council of Ukraine (SCU). (1991). Law of Ukraine on education. SCU. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1060-­12 Trofymenko, L.  I. (2012). Correctional education on language development of ­children of preschool age with general language underdevelopment: Methodological complex. MESU. https://mon.gov.ua/ua/osvita/doshkilna-­osvita/ programi-­rozvitku-­ditej UA. (2018). Criteria of quality of preschool education: Report on the study’s results within international project “International criteria of quality of educational programs”. Ukrainian Step by Step Foundation. http://www.ussf.kiev.ua/ ccdeditions/328/ UN. (1993). Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Resolution of General Assembly of United Nations (#48/96). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/standard-­r ules-­on-­the-­ equalization-­of-­opportunities-­for-­persons-­with-­disabilities.html UN. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_001-­94#Text United Nations (UN). (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ratified by the Resolution of VRU (№789-XII as of 27.09.1991). SCU. https://zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/995_021#Text Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5, 65–72. Winder, C., & Corter, C. (2016). The influence of prior experiences on early childhood education students’ anticipated work with families. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.005

CHAPTER 13

Parental Partnerships in Early Childhood Education—A Document Analysis of Teacher Education Programs and Policy Documents in Sweden and Finland Tina Yngvesson , Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , and Susanne Garvis Introduction Parents’ role-construction in terms of what is expected of them during their children’s education is largely rooted in the varying activities parents consider important in regard to their own actions with and on behalf of their children (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Parents’ sense of efficacy in terms of supporting their children on the path to educational success focus to a large extent on what parents believe to be qualities that can have a positive influence on their children’s educational outcomes

T. Yngvesson (*) University of Borås, Borås, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_13

213

214 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

(Ashton 1984; Ashton et al., 1983; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). From a teacher’s perspective, the most significant factor, however, is the level to which the parent perceives that the teacher(s) want or need them to be involved (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). From a historical perspective, the responsibility of teachers has had a tendency to remove the significance of individual needs in this context (Carmical, 1964). According to Lundgren et al. (2014), in the modern more progressive educational systems, the focus is placed on meeting all children’s needs, thus the importance of teachers establishing stable and trusting bonds with the homes is also central. In the literature, discourse regarding home and early childhood education partnerships are often dominated by hegemonic interpretations promoting deficit models of families with working parents, thus the idea of a “good parent” is one that’s emerged from perceptions rather than practice (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997). Research shows that when the partnership between early childhood education context and home is successful, the children’s attitudes to—and work in—school is improved (Epstein, 2019). This extends also to general child behavior and well-being, where evident healthy teacher-parent relations are contributing factors (Epstein, 2019). The responsibility then, on teachers to create and to maintain these relationships, is imperative for a successful education. The development of strategies in an effort to engage parents as partners in children’s education is critical in terms of an overall healthy development, the establishment of social-emotional competencies and also for supporting academic success (Holmes et al., 2020). From an educational perspective, strong and stable partnerships between home and the educational context are essential, and one important determinant of these partnerships is the role of teachers (Jung & Sheldon, 2020). Overall, teachers are best positioned to both develop and maintain consistent interactions with families, including designing H. Harju-Luukkainen University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] S. Garvis Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

215

activities that involve parents or other family members in their children’s learning (Jung & Sheldon, 2020). However, there is a need to broaden the understanding of the many dimensions of leadership. Both in terms of teacher competencies and also in terms of these dimensions are in regard to how they prepare—and guide—teacher practice (Griffith, 2004; Jung & Sheldon, 2020). How parental collaboration is viewed in each country is dependent on the national context (Hujala et al., 2009). This is dependent on the policy contexts as well as the cultural contexts that either restrict or support the partnership. Parents and preschool teachers are therefore differently equipped for the teacher-parent partnership across the globe, where also cultural attributes play a key role. However, it is important to note that a good teacher-parent interaction is a positive determinant of a child’s later student academic performance (Xu & Gulosino, 2006; Bergroth & Palviainen, 2016). From these premises it is important how teachers collaborate and maintain this relationship with parents. Therefore, teachers need expert skills in collaborating and engaging with the parents of the child (Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Mahmood, 2013). One of the challenges in this teacher-parent collaboration is according to Alasuutari (2010) to agree on the interpretation of partnership and participation for all partners (see also Cheatham & Santos, 2011). Further, according to Xu and Gulosino (2006), teacher competence in terms of didactic planning—and execution—is one of the important factors affecting this teacher-parent partnership and therefore teacher education should focus more on teacher behavioral attributes (see also Mahmood, 2013). In this chapter we examine two early childhood teacher education programs and all key documents in Sweden and Finland that are valid during 2022. Both countries were chosen for their focus on parental collaboration, welfare states, and access to early childhood education and teacher education programs for early childhood education. We know from previous studies, that the Swedish national curriculum for early childhood education has weaknesses when it comes to the definitions of different notions. Both documents differ in length but also in their content. Further, the Finnish national curriculum for early childhood education has been identified as stronger when it comes to some key definitions (see for instance Kuusisto et al., 2021; Garvis et al., 2018). In this chapter we take a closer look at these two systems, from the parental collaboration perspective. We investigate how the two systems differ on policy level and further how they

216 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

differ regarding two early childhood education teacher training programs. This will reveal to us, how the two universities have translated the national policy in teacher education programs. This is done in order to better understand how families and family collaboration are positioned in the two education systems all the way from policy level to teacher education contexts. From these premises we have formulated research questions. How parental collaboration is highlighted in Swedish and Finnish early childhood teacher education programs? In the next section we will closely describe our method of inquiry.

Methods In this study, we implement a document analysis. This is an approach that reviews and evaluates documents to create meaning, understanding, and developing empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009). Bowen (2009) argues that with this method it is possible to gain an understanding of the meaning of the documents that are under investigation, but also to develop upon the information they provide. The two universities were chosen to provide cases for analysis. While they cannot be generalized for all of teacher education programs across the two countries (this would have required analyzing all of the universities), we are provided with a snapshot of how two universities have implemented the curriculum within their teacher education programs. Given that there are national requirements, it can be assumed that universities are implementing these requirements. This approach has previously been used in curriculum and policy document studies based on searches of content and terms. The analysis in this study has been done deductively (Labuschagne, 2003) through the search for terms related to home-school partnerships in the educational systems respective steering documents and curricula. A particular focus was made on looking at what specifically was written in regard to these search terms within the documents. From this we are able to organize data into themes in a type of content analysis based on frequency and meaning (Labuschagne, 2003). We created pre-defined codes according to text selection (Bowen, 2009). Coding was done independently before discussion and consensus on the overall view and meaning of findings in the research team (Hunt & Walsh, 2011). We spoke about the different findings across the countries before coming to an agreement of how they would be represented overall for the chapter. We reviewed content multiple times to develop a shared understanding across the team of authors.

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

217

The next section shares findings from the two contexts—Finland and Sweden. The section begins with a context of the country descriptions before examining the documents. After this, the chapter looks at similarities and differences across the two countries in regard to home and early childhood education partnerships.

The Finish Context In Finland, ECEC is guided by the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018) and Child Welfare Act (417/2007) as well as some other Acts connected to childhood. Further, two steering documents guide the practical work on the Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector: (1) National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016a) and (2) the National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016b). The first document guides the work for children under the age of six and the latter the work with children during the pre-primary year. In Finland the parental collaboration is defined in detail, starting from the mission of the National core curriculum (FNAE, 2016a). The mission of the National Core Curriculum for ECEC in Finland (FNAE, 2016a, p. 14) “…is to advance children’s overall growth, development and learning in collaboration with the guardians of the child. This (2016a, p. 53) “Cooperation supports the organisation of the child’s early childhood education and care so that each child receives education, instruction and care indicated by his or her development and needs.” This partnership “aims to promote joint commitment of guardians and personnel to children’s healthy and safe growth, development and learning. This educational cooperation is supported by the building of trust and equal interaction and mutual respect of participants” (p. 53). During ECEC the different values, goals, and responsibilities related to ECEC are discussed with guardians. This cooperation needs to be interactive and requires the personnel to take initiative and to be active in the collaboration. Parental cooperation also takes into account the diversity of families, children’s individual needs, and questions related to guardianship and parenthood. It is important to note that this cooperation may have different roles and take various forms during ECEC. Children’s daily events and experiences are shared with the guardians. Encouraging feedback that describes the child’s learning and development is given. The

218 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

cooperation is seen to play a particularly important role in transition phases. Further, discussions with parents have a special task when an individual Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) plan is drafted for the child and the significance of cooperation with the guardian is highlighted when planning and implementing support for children’s development and learning. Children’s guardians must be provided with an opportunity to participate in planning and developing the early childhood education activities and goals of educational work together with the personnel and children. Information and communication technology is utilized in the cooperation with the guardians. Networking and the guardians’ joint activities at various events enhance community spirit and support the work of the personnel (FNAE, 2016a, p. 53). In Finland the ECEC teacher should have a bachelor’s degree that is a three-year degree earned from a university or from a university of applied sciences. The minimum requirement for a teacher is a bachelor’s degree in education or in social sciences. Other personnel should have at least a vocational upper-secondary qualification in the field of social welfare or health care (see more Kangas & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021; Harju-­ Luukkainen & Kangas, 2020). The Finnish early childhood education working teams are multi-professional, consisting of professionals with varying combinations of qualifications. The teams consist of at least one teacher with an academic bachelor’s degree and two assistant teachers with lower educational degrees. In general, the main goal of Finnish teacher training is to develop inquiry-oriented teachers. In doing so, teachers will be able to combine both theoretical and practical knowledge and, based on this knowledge, form a practical but personal theory that is applicable to their classroom. While programs do conduct research in the field, in Finland being research-­ based also focuses on developing teaching candidates’ pedagogical thinking and decision-making, especially in regard to how to justify his/her decisions while working (see Kansanen, 2006).

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

219

Results University Of Jyväskylä’s Early Childhood Teacher Education Program: Case Study There are multiple ways the ECEC teacher education program (180 ECTS) is describing parental collaboration. In the overall aims of the entire education following is stated: The student has skills related to work organizations, pedagogical leadership and interprofessional work … Students have the ability to work in multidisciplinary collaborations in culturally diverse environments and international contexts. The student has the ability to interact extensively with children and adults and the ability to give and receive feedback.

Further, in the closer description of the entire program the following is stated about collaboration with the families: The student delves into the planning, implementation, evaluation and development of child-centered and child-inclusive activities. She expands her understanding and skills… about educational collaboration with families.

All of this is then actualized during two different 5sp courses. The first one is called Interaction and cooperation. It takes a broader perspective on cooperation and it includes more than just the parental collaboration perspective. After completing this course, the students should have the following skills and knowledge. After completing the course, the student will be able to: • observe interaction situations in different contexts, distinguish them from selected perspectives, and look at the feelings they evoke in themselves and others; • listen to others and express themselves in an understandable way, taking into account cultural diversity; • look at the individual as a member of a group and the construction of group dynamics and community; • apply their understanding and skills of interaction in different situations (e.g., feedback and conflict situations), and are able to act in an ethically sustainable way in interaction situations.

220 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

The second course is called “Family and collaboration” (5sp) and is only focusing on the collaboration with families. In the course description following are stated: After completing the course, the student: • knows the basics and methods of educational cooperation with parent; • is aware of the diversity of family forms; • understand the importance of the family in educational cooperation; • acquires the ability to meet different parents and implement educational cooperation; • understand the importance of child and family involvement in cross-­ sectoral cooperation; • masters the basics of multidisciplinary cooperation; • is familiar with the legislation related to cooperation; • is familiar with the key service systems for children and families; • is able to support families in a variety of challenging situations; • is aware of the importance of one’s own expertise and is able to work in various multidisciplinary networks together with other experts and children and families.

The Swedish Context Parents are considered the child’s primary carer and educator and the tradition of creating strong and stable partnerships between the home and the school in Sweden dates back to 1842 when the first law of an elementary school was implemented (Westberg, 2019). Every parish was to have a school and every school should have at least one qualified teacher whose purpose was to educate the children and to maintain communication with the children’s home (Bunar, 2010; Westberg, 2019). This tradition has continued to emerge, and recent statistics (SBC, 2022) show that during autumn 2021, approximately 513,000 children were enrolled in 9450 preschool units across the nation (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2021). This number amounts to 86% of all Swedish children between the ages of 1–5 years (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2021). The proportion of ECEC staff that currently hold a preschool teacher degree is 40% (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2021), and as in the Finnish case, a preschool teacher holds a bachelor’s degree. Albeit in Sweden, this is extended to a three-and-a-half-year-long program, rather than the three years in neighboring Finland. In Sweden, this degree

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

221

cannot be substituted by a degree from a similar academic discipline (i.e., social science). Other ECEC staff must have at least a-level education (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). All teachers within ECEC (and otherwise) must clear a background check with the national police authorities and also apply for a license to teach (upon completion of their educational degree). Albeit a thorough and well-balanced educational program, pre-service preschool teachers in Sweden receive limited training in regard to the psychological meeting between teacher and parent. In this study one university college is used as an example, the University of Borås (­ https://www. hb.se/utbildning/program-­och kurser/program/forskollararutbildning/ ?filter=Höst%202022) in Borås, Sweden and in this educational program it is stated that the preschool teacher shall develop the abilities required to inform and cooperate with children and their parents, but formal training is given only in the form of two lectures, first and second term respectively. The former is new since autumn 2022, first cycle. Regardless of the above, however, none of the pre-service teacher programs nationwide cover partnerships. The very limited support for partnerships in the Swedish preschool curriculum (Lpfö18) is as follows: In order to create the best possible conditions for children to be able to achieve rich, versatile development, the preschool should cooperate in a close and trusting way with the home.

The guidelines state that the preschool teachers are responsible for “content, design and implementation of the development dialogue being consistent with the national goals (p. 18) and that, “guardians being given the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of the education” (p.18). Furthermore, the curriculum for Preschool (Lpfö18) states that The work team should (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018, p. 18): • assume responsibility for developing a trusting relationship between the preschool and the home; • be clear about the goals and content of the education in order to create the conditions for the opportunities of children and guardians to have an influence;

222 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

• maintain an ongoing dialogue with children’s guardians about the child’s well-being, development and learning, and hold development dialogues; • keep informed about children’s personal circumstances with respect for children’s integrity.

Results University of Borås, Pre-Service Preschool Teacher Program: Case Study Home and preschool collaboration and partnerships are sparsely highlighted in the Swedish preschool teacher program (210 ECTS). Under the section “Knowledge and understanding,” in the overarching preschool program plan, is stated that the student Should demonstrate knowledge about- and understanding of social relations, conflict management and leadership (note: author’s own translation. Original text: visa kunskap om och förståelse för sociala relationer, konflikthantering och ledarskap).

Furthermore, under the section “Evaluation and Attitudes” is stated that To qualify for the degree of preschool teacher, the student must demonstrate knowledge of the self, empathetic abilities, show ability to maintain a professional attitude toward children and their parents (note: Author’s own translation. Original text: För förskollärarexamen ska studenten visa självkännedom och empatisk förmåga, visa förmåga till ett professionellt förhållningssätt gentemot barn och deras vårdnadshavare).

During the second cycle, the students complete first a fifteen-credit course, which is divided into nine areas. One of these is titled “Attachment” (see more preschool teacher program at the University of Borås) and is coded SE23 giving two credits. The examination is seminar attendance and a written submission. The grades given are Fail and Pass. The learning outcome goals are 1.4 and 2.2 of the course plans. These state that after completing the module, the student shall, against the background of relevant research, be able to,

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

223

(1.4) explain children’s emotional-, communicative-, linguistic- and mathematical development and by applying central terms and theories, discuss how these abilities can be stimulated, and (2.2) describe and demonstrate skills in producing academic texts in Swedish, applying correct referencing techniques in accordance with the Harvard guide (note: author’s own translation. Original text: 1.4 utifrån aktuell forskning redogöra för barns emotionella, kommunikativa, språkliga och matematiska utveckling och med hjälp av centrala begrepp och teorier diskuterahur dessa förmågor kan stimuleras. 2.2 skriva och bearbeta texter enligt vedertagen svensk skriftspråksnorm och med användande av källhänvisningsteknik enligt Harvardsystemet).

Discussion Parental collaboration can be viewed from different perspectives that is dependent on the national context (Hujala et al., 2009). There are multiple studies on the differences between the Finnish and Swedish early childhood education policy and practice contexts (see for instance Kuusisto et  al., 2021; Garvis et  al., 2018). These differences in the policies then translate into teacher education programs, but also on the practices of the countries. Therefore, the differences between Finnish and Swedish policy documents, regarding parental collaboration, either restrict or support the partnership between home and early childhood education. Taking all this together, parents and preschool teachers are therefore differently equipped for the teacher-parent partnership, where also cultural attributes play a key role. However, it is important to note that a good teacher-parent interaction is a positive determinant of a child’s later student academic performance (Xu & Gulosino, 2006; Bergroth & Palviainen, 2016). In this chapter our aim was to study closer Finnish and Swedish (a) policy documents regarding parental collaboration in early childhood education and (b) to investigate two early childhood teacher education programs closer regarding parental collaboration. This was done to reveal how parental collaboration is highlighted across the policy documents and then translated into Swedish and Finnish early childhood teacher education programs. Across the two countries, there are more differences that emerge regarding parent and preschool partnerships within early childhood teacher education programs. We will first describe the similarities. According to our results, it can be noted that both early childhood teacher education programs acknowledged parent and preschool partnerships,

224 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

however it is taught in different ways and durations across the two early childhood teacher education programs. Further, both countries had links to parental partnerships in their national early childhood education policy documents. As a summary, in both countries parental collaboration is stated as important and highlighted from policy documents all the way to teacher education programs. However, many differences also emerged. The first difference was the appearance of parental partnerships within the overall early childhood teacher education program description and goals between the two countries. In Finland, there was extensive description given to clear goals and aims for parental partnerships from early childhood teachers, including communication and the role of families in children’s learning. Within the Swedish early childhood teacher education program, parental partnerships did emerge in relation to the sections on knowledge and understanding and evaluation and attitudes. This suggests that within the early childhood teacher education program, parental partnerships are considered important within the overall aims of the early childhood teacher education program. Within the Swedish context, however, this did not transcend to the course level, with no specific courses given for parental involvement, partnership, or engagement. The second major difference was the amount of content given to parent and preschool partnerships within courses. In the Finnish context, extensive coverage was given to parental partnerships across the early childhood teacher education program. This also included multiple ways with the ideas of interactions, families, and communication all featuring across the early childhood teacher program and then in specific courses. Examples from Finland were given of specific courses and course descriptions that aligned with parental partnerships. In the Swedish early childhood teacher education program, there did not appear specific detailed courses for parental involvement. While parental involvement may be within course/s, it was not given individual course titles or learning outcomes. This is not to say that it is not within the early childhood teacher education, but rather from a content review level that does not appear to the same level as what was demonstrated within the Finnish program. The intention of this chapter was to explore home and preschool partnerships in current documents for early childhood teacher education programs in Finland and Sweden. The idea was to map what teachers currently learn around home and preschool partnerships to support them in their work with families. This small study has shown more differences than similarities between Finland and Sweden in regard to their early childhood

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

225

teacher education programs for preschool teachers. In particular, while both countries mention parental partnerships at the respective country’s policy level and program level, differences emerge in how it is implemented at the course level in the universities. As such, it is advocated that countries wanting to support successful partnerships between home and preschool should also look at how this is taught and implemented within early childhood teacher education programs and professional learning. The position of parents in relation to the education system and home to preschool partnerships can be viewed as instructive in terms of larger trends and shifts in the interrelationship between the private and public spheres (Vincent & Ball, 2001). Possibly parents should define their role in relation to educational institutions in terms of what they consider to be a suitable role for the parent, rather than existing hegemonic discourses of parenting (Vincent & Ball, 2001). We suggest that future research on the importance of teacher education to support this important endeavor is needed to allow all future early childhood teachers adequate skills development to work productively with all families and young children. We know from previous studies that teachers need expert skills for this work (Chan & Ritchie, 2016; Mahmood, 2013); however, the problem emerges if these skills are not developed during education. In this study, we have shown two completely different approaches to the implementation of parental partnerships between home and preschool all the way from policy documents to teacher education programs. Further studies could include specific pedagogical practices that support communication with families and ways of working to promote sharing of information and support for young children’s learning and development. It would also be important to evaluate the importance of having specific courses on parental partnerships in early childhood teacher education and if this leads to higher quality within early childhood education programs or variation in early childhood teachers’ skills.

References Alasuutari, M. (2010). Striving at partnership: Parent–practitioner relationships in Finnish early educators’ talk. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502931003784545 Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 35(5), 28–32.

226 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1983). A study of teachers’ sense of efficacy (Final Report, Contract No. 400-79-0075). National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 834). Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. The Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85–102. Bergroth, M., & Palviainen, Å. (2016). The early childhood education and care partnership for bilingualism in minority language schooling: Collaboration between bilingual families and pedagogical practitioners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 649–667. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13670050.2016.1184614 Bowen, G.  A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Nihad Bunar. (2010). The controlled school market and urban schools in Sweden. Journal of School Choice, 4(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15582151003626418 Carmical, L. (1964). Five basic responsibilities of the classroom teacher. The Clearing House [Online], 38(5), 307–308. Chan, A., & Ritchie, J. (2016). Parents, participation, partnership: Problematising New Zealand early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 289–303. Cheatham, G., & Santos, R. (2011). Collaborating with Families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Young Children, 66(5), 76–82. Epstein, J. L. (2019). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school improvement and student success. In School, family and community interaction (pp. 39–52). Routledge. FNAE. (2016a). Opetushallitus, Helsinki. . FNAE. (2016b). National Core Curricula for early childhood education and care 2016. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Flynn, T. (2018). A descriptive study of early childhood education steering documents in Finland, Sweden, and Australia around language immersion programmes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 12(3), 1–22. Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 333–356. Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2020). The role of early childhood teachers in finish policy documents—Training teachers for the future? In W.  Boyd & S. Garvis (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood teacher education in the 21st century (pp. 65–80). Springer. Holmes, S. R., Smith, T. E., & Garbacz, S. A. (2020). Theories and Frameworks that Underlie Family–School Partnerships. In Theories of school psychology (pp. 273–294). Routledge.

13  PARENTAL PARTNERSHIPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION… 

227

Hoover-Dempsey, K.  V., & Sandler, H.  M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. Hujala, E., Turja, L., Gaspar, M. F., Veisson, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2009). Perspectives of early childhood teachers on parent-teacher partnerships in five European countries. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(1), 57–76. Hunt, R., & Walsh, K. (2011). Parents’ views about child sexual abuse prevention education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 63–76. Jung, S. B., & Sheldon, S. (2020). Connecting dimensions of school leadership for partnerships with school and teacher practices of family engagement. School Community Journal, 30(1), 9–32. Kangas, J., & Harju-Luukkainen H. (2021). What is the future of ECE teacher profession? Teacher’s agency in Finland through the lenses of policy documents. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, Spring, 48–75. Kansanen, P. (2006). Constructing a research-based program in teacher education. In Competence oriented teacher training (pp. 9–22). Brill Kuusisto, A., Poulter, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). Worldviews and national values in Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish early childhood education and care curricula. National Values in ECEC: Perspectives to Inclusion and exclusion. The Journal of International Research in Early Childhood Education (IRECE). https://doi.org/10.26180/16935091.v1 Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research: Airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative Report, 8(1), 100–103. Lundgren, U.  P., Säljö, R., & Liberg, C. (2014). Lärande, skola, bildning. Grundbok för lärare. (3. utg). Mahmood, S. (2013). First-year preschool and kindergarten teachers: Challenges of working with parents. School Community Journal, 23(2), 55–85. Statistics Sweden (SBC). (2022). https://www.scb.se/en/ Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). https://www.skolverket.se/ andra-sprak-other-languages/englishengelska Swedish National Agency for Education. (2021). https://www.skolverket.se/ andra-sprak-other-languages/englishengelska Vincent, C., & Ball, S. (2001). A Market in love? Choosing pre-school childcare. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 633–651. Vincent, C., & Tomlinson, S. (1997). Home—School relationships: ‘The swarming of disciplinary mechanisms’? British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 361–377.

228 

T. YNGVESSON ET AL.

Westberg, J. (2019). Basic schools in each and every parish: The School Act of 1842 and the rise of mass schooling in Sweden. In School Acts and the Rise of Mass Schooling (pp. 195–222). Palgrave Macmillan. Xu, Z., & Gulosino, C. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effect of teacher-parent partnership on early childhood performance in public and private schools. Education Economics, 14(3), 345–367.

CHAPTER 14

Family-Professional Collaboration in Inclusive Early Childhood Education in Iceland—Multilingual Families and Children Hanna Ragnarsdóttir

Introduction The changing demographics in Iceland in recent decades have had an impact on the education system, as the diversity, including a number of heritage languages spoken by children at all school levels, is growing. This can be a challenge for educators. The aim of the chapter is to explore the collaboration of diverse immigrant families and their children’s preschools on multilingual issues in inclusive educational contexts. The research question is: What are the opportunities and challenges in the collaboration between families and early childhood educators related to multilingual issues?

H. Ragnarsdóttir (*) University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_14

229

230 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

The chapter draws on data from a qualitative research project which critically explores the language policies and practices of diverse immigrant families and how these impact their children’s education.

The Icelandic Context The population of Iceland is becoming increasingly diverse. With a small total population of 368,792 on 1 January 2021 (Statistics Iceland, 2022a), the changing demographics in Iceland have had a large impact on the education system. Thus, in 2020, 15.6% of all preschool children (Statistics Iceland, 2022b) and 12% of all compulsory school pupils had other heritage languages than Icelandic (Statistics Iceland, 2022c). Municipalities in Iceland operate preschools and compulsory schools. Children in Iceland start preschool on average at the age of one to two, and most children in Iceland attend preschools. Compulsory schools include ten grades, from the age of five or six until the age of sixteen. While municipalities develop their own educational policies, they should also adhere to the general education policies and national curriculum guides issued by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (n.d.). Educational policies and curriculum guides in Iceland emphasize inclusion and equity (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, n.d.). A fundamental principle in the policies and curriculum guides is that everyone must have equal access to education irrespective of economic status, geographic location, sex, religion, disability, and cultural or social background. Six fundamental pillars underpin educational policy in the national curriculum guides. These are literacy, equality, sustainability, democracy and human rights, health and welfare, and creativity. In recent years, policies regarding multilingual and multicultural issues in education have been developed on government and municipal levels. In September 2020, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture published Guidelines for the support of mother tongues and active plurilingualism in schools and afterschool programs (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2020). These guidelines stipulate that ‘knowledge of more than one language is a treasure that must be nurtured and developed, as all languages open up the doors to different cultures and make our lives richer’ (p. 4). Although the guidelines have not been implemented systematically, they provide important information and new emphasis in the areas of bi- and multilingualism in Iceland. Heritage languages other than Icelandic are generally not taught in pre- and compulsory schools in

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

231

Iceland, apart from some cases in municipalities where heritage language teachers are available and provide teaching outside school hours. However, a grassroot association in Iceland, Móðurmál—The Association on Bilingualism (Móðurmál, n.d.), has offered instruction in over 20 languages (other than Icelandic) for multilingual children since 1994. The association supports multiple language groups and mother tongue teachers as well as partnering with parents of multilingual children. Generally, the association supports active bilingualism in Icelandic society. However, it is not formally part of the Icelandic education system.

Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework includes writings on family-professional collaboration of diverse families and preschools, and language policies and practices of families and preschools. Family-Professional Collaboration of Diverse Families and Preschools Banks (2013) claims that as schools and societies become increasingly diverse it is important to consider the ethnic, racial and linguistic diversity of families and children. Furthermore, the diversity of experiences, histories, socioeconomic status and worldviews of families should be considered, their circumstances and worldviews. One aspect of diversity is bi- and multilingualism. Banks (2013) has argued that when diverse families contribute actively with their knowledge of languages and cultures, schools should also consider different interaction styles, expectations and concerns of these families. She claims that successful collaboration between families and schools and a holistic approach towards the diversity of children and families can contribute to an empowering multilingual educational context for the children. Epstein’s (2011) work on school, family and community partnerships is relevant to this discussion. She emphasizes that there are multiple strategies and methods for establishing and maintaining communication with diverse families and that it is important to appreciate family diversity, including family histories, cultures, values, religions and talents. Bergroth and Palviainen (2016) have developed Epstein’s concept of educational partnership of parents, teachers and children further to include bilingual aspects. Partnerships for bilingualism as explained by Bergroth and

232 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

Palviainen involve parental and practitioner discourses on partnership. Such partnerships, according to Bergroth and Palviainen (2016), lie in the intersection of family language policy and the language policy of the early childhood education setting. Care is also essential in family-professional collaboration in bi- and multilingual educational contexts. Noddings (2005) claims that a caring relationship is one where both the cared-for and the carer contribute. In the case of preschool children, this relationship could be seen to extend to the parents, emphasizing the importance of good communication and cooperation between families and preschool. This is reflected in cases where preschool principals and teachers make efforts to initiate contact and communication with parents. The preschools in a qualitative research study conducted by Hellman et al. (2018), conducted in four Nordic countries, developed educational partnerships with diverse parents where parents’ views and perspectives were highly valued. The educators participating in the study realized that working with diverse immigrant parents could be different from working with other parents as in some cases they did not read or understand the majority language. Parents in all the preschools in the study shared the view that the preschool setting should be flexible and foster a feeling of security and competence in the children. They preferred teachers with personal, open and relaxed attitudes. Most of the preschools in the study could be described as inclusive learning communities where children of diverse backgrounds thrived in a context that supported and facilitated their learning and personal growth. Findings from the interviews with the parents indicated that they experienced understanding and respect in the preschools. The educators developed knowledge and understanding by reflecting on everyday educational practices, simultaneously creating a multilingual and multicultural learning community. To develop family-professional collaboration of diverse families and preschools that build on children’s and parents’ bi- or multilingualism requires active cooperation of families and preschools (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018; Ragnarsdóttir & Kulbrandstad, 2018). Robinson and Díaz (2006) have argued that families of minority sociocultural backgrounds are sometimes perceived as being linguistically or culturally deprived. Preschools that build on the diverse linguistic and cultural resources of families and children can counteract such perceptions.

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

233

Language Policies and Practices of Diverse Families and Inclusive Preschools Language policies of diverse families (King et  al., 2008; Schwartz & Verschik, 2013) entail how languages are managed, learned and negotiated within these families. Many multilingual parents actively choose which languages to use and teach their children in the home, thus negotiating and implementing family language policy (King et  al., 2008). Schwartz and Verschik (2013) note that various external factors can affect family language policy, such as time pressure restraints, identity conflicts and the negative effects of macro-level social processes such as state language policy. In spite of often-challenging circumstances, many families make efforts to teach their children their heritage languages and use these systematically at home. As a response to growing linguistic and cultural diversity of children, many preschools apply linguistically and culturally appropriate educational practices (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2012; Cummins, 2004; Gay, 2010; Nieto, 2010). Cummins (2001) and Chumak-Horbatsch (2012) argue that inclusive linguistic practices are necessary to enhance the learning of all children in linguistically and culturally diverse learning contexts. Gay (2010) and Nieto (2010) explain that culturally appropriate practices entail using the cultural knowledge, experiences, frames of reference and performance styles of diverse children to make learning encounters more relevant, meaningful and effective for them. Nieto (2010) maintains that developing empowering multicultural learning communities within educational systems will facilitate the inclusion and participation of all children. Furthermore, Schwartz and Palviainen (2016) have argued that it is important to be aware of and understand the complexities of children’s linguistic backgrounds as well as the diversity of language models and their hybrid and dynamic nature.

Method, Participants and Ethics The aim of the chapter is to explore the collaboration of diverse immigrant families and their children’s preschools on multilingual issues in inclusive educational contexts. The research question is: What are the opportunities and challenges in the collaboration between families and early childhood educators related to multilingual issues?

234 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

The participants were ten parents in nine families, six teachers and four principals in the three preschools. The municipalities were chosen to reflect different locations and educational policies in Iceland. The families were located based on information from educational authorities. The nine families have diverse heritage languages and belong to both small and large language groups in Iceland. The languages spoken by these families at home are Polish, Romanian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Serbian, Spanish, English and Icelandic. Parents in six of the nine families have different heritage languages and use English for communication at home. The parents have lived in Iceland for 2 to 20 years and their age was from 25 to 43 years old at the time of the interviews. The project is a qualitative research study including diverse immigrant families and preschools. Data was collected in 2020 and 2021 in nineteen semi-structured interviews with parents, preschool teachers and principals in three preschools in different municipalities in Iceland. Sampling was purposive: bi- or multilingual immigrant families. Data for this article included nine semi-structured interviews with altogether ten parents, all mothers, in nine families, six teachers and four principals in the three preschools. Each participant was interviewed once. The parents were interviewed in the families’ homes or online, based on their choice and depending on the situation of the pandemic. In one of the preschools, the staff were interviewed in the preschool, while in the other two preschools, they were interviewed online. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were used for data collection, using interview guides developed by the researcher. Semi-structured interviews were chosen to elicit the experiences and views of the participants as clearly and accurately as possible, and as they allow the researcher to organize the contents of the interviews, while simultaneously providing flexibility (Kvale, 2007). The interviews with the mothers were conducted in English or Icelandic, based on their choice. They were fluent in one of these two languages. The interviews with the preschool staff were conducted in Icelandic. Excerpts from the interviews conducted in Icelandic were translated into English by the author. Data collection also included content analysis of national curriculum guides, laws and regulations on education, in addition to municipal and school policies. The individual interviews were transcribed verbatim. The interviews were analysed thematically (Creswell, 2009), and Atlas.ti software was used for coding the interviews. The author familiarized herself with the

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

235

data through reading the interviews. Then the interviews were coded using the complete coding approach with researcher-derived codes applied to the data (Braun & Clarke, 2013). After using Atlas.ti to obtain an overview of the coding, the initial codes were re-evaluated and thematically similar codes were grouped into categories to develop the final themes. Ethics The project followed the usual practices of ethics in relation to research on Humans: respect of the rights, interests and dignity of the participants and related persons. The research was carried out in accordance with the Data Protection Authority; the Act no. 90/2018 on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data and the Code of Research Ethics for Public Higher Education Institutions (2020). An informed consent form was prepared in Icelandic and English, languages understood by the participants and presented to them. An informed consent was obtained from all participants. The families were contacted for permission to conduct research with them and their children. The educational offices in the selected municipalities were contacted for permission to conduct research in the preschools of the children, whose families were chosen for the project. Preschool principals in the selected preschools were contacted for permission to invite the children’s teachers—who were also heads of their divisions—to participate in the research.

Results The findings indicate that the parents have diverse language policies and see their role as supporters both their children’s Icelandic learning and of their heritage language teachers. The preschools in the study mostly emphasize linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches. While cooperation between the parents and preschools appears to be good, they do not seem to cooperate systematically on multilingual issues. Family-Professional Collaboration on Multilingual Issues The findings indicate that the parents, preschool teachers and principals were generally content with their communication and cooperation. They communicated in person within the preschools, when the parents brought or picked up the children, by phone, by text messages or by email. One

236 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

mother described her positive experience of the preschool and how her daughter felt happy there: I feel that she has grown so much … she wasn’t even eating by herself in the beginning. I think she was really, really confused when she went there because of this … all languages thing and everything. (Mother, Latvian, 25 y.o.)

Another mother described how happy she was with her son’s preschool: I love them I think we are so, so, so happy. Yeah, I feel like there is like a lot of cooperation between me and the school … I feel a lot of support from them. (Mother, Polish, 37 y.o.)

When it came to language issues of the families’ bi- or multilingualism, the parents also felt understanding and respect from the preschool staff. One mother explained that she had experienced understanding as her children were attending a Polish heritage language school. She noted: They sometimes had to skip school and they have been so amazingly supportive of that … they were like saying like. It’s important to know the mother tongue because then you can build this wonderful base for other languages to come to your brain. (Mother, Polish, 37 y.o.)

The parents were also aware of how languages were used and supported in the preschools, and they appreciated this, although there was not much discussion about this between the preschool staff and the parents. One mother said: What I know is that Icelandic is the language spoken in the kindergarten but there is space for other mother languages if there is proportion of kids that are Polish or have Polish parent maybe one or two. This is just what I was told in the beginning … and then they speak together in their own languages and that’s perfectly fine and … so I think there is acknowledgement that you can have other mother languages than just Icelandic but … there is some flexibility there. (Mother Serbian, 38 y.o.)

The principals and the preschool teachers all agreed that they had good communication with the parents and that they tried to keep it flexible. One preschool principal noted about this:

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

237

We have always told the parents that they can always come to us, if there is anything, we are always ready to assist. … we have been developing and trying different things to see what is suitable for this community and in ­cooperation with the parents too, what they want to have, what they like and what is missing. (Principal, Preschool 1)

The preschool teachers and principals emphasized that they encouraged the parents to speak to their children in their heritage languages to support their bi- or multilingualism. However, they did not cooperate systematically with the parents on multilingual issues and were not aware of the language policies and practices of each of the families. Some of the parents worried about the language development of their children and that they might eventually lose their heritage languages and not learn Icelandic well either. One mother noted: I’ve met people with kids and the kids they didn’t really know any language so I definitely didn’t want to do that … so they didn’t know what the mothers or the parents … they wouldn’t know the language from the country they lived in too well you know … it seems like a big problem to me so I have decided myself to let preschool … the teachers and the school teachers take care of Icelandic and I myself took good care of Polish. (Mother, Polish, 37 y.o.)

The parents had diverse language policies and different ways of supporting their children’s heritage languages at home. One mother noted: My husband prefers to just tell the stories but I support the idea of reading so she can understand the connection between the words and what’s written in the book. … the last time when we went home, we bought books in Hungarian with rhymes and poems to help her and sometimes we try to play games with the letters also. She likes music so she is listening to songs in different languages … since she was very small, and we were reading to her every night since she was a baby. Either my husband or me but it’s a little bit more from my side but yeah, Romanian is also there. … We let her listen to stories in Romanian and Hungarian and songs and she is watching cartoons in the original languages. (Mother, Hungarian, 33 y.o.)

At the same time the parents found it very important for their children to learn Icelandic so that they could be active participants in Icelandic schools and society. One mother noted:

238 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

I want her to learn it in the kindergarten, in preschool, because it is very important, she can communicate with the other kids. Because I know that there are many kids who are from other countries as well, but in the preschool the … common language is not going to be English. It is going to be Icelandic so it’s very important for her also to be able to communicate there. (Mother, Latvian, 25 y.o.)

In summary, while the collaboration of families and preschools was generally considered to be good by both families and preschool staff, they did not communicate much about multilingual issues. Inclusive Linguistic and Culturally Responsive Educational Practices in the Preschools The findings indicate that the preschool teachers and principals emphasized inclusive educational practices where all languages and cultures were welcomed. Linguistically and culturally responsive educational practices had been initiated and developed to some extent in the preschools, but mostly by individual teachers and not consistently. Some teachers explained that they felt they did not have enough knowledge about such practices to implement these thoroughly. One preschool teacher claimed that she had not had any training regarding such practices in her preschool: I have not had any training since I moved here … although we are always working with diversity during the day. (Teacher, Preschool 2)

Another preschool teacher noted that in her preschool they were starting to develop linguistically and culturally responsive practices: For us it is relatively new, only in the last years so many families with immigrant backgrounds have moved to the municipality, so … everyone is just starting to experience this and respond to this. (Teacher, Preschool 1)

She added that she did not know much about the languages of the families of children in her division. Some of the preschool teachers described how the daily schedules were available in a visual way for the children, so that they would learn from the beginning, connecting pictures to words and feeling safe. Some of the

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

239

teachers also printed out words in the heritage languages of the children and put these on various objects and places in the preschools to support the heritage language awareness of all the children. The principal of Preschool 1 emphasized educational practices involving all children as stipulated in inclusive education policy. She noted: We of course try to have all the children together in their group, not separately, … we think it is important … this is not special teaching for children of foreign backgrounds, here they don’t need special teaching, perhaps a little extra support in Icelandic … so here the material is very accessible and visible in the preschool divisions. … there is group work, reading books … a lot of singing and talking … working together … letters and numbers are visible in the divisions. (Principal 1, Preschool 1)

One of the mothers in the same preschool described how she experienced the educational practices there and said that she really liked the preschool’s educational approaches: They have this little house and when (my daughter) comes to preschool they are showing her … she has to put her picture in the house … and they have these games with the board and games with sand and senses, so they are teaching her senses. They are teaching sign language and they are always exploring nature. (Mother, Latvian, 25 y.o.)

While all languages were welcomed, respected and appreciated in the preschools, the main language used in the preschools was Icelandic. A preschool teacher in Preschool 1 said: For example, if there are two Polish children playing together … then you know we don’t interfere if they speak Polish together and play together in Polish but as soon as another child joins, perhaps an Icelandic child who does not understand, then we say that now we will speak a language together that they all understand so that they can all join in the play. We never forbid the use of their own language. (Teacher, Preschool 1)

Some of the preschool teachers in the study supported the children’s heritage languages more actively than the others, but this depended mainly on the interest of each of the preschool teachers. A preschool teacher in Preschool 1 described how she tried to encourage the children who speak many languages to be proud and use these languages:

240 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

We were talking about … what languages we speak at home and she just … yes, I know this language and that language and that language, and I said, yes you speak four languages! … she was very proud of this … when I asked her to say, … how do I say green in (one of her languages), how about in (another of her languages), so you could see that she felt that this was a bit silly, but still it made her proud. (Teacher, Preschool 1)

The three preschool principals emphasized that they respected all the languages of the children and that the preschool teachers tried to connect to the multiple languages in their everyday educational practices. The principal of Preschool 3 said: We also ask if we are, for example learning new words or if they are curious about some strange words, particularly the older children, you know, this word means this in Icelandic, how do we say it in Polish? How do we say it in Spanish? So that, you know we … use the diversity for something positive also, to learn … from each other … so that they also feel like, my language matters, it is important that they also feel, you know that, I can speak Icelandic and Polish, this is rather great. (Principal, Preschool 3)

The principal in Preschool 2 described how they encouraged the children to speak Icelandic while playing in groups to prevent the marginalization of children. Icelandic was considered the common language although other languages were welcomed. She also noted that they respected all languages and realized that a child coming to the preschool with another heritage language than Icelandic would need more time to learn Icelandic than children who had Icelandic as a heritage language: I emphasize very much that we respect all languages and that there is not one … dominant language here, we speak ten or more languages in the preschool … My opinion is that our mother tongue is such a large part of our identity and I always say that when the children start here in the preschool, they come here 18 months or two years old and one is Polish and has been only in a Polish environment and the other is Icelandic, then they are on an equal level. I explained this for my staff … they are perhaps equally strong linguistically, but now one of these children is going to learn Icelandic as well, and this slows down the language acquisition and this is more of a task for us. I had to, in the beginning, make people understand that we must reach the children, go to their level. (Principal, Preschool 2)

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

241

This principal also noted that it could be problematic to implement linguistically and culturally responsive educational practices as there were many children and families of immigrant backgrounds and some of the preschool teachers found this difficult: I am still … reminding the group of teachers … there was a new special education advisor and we had a different view of this … she found it very difficult … she was so bitter towards the diversity … all the parents so it was a lot of work for me to maintain the positive approach. (Principal, Preschool 2)

In summary, the preschool teachers and principals of all three preschools emphasized that they respected all the languages of the children and tried to connect to the multiple languages in their everyday educational practices.

Discussion The main aim of the article is to explore the cooperation of diverse immigrant families and their children’s preschools on multilingual issues in inclusive educational contexts. The findings indicate that the preschool teachers and principals initiate contact and communication with the parents, and the parents are also active in contacting the preschools if they feel they need information or advice. Banks (2013) claims that schools can lose an important voice for school improvement if parents are not active partners. Although both preschool teachers and principals in the preschools claim that they respect the multiple languages of the families and children, they do not cooperate systematically with the parents on multilingual issues. Cummins (2001) and Chumak-Horbatsch (2012) have argued that schools need to develop ways to implement inclusive and socially just practices and welcome diverse backgrounds and identities. While the preschools in the study appear to welcome and respect the diverse languages and backgrounds of the children and their families, they appear not to consistently build on the linguistic resources of the families and children and are not aware of the language policies and practices of the families. Some of the staff note that the diversity of families is a new reality that they are only beginning to respond to.

242 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

The findings also indicate that all the preschools have developed some linguistically appropriate educational practices (Banks, 2013; Gay, 2010). The preschool teachers and principals show respect for and claim that they build on the resources that the children and families bring to the preschools (Gay, 2010). However, this is not done in a coherent way, and the implementation of linguistically and culturally appropriate educational practices mostly depends on the interest of individual preschool teachers. In one of the preschools, the principal struggled to maintain positive views towards diversity among the staff. Furthermore, some of the preschool teachers note that they lack more thorough training and support to be able to further develop and implement linguistically appropriate practices. To conclude, the preschools could more systematically build on the resources of the family language policies and practices. Although the preschools and families have good communication, family-professional collaboration could be developed more thoroughly between them to jointly support the children’s bi- and multilingualism. Although the preschool teachers are interested in culturally and linguistically responsive practices, some of them claim that they do not have the knowledge to implement these and call for further training.

References Banks, C. A. M. (2013). Communities, families, and educators working together for school improvement. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed., pp. 331–348). John Wiley & Sons. Bergroth, M., & Palviainen, Å. (2016). The early childhood education and care partnership for bilingualism in minority language schooling: Collaboration between bilingual families and pedagogical practitioners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 649–667. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13670050.2016.1184614 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research. Sage. Code of Research Ethics for Public Higher Education Institutions (2020). https://english.hi.is/sites/default/files/bryndjo/pdf/code_of_research_ethics_for_public_higher_education_institutions.pdf Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2012). Linguistically appropriate practice: A guide for working with young immigrant children. University of Toronto Press. Creswell, J.  W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods’ approaches. Sage. Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education? Sprogforum, 19, 15–20.

14  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EARLY… 

243

Cummins, J. (2004). Language, power, and pedagogy. In Bilingual children in the crossfire (3rd ed.). Multilingual Matters. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research & practice. Teachers College Press. Hellman, A., Ragnarsdóttir, H., Jónsdóttir, F. B., Blöndal, H., Lauritsen, K., & Paavola, H. (2018). Socially just learning spaces: Inclusion and participation in preschool settings in the Nordic countries. In H.  Ragnarsdóttir & L.  A. Kulbrandstad (Eds.), Learning spaces for inclusion and social Justice: Success stories from four Nordic countries (pp. 119–151). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. King, K.  A., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Sage. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2020). Guidelines for the support of mother tongues and active plurilingualism in schools and afterschool programs. https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/01%2D%2DFrettatengt%2D%2D-­ myndir-­og-­skrar/MRN/Leidarvisir%20um%20studning%20vid%20modurmal_enska.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d.). National curriculum guides. https://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/publications/curriculum/ Móðurmál. (n.d.). https://www.modurmal.com Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes. Creating multicultural learning communities (10th anniversary ed.). Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2018). Building empowering multilingual learning communities in Icelandic schools. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 577–594). Springer International Handbooks of Education. Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Kulbrandstad, L. A. (2018). Learning spaces for inclusion and social justice: The project and the book. In H.  Ragnarsdóttir & L.  A. Kulbrandstad (Eds.), Learning spaces for inclusion and social justice: Success stories from four Nordic countries (pp.  1–31). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Robinson, K. H., & Díaz, C. J. (2006). Diversity and difference in early childhood education: Issues for theory and practice. Open University Press. Schwartz, M., & Palviainen, Å. (2016). Twenty-first-century preschool bilingual education: Facing advantages and challenges in cross-cultural contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1184616

244 

H. RAGNARSDÓTTIR

Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (2013). Achieving success in family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children, and educators in interaction (Multilingual Education 7) (pp.  1–20). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7753-­8_1 Statistics Iceland. (2022a). Population by country of birth, sex and age 1 January 2021. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__3_ bakgrunnur__Faedingarland/MAN12103.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxi d=58aaedbe-­1d27-­46b9-­b9dd-­5ed770471e36 Statistics Iceland. (2022b). Children in pre-primary institutions having another mother tongue than Icelandic 2020. https://px.hagstofa.is/ pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__0_ lsNemendur/SKO01103.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=131f27dc-­ ebdc-­4bc4-­8cda-­c17832882dd9 Statistics Iceland. (2022c). Pupils in compulsory schools having another mother tongue than Icelandic 2020. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/ Samfelag__skolamal__2_grunnskolastig__0_gsNemendur/SKO02103.px/ table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=131f27dc-­ebdc-­4bc4-­8cda-­c17832882dd9

CHAPTER 15

Family-Professional Collaboration in Teams Meeting Special Educational Needs of Children in Lithuanian ECEC Settings Daiva Kairienė and Stefanija Ališauskienė

Introduction ECEC sector increasingly recognises that supporting strong relationships between families and ECEC services is a powerful way to improve children’s educational, health and well-being outcomes (Murphy et al., 2021). According to O’Connor et al. (2018), professionals’ practical experience and observations of parents and children over time lay a good foundation to provide support to the parent–child relationship and create a close relation with families. Family-professional relationship is based on cooperation, partnership and collaboration, that is, equal relationships of all participants of the educational process (Ališauskienė, 2005; Ruškus & Mažeikis, 2007; Einarsdottir & Jónsdóttir, 2019; Murphy et al., 2021).

D. Kairienė (*) • S. Ališauskienė Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_15

245

246 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

The conception of collaboration is inseparable from the ideas of empowerment, social participation, usage of human resources and orientation towards family in the context of early support to a child and a family (Soriano, 2005; Bricker et al., 2020). Consolidation of family internal and external resources to solve issues related to child’s education and support as well as involvement into various social networks and active participation in various communities are considered to be a pathway of child and family inclusion in ECEC settings (Guralnick & Conlon, 2007; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017; Mas et  al., 2022). The ECEC staff’s role, among other issues, is to ensure that parents play a part in their children’s education. This is especially important in the case of children with additional needs who require specific support in their development and learning (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat, 2014). According to research, collaboration among family and professionals should be based on common understanding, shared vision, matching of expectations and responsibility while making joint decisions, developing individual education and support plan, etc. (Blue-Banning et  al., 2004; Dodge, 2018; Mas et al., 2022). Attitudes, stereotypes, wrong expectations and differences of values are considered as an obstacle for family-­ professional collaboration in ECEC.  Difficulties arising in collaboration practice with families are linked also to the lack of mutual preparation of families and professionals to understand each other’s roles. Professionals seek to be “experts”, that is, to implement their competencies and to properly perform their duties without considering actual family needs. Whereas families usually expect only the support of professionals as they do not accept them as equal partners (Ališauskienė, 2005; Wang et  al., 2004; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Oke et al., 2021). The presumptions of family-professional collaboration in ECEC are explored in many scientific sources; however, there is still growing need for empirical data aiming to understand deeply how family-professional collaboration is realised in inclusive ECEC practice. Listening to the voices of professionals, identifying the nature, strengths, barriers and presumptions of successful family-professional collaboration and conceptualising family-professional reality within theoretical framework provide an opportunity to learn from shared experiences and identify a relevant direction of collaborative practice improvement. In this chapter, we specifically focus on close interpersonal family-­ professional relationships based on respectful and positive attitudes, equal

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

247

participation of families while making joint decision as well as developing and implementing individual education plan and family preparation for equal participation. The aim of the study presented in this chapter is to identify, share with and interpret family-professional collaboration experiences in two different types of ECEC teams. The main research question has guided the study: What are the main components of family-professional collaboration identified by various professionals’ working within different contexts of special and inclusive ECEC?

The Lithuanian Context Lithuania follows one of the international education priorities that is emphasised in UN Sustainable Development Goal 4: ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all. Inclusive education, including ECEC, of children with SEN in Lithuania is regulated and justified by laws (Law on Education, 2011). ECEC in Lithuania falls under the category of informal education (ibid.). Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that every child under the jurisdiction has access to education including an adapted learning environment and resources and any additional psychological, educational or social support, if needed. According to legislation (ibid.), each educational setting should have an interprofessional team to provide educational support to children and their families. However, this support is not always accessible to families due to a lack of specialists and/or placements available locally. There are some challenges in the area of support for families with young children, especially those with additional needs. Mainstream ECEC settings do not have enough well-trained specialists to effectively serve all children’s needs and families have to apply for placements in special education ECEC settings (European Agency, 2016). According to Sapelyte et al. (2021), in Lithuanian ECEC settings, the processes of collaboration with families, creation of partnership based relationship, communication and promotion of family participation in making decisions are emphasised and is recognised as usual practice; however, this practice still meets with a lot of challenges. Up until now, in the national legislation, much attention is paid to duties and functions of pedagogues and educational support professionals. Among these, the following family-­ professional collaboration components are mentioned: informing, consulting and promoting family participation when making decisions during

248 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

all processes of children’s education. However, there are no guidelines provided to how it could be succeeded in educational practice, in particular, in ECEC. For this research, we selected two ECEC settings representing ECEC setting providing special needs education and providing inclusive education. The context of each particular ECEC setting that took part in the research is presented below. The context of ECEC setting providing special needs education: ECEC setting (kindergarten) is located in the centre of a small town. In the kindergarten, special attention is paid to education and support to children with moderate and severe SEN. Kindergarten provides general education as well as special education classes (groups) for children with language and communication disorders, and also for children with moderate/severe developmental disabilities. Professionals from different disciplines work as interprofessional team that is comprised of five members, including ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist and a team coordinator. The team is responsible for education and support provision to children with SEN within special education group (that consist of six–eight children) with the main focus on intensive interdisciplinary support to children with moderate/severe disabilities. The context of ECEC setting providing inclusive education: ECEC setting (kindergarten) is located in the big city centre. According to research participants, it is assumed as one of prestigious kindergartens in the city. The kindergarten works in the competitive environment with other kindergartens; however, it does not need to solve “survival” issues, because there are a lot of parents who want that their children attend this particular kindergarten. Kindergarten is described as an open and modern, following democratic principles and innovative methods of education. Children with diverse educational needs (mostly mild and moderate) are included in general groups together with their pairs. Children receive professional support and services according to their needs. Professionals from different disciplines work as interprofessional team that is comprised of seven members, including ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist, psychologist, social pedagogue and a team coordinator. The mode of the support provided by the team is flexible to better address educational needs of children, families and pedagogues. Most of team members are also the members of a kindergarten Child Welfare Committee that is responsible for initial assessment of children’s needs and educational support.

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

249

Theoretical Framework Family-professional collaboration in ECEC mainly encompasses two components: relationship and participation (Dempsey & Dunst, 2004; Murphy et al., 2021). According to authors, the relationship is manifested through professionals’ abilities to communicate, that is active listening, empathy, respect and avoidance of accusations, especially when families’ poor competencies are faced. The participation encompasses provision of possibilities for family active participation, regard to the family concerns, joint family and professional actions while seeking for agreed aims of child’s education and support. Family-professional collaboration is considered as empowerment that strengthens parents’ sense of the personal control when participating in the ECEC process (Dempsey & Dunst, 2004; Hsiao et al., 2018; Norheim & Moser, 2020). In the framework of empowerment-­ based practice, the role of family in the process of support to a child is extended: parents are treated as active representatives of child’s and family’s interests, searching for information, solving problems, considering various opinions and making decisions (Nachshen, 2004; Blue-Banning & Summers, 2004; Mas et al., 2022). Mutual recognition of competencies is important—professionals wish to be recognised by families as experts; at the same time, parents seek to be acknowledged as caring parents (Blue-­ Banning et  al., 2004; Lyon, 2008; Einarsdottir & Jónsdóttir, 2019). Moreover, the importance of shared competencies and responsibilities while planning and implementing child’s education and support programmes is emphasised. It includes family involvement into children’s education planning, representing children and family interests, sharing with knowledge and experiences, and joint actions (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Mellinger, 2009; Mas et al., 2022). FPC is implemented through various models. According to Porter (2008) and Devarakonda (2015), the following family-professional collaboration models are known: professional-oriented (professionals as experts), family-allied (parents as assistants of professionals), family-­ focused (parents as consumers), family-centred (focus to family needs). The mentioned above professionals as experts model and parents as assistants model are related to child-focused support and acknowledgement of experts as the only experts predetermining unequal relationships between parents and professionals. The model of parents as customers and family-­ focused intervention model focus on family needs, cohesion of family and

250 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

professionals’ resources as well as flexibility of services and equal relationships and satisfaction of families with the provided support.

Methods, Participants and Ethics The research presented in this chapter is a part of a wider study of a culture of family-professional collaboration in ECEC teams while providing early support to children and families. The research follows ethnographic case study research design, including cases of two ECEC settings. Ethnography focuses on the meaning, not measurement of the narratives, and brings a deeper understanding of the participant experience (Elliot, 2005; Holloway et al., 2010; Fusch et al., 2017). We focus on subjective meanings of the participants to explain family-professional collaboration in two different ECEC settings; in particular, how collaboration is implemented and what meanings are manifested in professionals’ narratives. Narratives are used in the research to unravel consequential stories of people’s lives as told by them in their own words (Elliot, 2005; Ntinda, 2020) to understand the meaning of research participants’ experiences from the perspective of the participants, viewing the researcher as a narrator. The qualitative methods, including individual and group interviews and observational diaries, have been employed to collect data. Qualitative thematic analysis has been carried out following the inductive logics of data analysis (Sundler et al., 2019). A prerequisite for the analysis is that it includes data on lived experiences, such as interviews and/or group narratives. Themes derived from the analysis are data-driven (i.e. grounded in data and the experience of the participants). The analysis is aimed to try to understand the complexity of meanings in the data rather than measure their frequency. It involves researcher engaging in the data and the analysis as well as reflective process designed to illuminate meanings (ibid.). The findings move between concrete expressions and descriptive text on meanings of lived experiences (Van Manen, 2016; Sundler et al., 2019). Data of each of the two ECEC teams as a single case have been analysed separately still following the principle of common consistency of the thematic analysis process and inductive empirical data-driven logics and sequence. The collected data have been analysed following the six-step process (Braun & Clarke, 2006), including familiarisation, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and finally reporting to the research participants in the form of group discussion and

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

251

validation (to ensure that the reported findings match the meanings of the participants). In this chapter, the research findings are presented in the form of group narratives. A thick narrative is presented purposefully in order to share with the experiences of the participants from two ECEC teams. The research complies with qualitative research sampling requirements. Two interprofessional teams (N = 2 cases; see Table  15.1) providing ECEC and early support to a child and a family have been selected purposefully. Research sample has been formed by mixed sampling while applying several sampling techniques, purposeful criterion-driven and convenience case sampling. Purposeful sampling of two different team cases is based on common criteria of the teams: (a) early support services are provided in teams of ECEC settings; (b) long-standing experience of professionals working with families. In addition, the distinctive criteria of team selection have been taken into consideration: distinct types of ECEC setting (special needs education/inclusive); different levels of children SEN (severe/ mild); and different locations of ECEC setting (town/city). Principles of research ethics were followed in respect to the research participants. Participation in the research is based on voluntary consent. Collaboration agreements have been signed between the researchers and the organisations prior to the research. Research participants were notified of the aims of the research throughout all stages of the research. During collection of data, the participants have been given the option to make a voluntary decision on provision of answers to the questions asked, subjects relevant to the participants were taken into account, and the participants were notified about the option to withdraw from the research in case they Table 15.1  Characteristics of the research sample and participants ECEC team

ECEC team character

Team members

1st interprofessional team 2nd interprofessional

ECEC setting, providing special needs education. Inclusive ECEC setting.

N = 5: ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist and a team coordinator. N = 7: ECEC teacher, speech and language therapist, special pedagogue, physiotherapist, psychologist, social pedagogue and a team coordinator.

252 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

feel the risk of psychological or social vulnerability. The research follows the principles of data confidentiality and anonymity. Respectful and frank interaction between the researchers and research participants during collection and presentation of the data is based on the principles of participants’ privacy. The participants’ opinions expressed during conversations were coded without providing the names and any other recognisable information.

Results In this section of the chapter, the findings of the research, that is, experiences of family-professional collaboration within two ECEC interprofessional teams are presented. The results show that professionals working in both ECEC interprofessional teams emphasise the following issues (themes) of family-professional collaboration as most important while meeting children’s educational needs: (1) close interpersonal relationships based on respectful and positive attitudes; (2) equal participation in developing and implementing individual education plan and (3) family preparation for equal participation. The Results of ECEC Setting Providing Special Needs Education Close interpersonal relationship, based on respectful and positive attitudes. Team members noted that close interpersonal relationship is based on respectful and positive attitudes towards communication among professionals and families: There is sincere, simple and empathetic communication with the respect to each other … the tolerance, self-control, and listening to one another is needed … we emphasise child’s abilities and strengths, we never say that it is an end of the world.

Equal participation in developing and implementing individual education plan. Professionals emphasise that they respect parents’ opinions and seek to involve them into development and implementation of the individual education and support plan. Professionals emphasise the importance of shared knowledge, which lets to know the child better. Families are seen as child’s life experts, who know child’s behaviour, interests and the level of his/her abilities:

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

253

You try to maintain the position that parents know their child very well, they always fell the child better … information about child’s behaviour at home that is received from parents is important … parents tell what are the abilities and difficulties of their child. We show a child in a different angle that parents are unaware … parent’s recommendations are useful for the communication with the child.

However, professionals recognise that they more often foresee the aims of child’s education and support by themselves, although they ask family opinion in order to know their expectations: A positive approach is important while listening family opinions, you need to trust them, and respect their expectations … we encourage them, but in fact, we tend to formulate the aims, and parents support this. We are professionals that is why we know what is needed and what is not … you raise the objectives, parents sometimes read, sometimes express their comments, and respond: “Let’s do in this way”, but when a task is to complex, you become aware that you are not a “boss”.

Besides the issues that are described above, the professionals highlighted mutual commitments and shared responsibilities as important ones to family-professional collaboration. Professionals shared their successful experiences assuming that collaboration is ensured by families’ goodwill and openness to the recommendations of professionals: Openness to suggestions of professionals, necessary parents’ disposition to listen to pedagogues … you should feel that we are using the same language … it is good when parents show initiative to communicate … when they are interested in … they ask to give homework … these people accept what is suggested.

Family preparation for equal participation. Professionals note, that in many cases, participation of families in ECEC setting’s team is limited because of lack of parent’s preparation for cooperation. Team members missing parents’ feedback about professional actions. According to professionals, families lack self-confidence to equally participate in teamwork of ECEC setting: It is important that would be no fear, that one could come and talk freely … we want to find out their responses, but sometimes they are silent … maybe

254 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

because of lack of self-confidence…. If we would communicate more often, maybe self-confidence would improve.

Professionals used to reflect their practice and stress on unsuccessful issues. They note that family’s inability to cope with child’s disability disturbs the process of collaboration. If so, parents are not prepared to properly accept the information provided by interprofessional team and to support their child: You feel like being guilty for thrusting your opinion … parents lack of information, which is ‘in the air’ if someone is not prepared to hear it … if parents reject child’s disability, then they inappropriately understand what you are saying, instead of helping their own child. Everything depends on the stage where parents are, but first of all, parents should learn to accept their child as he/she is, to help a child “here and now”… If parents adequately accept their situation, they are better partners in education than those who do not accept the situation of child’s disability.

Professionals emphasise that parent’s expectations towards child’s education and progress not always are realistic and differ from professionals’ expectations: Some parents’ expectations concerning their children are high … sometimes we should take pink eye-glasses off their eyes because parents pose too high aims: “My child will walk”. Even if the mother knows that a child has physical disability, her expectation is not the speech, not education, but walking. When you start saying why, she turns the conversation away.

According to professionals, the approach of families as consumers may negatively impact on families’ collaboration with professionals: For the parents we are service providers … they need more free time to take a rest at home … parents think how to relieve their difficult life … it is not very relevant for parents to find out about child’s education. To their opinion, education is the job of professionals: “what collaboration she is talking about, professionals must work and not push one’s work to us”.

The barriers of successful family-professional collaboration have been mentioned by the team, that is, lack of awareness of the families regarding their own child’s education and support; lack of professional empathy and attention to families’ vulnerable situations. According to participating

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

255

professionals, problem-solving in collaboration with families can be assumed as possibility for families’ active participation: More in-depth attention should be paid to expectations of families … the most important is to know how does the child succeed at home, not in a certain space created by us … we put emphases on different things—we live our lives, they live their ones … we match work inside the team because we live with this every day. There are “must survive” issues, whereas part of parents even do not hear about it … solution of common problems could become one of the forms of parents’ involvement.

Although professionals recognise the lack of their abilities to communicate with families: There is lack of flexibility when we collaborate with families. There is the need to improve ways to access family; we lack knowledge in the field of psychology and are seeking to improve our understanding. Specifically, we are looking to enhance our knowledge regarding the quality of collaboration with families.

Interpretation of the Results The team of professionals of the ECEC setting that provides special needs education highlighted the importance of positive relationships with parents in their narratives. However, the research shows that professionals used to blame parents for insufficient attention and support to the child. According to our, as researchers, experiences that was gained through the discussions with research participants, professionals never blame parents directly while communicating with them. Instead, they say: …we never say that it is an end of the world. However, professionals share with the challenging issues related to communication with parents inside of the team. According to participants, they try to ensure equal parent’s participation while developing individual education and support plan for a child and a family. However, usually parents used to agree with the decision of professionals when assessing child’s abilities and planning a support. Professionals emphasise their efforts to listen to the families and to address their needs as this leads to more successful collaboration. Identification of individual child and family needs and expectations is complex process, which requires positive interpersonal contact, creation of positive atmosphere based on trust and openness. Expectations and needs cannot be identified by the

256 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

questioning parents: “What do you expect? What are your needs?” as usually, parents do not know what to expect from the professionals. Instead of reflecting own practice, professionals highlight an insufficient preparedness of families to collaborate with ECEC settings. They also note that one of the barriers of successful collaboration with families is families’ inability to cope with their child’s disability though professionals recognise that they themselves lack preparedness to communicate with vulnerable families in ECEC. The Results of ECEC Setting Providing Inclusive Education Close interpersonal relationship, based on respectful and positive attitudes. In order to maintain close relationships with families, professionals emphasise that it is necessary to respect parent’s position, even when it does not match the expectations of professionals. According to team members, openness-based relations with families allow to better understand the situation of a child and a family: We receive much information from the parents … if you see that parents are open with you, it means that they accept your suggestions, they trust you … It helps to better understand the causes of the situation.

Professionals note the importance of empathy and positiveness, especially when parents need to describe their child’s developmental difficulties: Parents often painfully react when you say that the child is doing something wrong. There are cases when the family does not recognize the child’s difficulties… then they begin to blame the environment and people … it is very important to know how and when to say that it will not provoke an anger … positive thinking, empathy, and the ability to understand people’s feelings are necessary. I like to empathize being with the “parents coat”.

The team emphasised that in order to build a trust-based relationships it is important to understand families’ situations and be tolerant: Tolerance is important. You must follow parent’s expectations. If parents move, we have to go after them … if they do not want to talk, maybe they receive support from outside of a kindergarten…. Sometimes you should step a little step carefully, watch father’s/mother’s reaction, and stay toler-

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

257

ant. Eventually you earn the trust, and if she/he is closed, maybe there are a reason for this—you should leave her/him alone. You need to respect reticence. Parent reaction shows how to behave.

According to professionals, constant contacts with parents are one of the most successful factors for collaboration. The research participants believe that the teachers and other professionals’ initiatives encourage parents’ efforts to collaborate: Parents’ initiative is encouraged by professional behaviour. When professionals seek to involve parents, the collaboration may start. When parents see that kindergarten lacks of effort, they stay patient and silent, but when they get in the kindergarten where there are a lot of attention and initiatives and doors are not locked for them, parents start to be more active with their initiatives.

Equal participation in developing and implementing individual education plan. Team members’ (including professionals and families) agreement on child’s education and support issues, while developing and implementing Individual education plan, is one of the most important aspects of collaboration. Professionals note that it is difficult to identify family expectations: It is difficult to identify parents’ needs and expectations … We take into account the needs of the parents, if they are real, for example, when children have an intellectual disability … then you feel what it is most important to them: “the most important for child to speak or to be self-independent” … then I’m raising its educational priorities, take into account, but only for complex cases.

Professionals emphasise the issue of shared responsibilities with families while implementing professionals’ recommendations for the efficient education of a child: It is important that parents also take responsibility … commitment of obligations … to continue what professionals do—this is a direct parent ­involvement … if they really work at home, then they perform tasks, and then you can see child’s progress work at home. Glad when the parents share the input and responsibility for the results … this ensures the effectiveness, facilitates the achievement of a common goal … it is only needed when

258 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

the child has really serious problems. If there are no problems impeding education we do not disturb parents. That is enough of our work.

Family preparation for equal participation. Professionals assert that from their experience a collaborative practice is seldom successful. It may happen because of lack of parent’s preparation for equal participation. Families used to avoid this responsibility. In addition, according to team members, parents lack of the abilities of educational interactions with their own child: Over the many years I understood why parents can’t work at home. They are afraid of working with a child … in the kindergarten children are acting through the game, but parents arrange “lessons” at home, more likely to moralize, sit at home and push a child.

According to professionals, parents usually emphasise the time issue: They are often very busy … they declare that they do not have time, but this may hide many things: we all have the same amount of time, when circumstances change we all can find more time … this is parent’s non-­cooperation … parents just does not allocate time for this.

Professionals state that support service system can determine the families’ confidence of professionals work and provide presumptions to avoid of responsibility: They think that children will learn everything in a kindergarten … they are calm … happy that professionals work with children, they trust us. We would very much like mutual and shared responsibility. Professionals work directly with the child. If we would just consult parents and check how they are doing therapy, they would be forced to go deeper into the process.

Team members emphasise that despite of parent’s passive role in collaboration professionals follow respectful approach: If after a subsequent efforts you still see their rejection or anger, then you think you need to work with those who are interested… you do not have to be maximalist “saving the world” … if for the family your support is enough that is okay … when we support teachers and children, they must receive all the best …. We do not have the right to blame, hurt or revenge parents.

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

259

According to research participants, equal and active parent’s participation in children’s education process starts when professionals and parents collectively solve problems. Professionals emphasise that they seek to work together with parents to find solutions to the problem. Advisory role was mentioned as the most important to parents in order to contribute to decision-making: Parents do not know, for example, which school they should choose for the child (after ECEC). The door is open for mother’s decision. We only help to solve the problems and provide suggestions and the possible choices As you see a full picture, you have more opportunities to decide. Our goal is to offer, to discuss the possible consequences of decisions in order they can choose. It is important to lead a discussion with parents, that they can decide themselves.

Interpretation of the Results The team of professionals of the ECEC setting that provides inclusive education stressed the importance of respectful and trust-based relations with families, empathy and professional leadership while creating culture of collaboration. The mentioned above issues can be influenced by the efforts to create inclusive culture of ECEC setting, including shared values and attitudes towards diversity. At the same time, the challenges of equal participation of parents in ECEC processes were emphasised. One of the main challenges that was mentioned by the participants is to reach the common agreement while developing individual support plan. Professionals acknowledged that the main barriers for equal participation and successful collaboration are related to the insufficient preparedness of families to collaborate as well as difficulty to identify their expectations and needs and share responsibilities with them. These acknowledgements may witness that family-professional collaboration should not be taken for granted; it requires preparedness of both family and professional as well as additional professional competencies and time resources.

Discussion and Conclusion In both special and inclusive ECEC teams, even if the context is slightly different, similar issues related to family-professional collaboration have been highlighted. These include close interpersonal relationships that are

260 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

based on respectful and positive attitudes; equal participation while developing and implementing individual education plan and family preparation for equal participation. There are a lot of evidence, that creation of positive relationship between families and professionals is based on mutual trust, including empathy, sincerity and confidentiality as well as mutual support while listening to the families to better address their needs and mutual respect to diversity of children, families and their cultural backgrounds (Ališauskienė, 2005; Mellinger, 2009; Nolte, 2005; Hsiao et  al., 2018; Norheim & Moser, 2020; Eerola et al., 2021). In both teams, professionals emphasise the respectful and positive relationships with families as the main presumption and basis for successful collaboration. The team of inclusive ECEC setting explains the concept of positive relationship with the families as a positive and empathetic communication even then families disagree with professionals’ suggestions or their views are different. Many authors (Wang et al., 2004; Ozdemir, 2007; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Porter, 2008; Oke et al., 2021) suggest that professionals should be properly prepared to create positive relations and collaborate with parents. Family participation component is revealed within the context of planning and implementing individual education plan. As scientific literature shows, the precondition of successful support to a child and a family as well as collaboration with families lies in the mutual planning of individual child’s education and services provided to a family (Hunt, Soto et  al., 2004; Einarsdottir, 2019; Mas et al., 2022). To address children and family needs, equal power relations among professionals and parents need to be created. This requires adjusting expectations, raising reasonable aims, changing the tradition of family consulting and controlling towards acknowledging parents as those who are able to choose and make decisions related to planning of individual support to a child. In addition, parents should be provided with an opportunity to ask, discuss, negotiate, refuse and disagree with professionals (Guralnick, 2005; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Norheim, & Moser, 2020). According to Dodge (2018) research data, when professionals and families jointly develop individual education plan for their children, they are focusing on different components: professionals usually focus on the planned actions while the families acknowledge professionals’ actions, but their priorities are more focused on close relationship with professionals. As the research findings show, the development of individual education plan is estimated as a tool that may strengthen both family participation and family-professional relationship.

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

261

The reality of family-professional collaboration can also be explained from the perspective of collaboration models (Devarakonda, 2015; Porter, 2008). Even if professionals maintain friendly interrelations with families in both ECEC teams, professionals’ roles to estimate the needs of the child, inform parents about the children’s education and seek for the family support to a child are highlighted as most important. Such practice is driven by the child’s needs-oriented support system and direct support services for the child. This kind of practice closely relates to parents as professional assistants or consumers models. In these models, families often are aware of their own role as not equal; they tend to accept professionals’ opinions, positions and responsibilities. Professionals of both teams share their experiences of collaboration with families and express their positive attitudes to such practice. However, a lot attention within their narratives is paid to issue of the lack of family preparation for the equal participation in ECEC. Families can’t be considered as prepared for the equal collaboration if they do not know the priorities of services, role of families and professionals in the ECEC system (Bricker et al., 2020; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; Murphy et al., 2021 Wang et  al., 2004). According to the researchers (Blue-Banning et  al., 2004; Murphy et al., 2021; Pandit, 2008), promotion of family readiness for collaboration should be based on accessibility of information and resources, ability of parents to meet and represent child’s and own needs when using different available resources. Many authors (Einarsdottir et al., 2019; Lee, 2009; Mellinger, 2009) propose recommendations to professionals aiming at families’ active and equal participation: family-centred services provision, informing about the support system, children development and impact of relationship between parents and children. Forming positive and realistic family expectations related to child’s development, motivating parents to actively participate in the education processes, increasing family’s selfconfidence, informing about processes of joint working and implementation of an individual support plan, and so on are the main directions for the collaboration-based professionals’ work with families. So, the lack of family preparation for equal participation should be perceived as the interactive learning process among families and professionals while developing collaborative practice. Summing up the research findings, it is evident that there is a need for further research searching for relevant ways of successful family-­professional collaboration in ECEC, especially focused on active and equal participation.

262 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

References Ališauskienė, S. (2005). Ankstyvoji intervencija vaikysteje: ̇ Monografija [Early childhood intervention: Monograph]. Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J.  A., Frankland, H.  C., Nelson, L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167–184. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 101–177. Bricker, D., Felimban, H., Fang Yu Lin, F. Y., Stegenga, S., & Storie, S. (2020). A proposed framework for enhancing collaboration in early intervention/Early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(4), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419890683 Dempsey, I., & Dunst, C. J. (2004). Help giving styles and parent empowerment in families with a young child with disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 29(1), 50–61. Devarakonda, C. (2015). Diversity & inclusion in early childhood: An introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957725 Dodge, T. A. (2018). Parental involvement in individual education plan development for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University. Eerola, P., Paananen, M., & Repo, K. (2021). ‘Ordinary’ and ‘diverse’ families. A case study of family discourses by Finnish early childhood education and care administrators. Journal of Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400. 2021.1939100 Einarsdottir, J., & Jónsdóttir, A. H. (2019). Parent-preschool partnership: Many levels of power. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 39(2), 175–189. Elliot, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2008). Family-centred practice: Collaboration, competency andevidence.SupportforLearning,23,136–143.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­9604.2008.00384.x European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2016). Inclusive early childhood education: An analysis of 32 European examples (P.  Bartolo, E. Björck-Åkesson, C. Giné, & M. Kyriazopoulou, Eds.). Odense, Denmark. www.european-­agency.org/sites/default/files/agency-­projects/IECE/Qs/ Lithuania%20IECE%20Country%20Survey%20Questionnaire.pdf European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017). Inclusive early childhood education: Literature review (F.  Bellour, P.  Bartolo, & M. Kyriazopoulou, Eds.). Odense, Denmark. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat. (2014). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe (2014 ed.). Eurydice and Eurostat

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

263

Report, Publications Office of the European Union. www.eacea.ec.europa.eu/ education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/166EN.pdf Fusch, P.  I., Fusch, G.  E., & Ness, L.  R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-­ ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 923–941. Guralnick, M. J. (2005). The developmental systems approach to early intervention. Paul H. Brookes. Guralnick, M.  J., & Conlon, C.  J. (2007). Early intervention. In M.  Batshaw, L.  Pelligrino, & N.  Roizen (Eds.), Children with disabilities (pp.  511–521). Paul H. Brookes. Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(1), 74–85. Hsiao, Y., Higgins, K., & Diamond, L. (2018). Parent empowerment: Respecting their voices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(1), 43–53. Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae, S. (2004). Collaborative teaming to support pre-schoolers with severe disabilities who are placed in general education early childhood programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(3), 123–142. Law on Education of Lithuanian Republic. (2011). Actual version 2022-01-01–2022-08-31: I-1489 Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo i ̨statymas (lrs. lt): https://eseimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.1480/asr Lee, Y. H. (2009). The paradox of early intervention: Families’ participation driven by professionals throughout service process. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Lyon, K. C. (2008). An examination of volunteerism: Teacher expectations and parent involvement. Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University. Mas, J., Dunst, C.  J., Hamby, D.  W., Balcells-Balcells, A., García-Ventura, S., Baqués, N., & Giné, C. (2022). Relationships between family-centred practices and parent involvement in early childhood intervention. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625 7.2020.1823165 Mellinger, S. L. (2009). A survey of the attitudes, perceptions, and practices of early care and education staff regarding parent involvement. Doctor Dissertation, Temple University. Murphy, C., Matthews, J., Clayton, O., & Cann, W. (2021). Partnership with families in early childhood education: Exploratory study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939 120979067

264 

D. KAIRIENĖ AND S. ALIŠAUSKIENĖ

Nachshen, J.  S. (2004). Empowerment and families: Building bridges between parents and professionals, theory and research. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 11(1), 67–75. Nolte, J. (2005). Enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration in primary health care: A framework that fits. EICP. Norheim, H., & Moser, T. (2020). Barriers and facilitators for partnerships between parents with immigrant backgrounds and professionals in ECEC: A review based on empirical research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(6), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X. 2020.1836582 Ntinda, K. (2020). Narrative research. In P.  Liamputtong (Ed). Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp.  1–12). Springer. https://link. springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­2779-­6 O’Connor, A., Nolan, A., Bergmeier, H., Williams-Smith, J., & Skouteris, H. (2018). Early childhood educators’ perceptions of parent–child relationships: A qualitative study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(1), 4–15. Oke, A., Butler, J. E., & O’Neill, C. (2021). Identifying barriers and solutions to increase parent-practitioner communication in early childhood care and educational services: The development of an online communication application. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10643-­020-­01068-­y Ozdemir, S. (2007). A paradigm shift in early intervention services: From child centeredness to family centeredness. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Dergisi, 47(2), 13–25. Pandit, S. (2008). An evaluation of facilitators of parent involvement in early intervention programs for children with developmental disabilities: An ecological perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, The State University of New Jersey. Porter, L. (2008). Teacher-parent collaboration: Early childhood to adolescence. Melbourne. Ruškus, J., & Mažeikis, G. (2007). Nei ̨galumas ir socialinis dalyvavimas: kritine ̇ patirties ir galimybių Lietuvoje refleksija [Disability and social participation: Critical reflection of Lithuanian experience and opportunities]. ŠU leidykla. Sapelyte, O., Ališauskienė, S., Ališauskas, A., Melienė, R., Miltenienė, L, & Ruplienė, D. (2021). Lietuvos pedagogineṡ psichologineṡ pagalbos teikimo modelio ekspertinis vertinimas. Tyrimo ataskaita [Expert evaluation of the Lithuanian pedagogical psychological support model. Research report]. https://www.nsa. smm.lt/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2021/08/PPP_modelio_eksper tinis_ vertinimas_2021m..pdf Soriano, V. (2005). Ankstyvoji intervencija vaikysteje: ̇ Situacijos Europoje analize ̇, pagrindiniai aspektai ir rekomendacijos [Early childhood intervention: European situation analysis, main aspects and recommendations]. Europos specialiojo ugdymo plėtros agentūra.

15  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN TEAMS MEETING SPECIAL… 

265

Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6(3), 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275 Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. Routledge. Wang, M., Mannan, H., Poston, D., Turnbull, A. P., & Summers, J. A. (2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 144–155.

CHAPTER 16

Professional and Family Relationships Within the Framework of a Family-Centred Approach in Spain Cecilia Simón Rueda, Margarita Cañadas, and Ángela Barrios

Introduction The importance of the relationship between professionals and families, as well as the framework that should underpin it and thus guide the action of professionals in early childhood is the focus of this chapter.

C. S. Rueda (*) Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. Cañadas L’Alqueria-Capacitas Early Childhood Center, Catholic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_16

267

268 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

Professionals should be aware of the evidence-based recommendations proposed in this regard in the international context (Division for Early Childhood, 2014; EURLYAID, 2019; European Agency for Development in Special Need Education, 2005; UNESCO, 2015; WHO, 2012) and whose ultimate aim is to provide quality care in accordance with the rights of families and children, and in line with the challenges posed by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this sense, this reflection is carried out within the framework of the so-called family-centred approach, which aims to strengthen the family based on trust in their skills. In the case of Spain, since the approval of the Spanish Constitution of 1978, all the educational laws that have existed refer to the participation of the family, through its incorporation in collegiate consultation bodies and participation in the general programming of education, as well as in the control and management bodies of schools. The current educational legislation of Spain (LOMLOE, 2022) mentions the obligation of families to participate cooperatively in those projects and tasks. These are proposed by the educational centre. In a more specific reference to early childhood education, the LOMLOE (article 21) states that the early childhood education centres will cooperate closely with the family and will address the compensation of the effects that inequalities of cultural, social and economic origin have on children’s learning and development, as well as early detection and intervention of specifical needs of educational support. In Spain, early childhood education constitutes the educational stage that attends from birth to six years of age. Schooling in these stages is voluntary and its purpose is to contribute to the physical, emotional, social, cognitive and artistic development of students, as well as to the education in civic values for coexistence. The children from birth to six years with or at risk of developmental delays and their families are also supported by early intervention services (GAT, 2000) beyond school. The participation of the family in the Spanish education system is not reduced to its formal presence in specific consultative bodies such as the Association of Parents and Mothers (AMPA) or its representation in the School Council of the centre. This participation extends to other aspects

Á. Barrios Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

269

such as the exercise of the right to choose a school, the exchange of information between the family and the school, the extracurricular services that are offered or the educational commitments between the centre and the families. However, although their participation in these spaces is recognised, it is limited both in intensity and diversity (Gomariz et al., 2019). A report prepared in Spain by the State School Council in 2014 already highlighted the influence the participation of families in school has, above all, in the academic performance of students. With regard to Early Intervention services, in recent years there has been a growing interest among professionals about the need to increase family participation in the intervention process (GAT, 2000). An effort is being made by professionals and services in this direction (AEIPI, 2020; FEAPS, 1999). Studies carried out with Spanish families show that the use of family-centred practices directly implies an increase in parental self-efficacy and quality of family life (García-Grau, 2015; Mas et al., 2018). However, much more progress needs to be made in this area. For this, among other aspects, it is important to build shared conceptions of what is understood by family participation in schools, both on the part of professionals and schools and families (López-Larrosa et al., 2019; Simón and Barrios, 2019) and the approaches from which these practices should be based. Even though more research is needed in this period (Rueda, 2020), the real and effective participation of families, collaboration with professionals, in the sense that we will show throughout the chapter, needs to be improved. The practice of professionals is still not family-centred, despite the fact that they show their desire to work from a family-centred approach from this framework (García-Grau et al., 2020, 2021; Gràcia et al., 2020). In fact, professionals in our country observe the need for more training in the use of family-centred practices and in understanding the approach that supports them (García-Sánchez et al., 2014; Gràcia et al., 2020; Vilaseca et al., 2019). This is one of the greatest challenges that professionals must face. The text presented here is not an empirical study but a theoretical reflection on important challenges for professionals identified in previous Spanish studies carried out in recent years shown above. In the following section, we will examine in more detail these pending challenges, which are not exclusive to the Spanish context (EURLYAID, 2015). For this reason, we believe that the analyses carried out may be useful for professionals in other countries. It also takes into account the international

270 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

recommendations regarding professional practices in Early Childhood. Likewise the principles and competencies necessary for Effective Family Engagement will be presented, providing some strategies to incorporate in the practices of professionals. Specifically, the questions that will be addressed throughout the document are the following: (a) What does the family-centred approach mean? (b) Why talk about empowerment and quality of family life? and (c) What does the participation of the families entail?

What Does the Family-Centred Approach Mean? The family-centred practices emerged in the year 1950, with the aim of helping families of children who were considered to have special needs in terms of responding to the needs of the family system. From this approach, professionals and families establish a collaborative relationship in a situation of equality, where the values and decisions of the family are respected, and providing support to strengthen and promote their family functioning (Escorcia-Mora et al., 2017; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008) This framework understands that the family is an active part throughout the entire process of the intervention carried out; thus professionals believe in the competencies of the families and in their capacity to generate learning opportunities for their children (Dalmau-Montala et  al., 2017; Dunst et al., 1991). This approach is founded on a family perspective based on the following considerations (Dunst and Trivette, 2009): • All families are unique. Family diversity is recognised in all aspects (culture, language, socioeconomy, values, interests, etc.). This implies renouncing preconceived assumptions, labels or “prescriptions” and adapting the interventions to each family, as a function of their context, interests, needs and priorities, rather than adjusting each family to pre-established patterns. • All families have strengths. All families have strengths and the solutions are within them. The role of the professionals is to build relationships combining their knowledge and the strengths and capacities of the families. • The families are collaborators, not mere receptors of decisions made by the professionals. Families are experts in their children. They know better than the professionals about their children’s dreams and hopes

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

271

and those of the family as a whole, as well as their strengths and the things that work in their home. They must have an active participation and make decisions in relation to their children and themselves. The role of the family is known and respected, thus main caregivers and professionals are regarded as equals (Espe-Sherwindt, 2008; McWilliam, 2010), granting importance to the relational processes between the main caregiver and the professional, as active agents involved in the development of the child (Montaño, 2017). Therefore, family-centred practices imply the need for positive collaboration between both parties (Martínez & Calet, 2015; Bagur & Verger, 2020), where professionals and families work as a team for the development of the child (Escorcia-­ Mora & Rodríguez, 2019). Families are no longer mere receptors of the service; they are now a part of the team that conducts the intervention. Previous studies show that family-centred practices favour family empowerment (Dempsey & Keen, 2008; Trivette et al., 2010) and that, with the use of the practices that define them, the family acquires more competence to face the challenges of their day-to-day life (Dunst et al., 2007; McWilliam et  al., 2009), which, ultimately, will have a positive impact on their family quality of life (Summers et al., 2007). The capacity of professionals to support families does not only depend on their technical knowledge and skills to work with children with disabilities and/or developmental delay, but also on personal capacities and skills to build positive work relationships with the parents, supporting their decisions and participation (Moore et al., 2012). At this point, a key question comes up: What are the ideal professional actions that would correspond to a family-centred approach? In the professional family-centred practices, two types of practices can be differentiated: (1) relational practices, and (2) participatory practices (Dunst et al., 2002). Relational practices include behaviours associated with the provision of effective help (active listening, compassion, empathy, etc.) and positive attributions of the professional about the capacities of the parents. These types of practices are generally described in terms of behaviours that strengthen the interpersonal relations between the families and the professionals (mutual trust, collaboration, etc.). These practices also include beliefs and attitudes of the professionals about the strengths, values, cultural context of the families, and so on,

272 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

which implies sensitivity towards these beliefs and values as part of the intervention practices (Fernández-Valero et al., 2020). The indicators of relational practices are the following: (a) the professionals really listen to my concerns and requests, (b) the professionals regard my family and me positively, (c) the professionals are sensitive to the beliefs and customs of my family and (d) the professionals recognise the good things that I do as a parent. On the other hand, the participatory practices include behaviours that promote the choices and decision-making of the families. These practices significantly involve the families in the active search for and attainment of the resources and/or support they need, as well as in the achievement of goals in their life. These types of practices strengthen the existing competencies and offer opportunities to learn new competencies. According to Martín et al. (2015), these competencies, linked to the development of positive parenting, are wide and could be organised into the following: family organisation, education, personal development and resilience, search for support and community integration. Regarding the professionals, the participatory practices require them to have the adequate competencies and the necessary flexibility to support the families and their children (Dunst & Trivette, 2009; Espe-Sherwindt, 2008). Next, we gather examples of indicators proposed by Dunst et al. (2007), which can be used by the families to value whether the action of the professional responds to this approach. Likewise, they can also be used by the professionals to reflect on their actions. The indicators of participatory practices would be (a) the professionals offer me the information I need to make good decisions; (b) the professionals support me when I make a decision; (c) the professionals help me to be an active part in the attainment of the desired resources and supports and (d) the professionals are flexible when the family situation changes. As is shown in Table 16.1, according to O’Grady and Jadad (2010), these practices would be specified in different action models in the decision-­making process (the decisions are made by the professional vs. the decisions are informed to and, ultimately, made by the family). This way of addressing collaboration between professionals and families also requires the team of professionals to interact in a different way. A transdisciplinary team is needed, which, unlike multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary teams (groups of professionals who work separately for

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

273

Table 16.1  Models about decision-making in the practices Model

Professional

Parents

Paternalistic

Directive

Passive

Autonomous

Receptive

Shared Informant, decision-making Facilitator Collaborative Support decision-making

Knowledge source/flow

The professional transmits the knowledge The information flows in a single direction Directive The knowledge is transferred from the family to the professional The family makes decisions as a single form of collaboration Informant Exchange of information in both directions Proactive Knowledge is built through shared learning

Objectives Consent, resignation and/or acceptance by the parents Approval of the professional

Equity in the decision-making process More favourable or optimal actions

Source: O’Grady and Jadad (2010)

approximately the same amount of time with the child and his/her family), consists of both the professionals and the family (McWilliam, 2010). To build this type of relationship it is necessary that the family is an active part of this team, and their decisions are respected. The families and the professionals work together collaboratively, sharing skills, knowledge and information. The professionals share the same intervention objectives and provide the team with a set of complementary skills. In the transdisciplinary team, one of the professionals is considered the reference professional of the family. This is the professional who works directly with the family and receives support from the rest of the professionals. All members of this team teach and learn, and, although each professional maintains his/her praxis, they are all willing to take on new responsibilities (Escorcia-­ Mora et  al., 2017; Pacheco et  al., 2019). Therefore, in some cases, the creation of a team of these characteristics may not be welcomed, as it requires the professionals to be flexible and at constant training, in order to have the necessary strategies that allow them to carry out family-­centred practices (García-Sánchez et al., 2014).

274 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

Empowerment: As a Means Professional practices focused on the family are aimed at improving the quality of life of the family, through their empowerment. As is shown by different studies, family-centred practices attain this objective (Dunst et  al., 2002; Trivette et  al., 2010). Empowerment is understood as the central factor of the intervention, since the aim is to increase their effectiveness and allow them to prioritise their needs, and even develop their own intervention plan to reach their goals (Turnbull et al., 2007; Verdugo et al., 2012). Empowering implies that the professionals help the families to show their own strengths and identify aspects to be improved, involving them as an active part from the beginning of the intervention process, even in decision-making regarding the objectives to be attained in order to jointly establish an intervention plan (McWilliam, 2010). Empowered families have the capacity to efficiently manage their life events and control the different family matters (Dunst et al., 1988). From a social perspective, empowerment poses a large number of competencies that are already in the family, and it also includes the capacity to learn and acquire new competencies (Rappaport, 1987). From the beginning, the development of these competencies during the intervention process requires their participation, horizontality in terms of “power in the relationship” and flexibility (Knowles et al., 2005), with the professional facilitating the learning of the adult and counting on the families as active “agents” in decision-making (De Linares & Rodríguez, 2004). In order to contribute to this empowerment, the families must receive the necessary support to adequately respond to the needs of their children (Dunst & Trivette, 1996). That is, the aim is to find the strengths of the families and ensure the development of their capacities, so that they can take control of their own lives (Fernández-Valero et al., 2020) in a framework of collaboration and support in the search for strategies to solve their needs (Dunst & Dempsey, 2007). Family empowerment is favoured through a positive relationship between the professional and the family known as “collaboration”. In family-centred practices, the relationship between professionals and families is based on trust, esteem and respect towards the characteristics, abilities, talents, resources and aspirations of the families. Furthermore, Dunst et al. (1988) identified three important conditions to favour the empowerment of the family, from professional practices of

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

275

help and collaboration. The first condition refers to the proactivity of the intervention for the acquisition of competencies by the family. The second condition implies the creation of experiences and opportunities where the family can use their competencies. Last, the third condition refers to the feeling of control with respect to decision-making in family matters. As a result of this process, and if the families really feel more empowered, the indicators of the Family Outcomes Survey—Revised Version (FOS-­ R) are very useful for professionals to assess their practice (The Early Childhood Outcomes Center, 2014). They are (a) the families understand the strengths, abilities and needs of their children, (b) the families know their rights and support their children effectively, (c) the families help their children to develop, learn and become more autonomous, (d) the families have access to support systems and (e) the families access the desired services, programmes and activities in their community. Family Quality of Life: As a Result Knowing and strengthening the support networks of the family is of great relevance to their empowerment (Martínez-Rico et al., 2022). There are different tools to assess the support networks, such as Ecomap (McWilliams, 2010). Ecomap is a representation aimed at identifying the formal and informal supports of the family. These are distributed into formal, informal and intermediate supports. Formal supports are the services that the family receives from specialised professionals or other persons (e.g., paraprofessionals). Informal supports are those that contribute the most to family well-being, that is, the family members and people close to the family (friends, grandparents, uncles/aunts, neighbours…, etc.). These tend to be resent when families are vulnerable (increasing the dependence on formal supports), and they are especially important in the lives of the families (Rodrigo et  al., 2015). The intermediate supports refer to co-­ workers and leisure activities. It is important to become aware of the need to look after the informal support networks in the families. As is shown below, the quality of life of the families must be understood as the result of the interventions carried out with the families from different contexts, with empowerment being the means to attain it, as was pointed out in the previous section (Turnbull et al., 2007). According to Zuna et al. (2010), quality of life entails “a dynamic sense of well-being of the family, collectively and subjectively defined and informed by its members, in which individual and family-level needs

276 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

interact” (p.  262). As was stated by Giné et  al. (2013), there is strong consensus on the importance of this construct in understanding the family (its reality, interests and needs) and carrying out interventions with them, as it places the family and the person (e.g., with intellectual and developmental disability) in the focus of the professionals, services and policies. Among other aspects, family quality of life shows the recognition of the family as a fundamental context of development and education in line with the ecological approach of Bronfenbrenner (1979), facilitates the positive view of the professionals towards the family, and clearly shows that each family is unique, and that each family system has specific strengths, interests, needs and priorities. The perception of quality of life varies among families and has a different meaning in each one because subjective and objective aspects converge, thus being affected by the influences of the ecological systems (micro, meso, exo and macrosystem) expressed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) in which they develop. Hence the importance of developing tools that allow the assessment of the family quality of life (Giné et al., 2013) attending to each context (see a summary of the existing tools in Mas et al., 2020). We are talking about a multidimensional construct. As an example, the scales developed by Mas et al. (2020) identify in the Spanish context five dimensions that define the quality of life for the families with children who have intellectual and developmental disabilities. In the scale for children under 18 years of age, the scales would be the following: • Family climate: this is the most determining and constitutive dimension of what families perceive as quality of life. It encompasses a set of variables associated with the quality of the relationships among the different members of the family (feeling well among them; supporting, respecting and accepting each other as they are; joining together in the face of difficulties; trust; good communication; enjoying the company of all the members of the family system; giving and receiving affection and love). • Emotional stability: this means, for instance, feeling calm; that the members of the family can carry out their personal projects; that they do not feel that their lives are different from those of other families; that they have time for couple life. It also reflects the adaptation of the family to the disability in relation to this stability. • Economic well-being: this dimension refers to matters related to the economic situation and the balance between work responsibilities

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

277

and attention to the family member with a disability (having the economic and material resources required to attend to the family member with a disability, having the resources that allow satisfying the basic needs of all the members of the family, and being able to face the future calmly from this point of view). • Family adaptation: this refers to those aspects related to the acceptance and adaptation of the family to the disability of their family member, that is, to his/her needs and characteristics. • Family resources: this scale includes both the emotional resources of the family members to face the challenges of the development of the child with a disability and the accessibility and satisfaction with respect to the services required by the child. The ultimate goal of every action with the families, considered from the family-centred approach, is to have a positive influence on their quality of life (Giné et al., 2013; Verdugo et al., 2012). Taking the quality of life of the families as a reference in the intervention provides the professionals and services with an indicator of the quality and efficacy of their action, both in the work conducted with the family and in assessing the action of a service. It makes it easier to evaluate the impact on the supports and services received by the families (Schippers et al., 2015). Similarly, it can be useful in guiding the action of the services, as it helps identify scopes around which the families require more support. What Does the Participation of the Families Entail? Participation is understood differently by the agents involved in it, that is, professionals and families (Lawson, 2003). As is pointed out by Mapp and Hong (2010), there are false myths regarding the willingness of the families to collaborate (from their interest to their capacity to collaborate with the professionals), which must be faced from the following premises: (a) all parents have hopes for their children and want the best for them, thus they may not know how to collaborate, whereas others simply do not want to get involved; (b) all families have the capacity to support the learning of their children; (c) families and parents must collaborate with the professionals from a horizontal relationship; (d) the responsibility of building the collaboration between the school or service and the home lies in the management teams of the school or service (leadership in this process is key to build a collaborative relationship) (Francis et al., 2016); and (e) the

278 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

professionals must take the first step to build this relationship, generating collaboration opportunities and ensuring that the families feel welcomed and valued from the beginning. Thus, according to these authors, the characteristics of a good leadership that facilitates the creation of collaborative relationships based on trust would be (Francis et al., 2016, p. 70) (a) creating a warm and welcoming school culture and environment; (b) engaging in frequent, friendly, informal communication with families; (c) planning and participating in school-sponsored activities and events; (d) identifying and addressing family needs; (e) maintaining high expectations for school staff; (f) modelling and following through with expectations; and (g) distributing leadership to school staff and parents. We can understand the participation of the families in early intervention services/centres as a process aimed at a shared and necessary goal to attain the latter confidently, founded on the creation of a collaborative relationship between professionals and families. As has been previously highlighted, active participation implies a real involvement in the search for solutions and the acquisition of knowledge (Northouse, 1997; Rappaport, 1987), as well as in decision-making and in the necessary actions to obtain the pursued results. Considering the participation of the family as a process allows regarding it as a sequence, like a ladder, that must advance towards greater degrees of involvement. As has been proposed by other authors with regard to the role of the family in the inclusive school (Simón & Barrios, 2019), the ladder of citizen participation proposed by Arnstein (1969) can inspire to gradually consider the role of the family with respect to the early intervention services. This author proposes three degrees of participation, beginning from a low level of pseudo-participation, where spaces are “fictitious”; a second level with spaces of information, counselling and exchange of propositions, although without influencing the decision-­ making; and a third level that constitutes the real participation. The family-­ centred approach implies entering this third level, where an alliance between professionals and parents is established, although the degree of responsibility and, therefore, the fact that it attains a co-manager role will depend on the knowledge of the professionals to involve and empower/ qualify them (LaRocque et  al., 2011). Moreover, as we showed when addressing participation practices, this will also depend on the way in which the professionals interact with the families and engage in the provision of services and supports that improve the development of their children (Mas et al., 2020). Thus, it is the responsibility of the professionals

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

279

to promote a collaborative relationship and qualify the families (as is indicated above). Family leadership would be the pinnacle of the trust in the associations between families and professionals (Redding et  al., 2011). The professionals must manage the methods to build associations aimed at ensuring that the families codirect the attention/education of their children (Mas et al., 2020). Figure 16.1 presents a proposition adapted to the participation of the families in this context, where the higher level implies their empowerment in different degrees. The professionals-families relationship is understood as a collaboration, focused on the creation and strengthening of capacities (Dunst & Trivette, 2009), where the co-responsible parties recognise each other as being equally capable of influencing, making decisions and acting. Focusing on the school, according to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the principles that must guide an “Effective Family Engagement” can be organised around six basic facets: (a) encourage the families to participate in the making of decisions and the setting of goals for their children; (b) involve the families in bidirectional

Fig. 16.1  Family participation scale. (Source: Adapted from Simón and Barrios, 2019)

280 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

communication, using multiple ways and even reflecting the different language options of each family; (c) involve the families in actions that are truly reciprocal, benefiting from resources and information, including the unique knowledge of the families about their children; (d) offer activities that can be carried out in their daily living and in the community; (e) encourage the families to participate in the making of decisions related to their children and the centre and (f). implement and institutionalise an integral system of family participation in the centre. To advance in the improvement of the relationship with the families, the school must ensure that the same view is shared, and this view must be in line with what has been gathered in the previous sections. In this sense, it could be very useful to take into account the National Standards for Family-School Associations proposed by the PTA (2009), since, among other aspects, it can be a good reference for the centres to revise their cultures, policies and practices with the families, with the aim of identifying barriers and implementing improvement processes. These standards are (1) welcoming all families into the school community, (2) communicating effectively, (3) supporting student success, (4) speaking up for every child, (5) sharing power and (6) collaborating with community. Gathering evidence to help identify strengths and needs for improvement in relation to these standards will be an important starting point for agreeing priorities and designing school improvement plans collaboratively.

Conclusion As is shown throughout this chapter, adopting a family-centred approach as a foundation of the professional practice implies contemplating the families as equal partners and, thus, necessary to obtain the best results in their children and in the families themselves in terms of their quality of life. This requires overcoming the role of the professional, who, comparing it with the composition of a dance, is the one that selects the music and the choreography, while the family would represent those who accept and execute the music, trying to follow the steps. This entails understanding that the participation of both parties is enough for the piece to be created and danced. “Collaboration is the cornerstone of an effective intervention when a relationship is initiated between a professional and a family, it is like learning a new dance.... the aim is to reach the same pace, know the steps, adapt

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

281

to the partner… and think together about creating the choreography”. Janice Fialka (2012) in “Do You HearWhat I Hear”? Note: This chapter is based on research financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) (PID2021-124951OB-I00).

References AEIPI. (2020). Manifiesto de atención temprana. https://aeipiorg.wordpress. com/manifiestoatencion-­temprana/ Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366 908977225 Bagur, S., & Verger, S. (2020). Evidencias y retos de la Atención Temprana: El modelo centrado en la familia. Siglo Cero, 51(4), 69–92. https://doi. org/10.14201/scero20205146992 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Dalmau-Montala, M., Balcells-Balcells, A., Giné Giné, C., Cañadas Pérez, M., Casas Masjoan, O., Salat Cuscó, Y., Ferré Cruz, V., & Calaf Montserrat, N. (2017). Cómo implementar el modelo centrado en la familia en atención temprana. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 33(3), 641–651. https://doi. org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.263611 De Linares, C., & Rodríguez, T. (2004). Base de la intervención familiar en Atención Temprana. En J. Pérez-López y A. G. Brito de la Nuez (Coords.), Manual de Atención Temprana (pp. 333–368). Pirámide. Dempsey, I., y Keen, D. (2008). A review of processes and outcomes in familycentered services for children with a disability. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121408316699 Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. http://www.dec-­sped.org/ recommendedpractices Dunst, C. J., Boyd, K., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2002). Family-oriented program models and professional helpgiving practices. Family Relations, 51(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-­3729.2002.00221.x Dunst, C. J., & Dempsey, I. (2007). Family-professional partnerships and parenting competence, confidence and enjoyment. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10 349120701488772 Dunst, C. J., Johanson, C., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. (1991). Family-oriented early intervention policies and practices: Family-centered or not? Exceptional Children, 58, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105800203

282 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (1996). Empowerment, effective help-giving practices and family-centered care. Pediatric Nursing, 22, 334–337. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8852113/ Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009). Capacity-building familysystems intervention practices. Journal of Family Social Work, 12, 119–143. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines for practice. . Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Meta-analysis of family centered help giving practices research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/ mrdd.20176 Escorcia-Mora, C. T., García-Sánchez, F. A., Sánchez-López, M. C., Orcajada, N., Fernández, R., Serrano, A. M., McWilliam, R., & Cañadas, M. (2017). Relación entre empoderamiento familiar y calidad de los servicios de atención temprana. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, 11, 1–5. https:// doi.org/10.17979/reipe.2017.0.11.3054 Escorcia-Mora, C. T., & Rodríguez, L. (2019). Prácticas centradas en la familia en atención temprana. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2008). Family-centered practice: A collaborative, competency enhancing, evidence- based model. Support for Learning, 23(3), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9604.2008.00384.x EURLYAID. (2015). The Implementation of Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) in 15 European Countries. EURLYAID. EURLYAID (2019). Recommended practices in early childhood intervention. A guidebook for professionals. EURLYAID—EAECI. https://indd.adobe.com/ view/ce456704-­8e75-­46a4-­a7e6-­700b024ed409 European Agency for Development in Special Need Education. (2005). Early childhood intervention—Analysis of situations in Europe. Key aspects and recommendations. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. FEAPS. (1999). Atención Temprana. Orientaciones para la Calidad. FEAPS. https://www.plenainclusion.org/informate/publicaciones Fernández-Valero, R., Serrano, A., McWilliam, R., & Cañadas, M. (2020). Variables predictoras del empoderamiento familiar en prácticas de atención temprana centradas en la familia. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 40(3), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2020.05.003 Fialka, J., Feldman, A., & Mikus, K. (2012). Parents and Professionals partnering for children with disabilities: A dance that matters. Corwin publications. Francis, G. L., Gross, J. M. S., Blue-Banning, M., Haines, S., & Turnbull, A. P. (2016). School principals and parents who achieve optimum results: Lessons learned from 6 North American schools that have implemented inclusive practices. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 10(1), 43–77.

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

283

García-Grau, P. (2015). Atención temprana: Modelo de intervención en entornos naturales y calidad de vida familiar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Católica de Valencia, San Vicente Mártir. García-Grau, P., Martínez-Rico, G., McWilliam, R.  A., & Cañadas, M. (2020). Typical and ideal practices in early intervention in Spain during a transformation process of professional practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 42(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119859046 García-Grau, P., Martínez-Rico, G., McWilliam, R. A., & Grau, D. (2021). Early intervention and family-centeredness in Spain: Description and profile of professional practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419846332H García-Sánchez, F. A., Escorcia, C. T., Sánchez-López, M. C., Orcajada, N., & Hernández-Pérez, E. (2014). Atención temprana centrada en la familia. Siglo Cero, 45(3), 6–27. GAT. (2000). Libro blanco de la atención temprana [White paper of early intervention]. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales. Giné, C., Vilaseca, R., Gràcia, M., Mora, J., Orcasitas, J., Simón, C., et al. (2013). Spanish family quality of life scales: Under and over 18 years old. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 38(2), 141–148. Gomariz, A., Parra, J., García, M. P., & Hernández, M. A. (2019). De lo formal a lo real. Análisis de la participación familiar en asociaciones de madres y padres y consejos escolares. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.17811/ rifie.48.1.2019.85-­96 Gràcia, M., Simón, C., Salvador-Beltran, F., Adam Alcocer, A.  L., Mas, J.  M., Giné, C., & Dalmau, M. (2020). The transition process from center-based programmes to family-centered practices in Spain: A multiple case study. Early Child Development and Care, 190(14), 2192–2204. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03004430.2018.1564916 Knowles, M., Holton, E., III, & Swanson, R. (2005). The adult Learner. Elsevier. LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental involvement: The missing link in school achievement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(3), 115–122. https://doi. org/10.1080/10459880903472876 Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77–133. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0042085902238687 LOMLOE. (2022). Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. (BOE de 30 de diciembre de 2020). López-Larrosa, S., Richards, A., Ayleen, S., & Gómez, L. (2019). Teachers and trainee teachers’ beliefs about family-school relationships. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.1.2019.59-­66

284 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

Mapp, K., & Hong, S. (2010). Debunking the myth of the hard to reach parent. In S. Christenson & A. Reschy (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp. 345–361). Routledge. Martín, J. C., Tomás, A. M., Cabrera, E., Miranda, C., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2015). La evaluación de riesgos y fortalezas en parentalidad positiva. En M. J. Rodrigo (Coord.), Manual práctico de parentalidad positiva (pp. 45–65). Síntesis. Martínez, A., & Calet, N. (2015). Intervención en Atención Temprana: Enfoque desde el ámbito familiar. Escritos de Psicología, 8(2), 33–42. https://doi. org/10.5231/psy.writ.2015.1905 Martínez-Rico, G., Simón, C., Cañadas, M., & Mcwilliam, R. (2022). Support networks and family empowerment in early intervention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2001. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph19042001 Mas, J., Cañadas, M., Balcells-Balcells, A., Giné, C., Serrano, A., & Dunst, C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the family-centered practices scale for use with families of young children receiving early childhood intervention. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(5), 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12442 Mas, J.  M., Baqués, N., Simón, C., & García-Ventura, S. (2020). The Spanish family quality of life scales under and over 18 years old: Psychometric properties and families’ perceptions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217808 McWilliam, R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention: Supporting young children and their families. Brookes. McWilliam, R. A., Casey, A. M., & Sims, J. (2009). The routines-based inter-view: A method for gathering information and assessing needs. Infants & Young Children, 22(3), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181abe1dd Montaño, M. (2017). El estado actual de las prácticas centradas en la familia en atención temprana desde la percepción y experiencia de familias españolas. Universidad Católica de Valencia-San Vicente Mártir.. https://riucv.ucv.es/ handle/20.500.12466/502 Moore, L., Koger, D., Blomberg, S., Leggs, L., Mc Conahy, R., Wit, S., & Gatmaitan, M. (2012). Making best practice our practice. Reflections on our journey into natural environments. Infants and Young Children, 25(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e31823d0592 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (n.d.). Principles of Effective Family Engagement. ‘The National Association for the Education of Young Children’s’ Engaging Diverse Families Project. https:// www.naeyc.org/resources/topics/family-­engagement/principles Northouse, P. (1997). Effective helping relationships: The role of power and control. Health Education and Behavior, 24, 703–707.

16  PROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK… 

285

O’Grady, L., & Jadad, A. (2010). Shifting from shared to collaborative decision making: A change in thinking and doing. Journal of Participatory Medicine, 2(13), 1–16. Pacheco, M., Cañadas, M., & Martínez, G. (2019). Trabajo en equipo en Atención Temprana. In E. C. T. Escocia-Mora & L. Rodríguez-García (Eds.), Prácticas de atención temprana centradas en la familia y en entornos naturales (pp. 96–106). Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. PTA’s National for Family-School Partnerships. (2009). An Implementation Guide. PTA. Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–148. Redding, S., Murphy, M., & Sheley, P. (2011). Handbook on family and community engagement. Information Age Publishing, Inc. and Academic Development Institute. Rodrigo, M. J., Máiquez, M. L., Martín, J. C., Byrne, S., & Rodríguez, B. (2015). Manual práctico de parentalidad positiva. Síntesis. Rueda, E. (2020). Estado del arte de la intervención con familias en atención temprana durante la última década en España. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology: INFAD. Revista de Psicología, 1(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2020.n2.v1.1973 Schippers, A., Zuna, N., & Brown, I. (2015). A proposed framework for an integrated process of improving quality of life. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 12(3), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12111 Simón, C., & Barrios, Á. (2019). Las familias en el corazón de la educación inclusiva. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.1.2019.51-­58 Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming, K. K., Poston, D. J., Wang, M., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2007). Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, family–professional partnerships, and family quality of life in early childhood service programmes. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 4, 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701488848 The Early Childhood Outcomes Center. (2014). Frequently asked questions about The Family Outcomes Survey—Revised (FOS-R). Version 2: June 27, 2014. Author. http://ectacenter.org/eco/assets/pdfs/FOS_FAQs.pdf Trivette, C.  M., Dunst, C.  J., & Hamby, D.  W. (2010). Influences of family-­ systems intervention practices on parent-child interactions and child development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 3–19. https://doi. org/10.1177/0271121410364250 Turnbull, A. P., Summers, J. A., Lee, S. H., & Kyzar, K. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of family outcomes associated with families of individuals

286 

C. S. RUEDA ET AL.

with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 346–356. UNESCO. (2015). Investing against evidence. The global state of early childhood care and education. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0023/002335/233558E.pdf Verdugo, M.  A., Rodríguez, A., & Sainz, F. (2012). Escala de calidad de vida familiar: Manual de aplicación. INICO. Vilaseca, R.  M., Galván-Bovaira, M.  J., González-del-Yerro, A., Baqués, N., Oliveira, C., Simó, P., & D., & Giné, C. (2019). Training needs of professionals and the family-centered Approach in Spain. Journal of Early Intervention, 41(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815118810236 World Health Organization. (2012). Early childhood development and disability: A discussion paper. World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstr eam/10665/75355/1/9789241504065_eng.pd Zuna, N., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, A. P., Hu, X., & Xu, S. (2010). Theorizing about family quality of life. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities: From theory to practice (pp. 241–278). Springer.

CHAPTER 17

Family-Professional Collaboration in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care Martin Samuelsson and Tove Ingebrigtsen

Introduction The idea of inclusion is well-founded in the Norwegian ECEC tradition. According to statistics, from 2021, 87% of all children aged 1–2 years and 97.4% of children aged 3–5 years attend an ECEC institution (Statistics Norway, 2021). Furthermore, there are no segregated ECEC institutions, which is why children with special education needs (SEN) attend ordinary ECEC.  Moreover, family-professional collaboration in early childhood education is considered important in Norway, being strongly founded in policy documents, such as the Kindergarten Act (2005) and National Framework Plan (MER, 2017). According to these documents, familyprofessional collaboration is described as a shared responsibility for each

M. Samuelsson (*) • T. Ingebrigtsen Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_17

287

288 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

child’s well-being and development, including education and cultural formative (Norwegian: danning), and for the pedagogical priorities of the ECEC institution. Hence, a productive family-professional collaboration for the benefit of all children’s development, play and learning will affect many children, parents and professionals in ECEC institutions. All the aspects of a well-functioning family-professional collaboration will apply to all children, albeit to somewhat different degrees. Therefore, collaboration with families having a child with SEN will not be highlighted separately in the chapter, but rather addressed throughout. Yet it is worth pointing out that, in section 19B, the Kindergarten Act (2005) explicitly highlights collaboration with the parents of SEN children, at least to some extent. Here, it is stated that a special educational offer must be drawn up in collaboration with the child and the child’s parents and that considerable emphasis must be placed on their wishes and viewpoints. In Norway, the collaboration between parents and ECEC should take place at both an individual level with the parents of each child and at a group level through the parents’ council and coordinating committee (MER, 2017). According to the Framework Plan (MER, 2017), familyprofessional collaboration should rely on parents and ECEC professionals having a good dialogue with each other and that they are in agreement on the most important values related to children’s development and learning. ECEC professionals are the ones responsible for facilitating collaboration (MER, 2017). This requires them to meet and collaborate with a multitude of children and parents with different worldviews, cultural backgrounds and languages, including children with SEN. However, ECEC professionals are bound by a social mandate that requires them to communicate and practise key values such as care, security, belonging, recognition, promoting democracy, equality and mutual respect (MER, 2017). Thus, in their work, ECEC professionals must strive to find a balance between respecting parents’ views and safeguarding children’s rights while practising the values described in the Kindergarten Act (2005). Surveys have shown that Norwegian parents are largely satisfied with their collaboration with ECEC institutions (Wendelborg et  al., 2015). Regarding parents of SEN children, 75% are satisfied with the ECEC offering, and those who are not do not mention collaboration as a factor leading to their dissatisfaction; rather, they state that there are too few resources to accommodate for the special educational help they are entitled to (Wendelborg et al., 2015). Even though Norwegian ECEC parents largely appear to be satisfied with the collaboration with the ECEC,

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

289

because this collaboration is considered so important in Norwegian children’s development, play and learning, the question of how to facilitate this collaboration so that it meets all different demands—those from the policy documents, parents and ECEC professionals, along with their social mandate—emerges as key. Actual strategies for how to do this are also explicitly requested by a national expert committee in 2018: In the further development of future parental cooperation, it is a challenge for the ECEC educator to find collaborative strategies to develop the cooperation so that all parents/guardians are included in the kindergarten’s educational activities. (Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018, p. 180)

Hence, in this chapter, our aim is to describe the characteristics of the collaboration between parents and professionals in Norwegian ECEC and discuss the following question: What is considered important in Norwegian ECEC family-professional collaboration, and are there approaches to ensure that the collaboration is successful and includes all parents?

The Norwegian Context The Kindergarten Act (2005) and National Framework Plan (MER, 2017) clearly state that family-professional collaboration should take place at an individual level with the parents of each child and at a group level through the parents’ council and coordinating committee (Børhaug & Bøe, 2022; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022; MER, 2017; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). Furthermore, Norwegian ECEC professionals and ECEC institutions are the ones responsible for facilitating collaboration with parents on different levels and in different arenas, both formally and informally. Formal Family-Professional Collaboration Starting with the formal family-professional collaboration in Norwegian ECEC, every ECEC institution is obligated to have their own councils and committees that have real influential power over the decisions made in the ECEC institution (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). A parents’ council must be established, which is a statutory council consisting of all parents. The parents’ council promotes the parents’ common interests and contributes to ensuring that the collaboration between

290 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

the professionals and parents as a group is at a satisfactory level (the Kindergarten Act, 2005, §4). In the parents’ council, parents can discuss and provide input on issues coming from the ECEC institution, the professionals and the owner of the ECEC institution (public or private). They can also bring forward issues raised by individual parents or groups of parents. Furthermore, the parents’ council is responsible for deciding whether to have a separate parent executive committee. A parent executive committee is not a statutory committee but is nevertheless something that many larger ECEC institutions (50–150 children) rely on (The National Parents’ Committee for Kindergartens, 2022). In these larger ECEC institutions, the parents’ executive committee is the link between the parents and professionals, and the parent representatives are usually selected from different departments of the ECEC institution to distribute the level of influence across the whole parent group. Next, we have the coordinating committee, which is an ‘advisory, contact-creating and coordinating committee’ (the Kindergarten Act, 2005, §4). The aim of this committee is to serve as a key meeting place for parents and professionals and serve as a foundation for a well-functioning collaboration. In the cooperation committee, professionals and parents are equally represented. The head teacher is responsible for establishing this committee and is a member of it but does not have the right to vote. The right to vote is limited to parents, professionals and the owner of the ECEC institution. Among other things, this committee is responsible for establishing the annual pedagogical plan for the institution (the Kindergarten Act, 2005, §4; Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). In addition to the statutory part of the collaboration in the parents’ council and cooperation committee, organised parent meetings and parent–teacher meetings are also part of the formal collaboration (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). Parent meetings are initiated and led by ECEC professionals, where the entire group of parents is invited. In these meetings, various issues concerning all parents are presented and discussed. Most Norwegian ECEC institutions have one parent meeting per semester. Parent–teacher meetings, on the other hand, are meetings between one (set of) parent(s) and one ECEC professional, usually the pedagogical leader of the department in question. These usually take place once per semester as well, but here, the topics of conversation are the well-being and development of one particular child (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022).

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

291

Informal Family-Professional Collaboration Besides these formal aspects of family-professional collaboration, in Norwegian ECEC institutions, parents and professionals usually meet each other face to face every day during drop-off and pick-up. These face-­ to-­face meetings can be described as a natural arena for informal collaboration. According to the Framework Plan, here are ‘opportunities to exchange observations and assessments related to the individual child’s health, well-being, experiences, development and learning’ (MER, 2017, p. 29). The head teacher for the entire ECEC institution and pedagogical leaders of each department have a joint responsibility to ensure the informal part of the collaboration (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022).

Family-Professional Collaboration in Norwegian ECEC According to Sadownik and Skoglund (2022), Norwegian ECEC research suffers from a lack of complex, large-scale studies on parental involvement (p. 180). This is true to some extent; complex large-scale studies investigating family-professional collaboration are hard to find. Yet there are several small-scale studies and a number of national largescale surveys that can provide us with valuable information about how Norwegian family-professional collaboration is carried out and what some of the challenges facing this form of collaboration are (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). Large-Scale Surveys From large-scale surveys appearing over the past 20 years, we know that, on a general level, Norwegian ECEC parents are satisfied with their ECEC institution and with the ECEC education their children receive (Bjørngaard & Mordal, 1998; Borg et  al., 2008; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; MER, 2019; NOU 2010: 8, 2010; Søbstad, 2004; Sunnevåg et al., 2018; Wendelborg et al., 2015). Moreover, parents consider family-professional collaboration important (Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; NOU 2010: 8, 2010), and they are generally satisfied with the information they receive from the ECEC institution and with the collaboration and relationship (Bratterud et  al., 2012; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; MER, 2019). ECEC

292 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

professionals, on their part, state that they consider family-professional collaboration important and that they place a great emphasis on it (Bratterud et al., 2012; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018). Large-scale surveys have also shown that, in the past decade, familyprofessional collaboration has gradually become more formalised in Norwegian ECEC institutions (Børhaug & Bøe, 2022; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018). According to the nationwide survey ‘Questions to Kindergarten-Norway’ (Spørsmål til Barnehage-Norge) conducted in 2016, 97% of ECEC institutions conducted two or more formal parent–teacher meetings a year, 80% conducted parent meetings twice a year and 50% had meetings with the cooperative committee at least three times a year (Haugset et al., 2016). Furthermore, 95% had written guidelines and procedures for how to conduct parent–teacher meetings, 75% had written guidelines for how to share information with parents and 60% had written guidelines for how to process and store information from parents (Haugset et al., 2016). Small-Scale Research Studies Large-scale surveys give us a general overview of family-professional collaboration in Norwegian ECEC. However, if we turn our eyes towards the small-scale studies that have been conducted, we get in-depth insights into some of the characteristics of the family-professional collaboration, along with some of the challenges and possibilities that exist (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). Small-scale studies conducted on family-professional collaboration in Norwegian ECEC have indicated that both parents and professionals place a large amount of emphasis on the nature of their relationship. According to both parties, a trusting relationship is the foundation of a productive family-professional collaboration—a fundamental precondition (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019). Furthermore, a trusting relationship seems to stem from the way professionals interact with the children. Both parents and professionals state that if parents trust ECEC institutions and ECEC professionals and their pedagogical attitudes and values and believe that they are doing everything with the best intentions regarding the child, a trusting relationship can be developed (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019). Small gestures such as greeting the parents and children with a smile when they walk through the door in the morning or asking them how their morning was

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

293

can go a long way in this regard (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019). Moreover, both parents and professionals state that this trusting relationship is founded on the daily informal conversations that occur between parents and professionals during drop-off and pick-up (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019). The common practice in Norway is for parents to physically walk their children into the ECEC institution and talk face to face with the professionals. Based upon Wolf’s (2019) interviews with Norwegian ECEC parents, the parents value these conversations to a high degree because they give them an opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the professionals. Here, the parents are provided with an opportunity to receive information, ask questions and engage in discussions of importance to them. They claim to prefer these informal conversations during drop-off and pick-up over the formal parent–teacher meetings that occur a couple of times a year. In formal parent–professional meetings, ECEC professionals are prepared and focused on providing parents with feedback about the child’s progress and development, more so than to engage in a dialogue, making them unfold as an unequal one-way monologue (Wolf, 2019). There are, however, indications that finding the time and space to engage in informal conversations might be challenging (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Solberg, 2019). From her observations of drop-off situations, Solberg (2019) notes that, in many cases, there was little dialogue between parents and professionals; the dialogues usually involved children and professionals. Parents were often not addressed or included in the conversation. According to Solberg (2019), if ECEC professionals instead would address both the child and parent, relevant information could have more easily been exchanged and matters of interest for the parents could have been discussed (Solberg, 2019). However, during pick-up situations, the parents and professionals had more room to talk (Solberg, 2019). When the parents walked into the ECEC institution to pick up their children in the afternoon, the ECEC professionals had more time to engage in conversations because the children were still occupied with play and were reluctant to stop right away. This gave the parents and professionals some time on their own where they could talk to one another. The opposite pattern was found by Drugli and Undheim (2012): drop-off situations in the morning provided parents and professionals with better opportunities to interact compared with pick-up situations. In their case, the ECEC institution was less staffed in the afternoon, leaving the remaining

294 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

professionals too occupied with the children to engage in conversations with their parents. In the morning, however, they were better staffed, so the professionals were better able to talk to parents (Drugli & Undheim, 2012). This shows that even though both ECEC parents and professionals value informal conversations regarding parent–professional collaboration, finding the time and space for it might be challenging. However, given how highly both ECEC parents and ECEC professionals in Norway value these conversations, making sure that there is time and space to engage in them should be a priority (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). Summarising Family-Professional Collaboration in Norwegian ECEC The Kindergarten Act (2005, sections 1 and 4) and National Framework Plan (MER, 2017) state that family-professional collaboration should take place at an individual level with the parents of each child and at a group level through the parents’ council and coordinating committee. The collaboration is described as a shared responsibility for each child’s well-being and development, as well as for the pedagogical priorities of the ECEC institution (Børhaug & Bøe, 2022; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022; MER, 2017; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). Based on small-scale studies, it seems as the focus of the Norwegian ECEC family-professional collaboration is on the individual aspect of the collaboration—both parents and professionals claim to value the informal collaboration on the individual level to a high degree. Furthermore, the small-scale studies investigating Norwegian ECEC family-professional collaboration have also focused on collaboration at the individual level, not the pedagogical or educational content of the whole ECEC institution (e.g. Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Pesch, 2018; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019, 2021). Embedded in this are two parallel aspects. The first concerns informal collaboration (e.g. informal conversation during drop-off and pick­up) versus formal collaboration (e.g. parents’ meetings, parents’ council meetings and meetings in the coordinating committee). The second concerns an individual focus (e.g. parents asking the ECEC institution to make individual arrangements for a specific child) versus a larger focus on the pedagogical practices or content of the whole ECEC institution. It appears that family-professional collaboration in the Norwegian ECEC

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

295

context mainly focuses on the informal part of the collaboration with an individual focus. It is natural to assume that informal collaboration is closely connected to an individual focus and that formal collaboration is more closely connected to larger questions concerning the pedagogical content and pedagogical practice. However, it is important to acknowledge that, for example, if parents are asking an ECEC institution or ECEC professional to make individual arrangements for their children, they are also indirectly asking them to reconsider their larger pedagogical content and pedagogical practice. By, for example, asking the ECEC institution to reconsider the sleeping pattern of one child, they are inevitably asked to reconsider a practice that affects many children and the pedagogical daily routine. Thus, parents’ involvement in facilitating their own child will have consequences for the pedagogical practice and educational content beyond the effects on their own child. It is possible to imagine how this might be especially demanding when it comes to children with SEN because the ECEC will be asked to reconsider their balance of the needs of one child versus the needs of the whole group. The large-scale surveys conducted on Norwegian ECEC family-professional collaboration (e.g. Haugset et al., 2016) have shown that the formal aspects of the family-professional collaboration have become well-established in Norwegian ECEC.  However, we have little detailed research-based information about the formal aspects of family-professional collaboration. Thus, we do not know how parent–teacher meetings unfold (other than what parents participating in small-scale interview studies say about them turning more into one-way monologues), and we do not know the characteristics of the interaction during parents’ meetings or the meetings of the coordinating committee, or what they are discussing. Thus, the argument that future studies investigating the Norwegian ECEC family-professional collaboration should focus more on investigating the formal aspects of the collaboration could be made.

Discussing Parents’ Varying Possibilities for Collaboration Having summarised what both parents and professionals consider important in their collaboration, we now discuss the aspect that appears to be the most challenging: making all parents feel included in the family-professional collaboration.

296 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

By looking at the results from the small-scale studies, we find that there are parents who experience either a perceived or genuine lack of opportunity to participate in the collaboration. The experience of exclusion can be correlated with factors such as cultural capital, sociocultural background and educational background (Pesch, 2018; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019, 2020). From Wolf’s (2019) interviews, we know that there are parents who feel as if they are greeted in a less-welcoming and professional way compared with how they witness other parents being greeted, making them feel less included in the collaboration with the ECEC. According to Wolf’s (2019) analysis, some parents who experienced being excluded from participation can be described as having lower cultural capital (p. 180). Another factor that seems to affect the opportunity for collaboration is educational background. Parents with an education matching that of the ECEC professionals, for example, a pedagogical education, seem to interact and establish a dialogue with the ECEC professional more easily and successfully than other parents because they ‘speak the same language’. They can better understand each other, giving these parents a greater opportunity to collaborate and influence the ECEC professionals and ECEC institutions (Wolf, 2019). Finally, there are aspects of linguistic and sociocultural backgrounds that influence parents’ possibilities to collaborate. Some ECEC parents in Norway do not speak Norwegian or English, which means that their limited linguistic abilities cause them to have trouble making themselves understood when interacting with ECEC professionals (Norheim, 2022; Pesch, 2018; Wolf, 2019, 2021). When ECEC parents feel excluded, it makes them feel neglected and unimportant, in turn making them claim to have less confidence that their child is well taken care of during the day. This causes them to lose trust in ECEC professionals and ECEC institutions (Wolf, 2019). Thus, a challenging aspect for family-professional collaboration in Norwegian ECEC is how to make every parent feel included in the collaboration, without having some individuals or groups of parents feeling excluded (Moen, 2021; Norheim, 2022; Pesch, 2018; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019, 2020). If not, ECEC institutions and professionals run the risk of having parents feel like they are not met with the professional attention they are entitled to, and the trusting relationship that both parents and professionals have highlighted as crucial will be difficult to establish. When it comes to parents with an immigrant background, hiring bilingual staff, using translators for translating material and information into their home language and allotting sufficient time for communication seem to

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

297

be important aspects for establishing a more inclusive collaboration (Norheim, 2022). We have not been able to find any studies specifically investigating the parents of SEN children and their possibilities for inclusion, but given the nature of the results presented here, there is no reason to think that the same should not apply to them. Parents of SEN children often must deal and interact with many different helpers (as it is mentioned by Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen in Chap. 10). These interactions can be both helpful and challenging. Thus, for parents of SEN children, a trusting and open relationship with ECEC professionals, their closest partner, might be especially important. Central to their dialogue must be a common understanding of the child’s needs and any challenges because, without a common understanding of this, a collaborative partnership where all parties are equal is difficult to establish (Tveit & Cameron, 2018). It is emphasised in the Framework Plan (MER, 2017; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022) that the ECEC setting and home have a joint responsibility for the child’s well-being and development. Embedded in this is the idea of family-professional collaboration as a partnership (Børhaug & Bøe, 2022; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). The idea of family-professional collaboration in Norwegian ECEC as a partnership is also explicitly formulated in the report made by the Norwegian expert group (Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018). Thus, ECEC professionals need to find a balance where parents feel that they are taken seriously and have real opportunities to influence the daily routines of their child, the ECEC practice and the pedagogical content without having the professionals feeling as if they have no space to operate as professionals. In cases of disagreement, both sides are, according to the guidelines given, indirectly asked to reconsider or compromise their positions so that they both feel as if they are being heard. However, even though the collaboration implies a shared responsibility concerning the child and ECEC’s pedagogical content, the responsibility for the actual collaboration is firmly placed at the hands of the ECEC institution and ECEC professionals (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022; MER, 2017; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). The ECEC professionals are responsible for providing parents with the necessary information about the activities of the ECEC institution and the reasoning behind their decisions and for inviting the parents to collaborate without excluding anyone (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). Furthermore, it is the ECEC that is responsible for the nature of their relationships and, thus,

298 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

are the ones that need to make sure that it is characterised by trust and openness (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). To make things more complicated, though, the Norwegian ECEC is also framed by a social mandate that requires them to communicate and practise the key values of care, security, belonging, recognition, promoting democracy, equality and mutual respect. These are values that ECEC institutions cannot reconsider on their own (MER, 2017; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). Thus, in cases of dilemmas, both parents and ECEC professionals need to understand and accept that ECEC has a social mandate and a particular set of values that the staff cannot compromise on (Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). In cases of dilemmas or disagreements, it is the ECEC that must work to strike a balance between respecting parents’ priorities and safeguarding children’s rights and the fundamental common values to which kindergartens are committed (MER, 2017; Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022). It is, however, in cases where parents and ECEC professionals have different understandings of these key values, or when different key values collide, that the collaboration and the idea of a partnership become most challenging—such as when different interpretations of what mutual respect might imply, exists. In her studies, Moen (2021) finds that, in situations where the conflict of values between the professionals and the parents was too great, the professionals tended to distance themselves from the parents’ views and wishes by claiming that they had the child’s best interests at heart. However, what is in the best interest of a child is a question firmly placed in-between empirical research-­ based knowledge and different cultural views, values and practices. On one hand, there is empirical research-based knowledge regarding what kind of (learning) activities children at different ages should engage in. On the other hand, questions regarding what kind of (learning) activities children should engage in are also closely connected to different cultural views and values, such as what a good childhood is, how children are supposed to be raised, and what kind and values they are to be taught. According to the small-scale studies, both parents and professionals state that if parents trust ECEC institutions and ECEC professionals and their pedagogical attitudes and values and believe that they are doing everything with the best intentions regarding the child, a trusting relationship can be developed (Drugli & Undheim, 2012; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019). However, if the common practice of ECEC professionals is to reject parents’ views on upbringing if and when they deviate too much from their own professional opinion, the desired partnership will be difficult to establish.

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

299

Conclusion Family-professional collaboration in Norwegian ECEC should be understood as a partnership with a shared responsibility for the children’s well-­ being and development, as well as for the pedagogical content of the ECEC institution (Børhaug & Bøe, 2022; Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018; Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022). However, finding a balance where parents feel they are collaborative partners and that their perspectives are considered sincerely, thoroughly and respectfully seems to be especially challenging when parents’ views and wishes are colliding with the normative dominant social mandate of Norwegian ECEC. As shown (Moen, 2021; Norheim, 2022; Pesch, 2018; Solberg, 2019; Wolf, 2019, 2020), it is often parents with a lower or different cultural capital than that of the ECEC—or those who do not have Norwegian as their first language—who express a feeling of exclusion. Furthermore, based upon the extra challenges parents of children with SEN experience, there are reasons to believe that family-professional collaboration could prove itself extra complicated for this group of parents as well. The ECEC institution and ECEC professionals are responsible for the collaboration; indeed, they are educated for their profession and are bound by a social mandate. This means that when they collaborate with parents, there is an asymmetrical distribution of power (Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten, 2018). If this power is used in an unfortunate way, it is likely that parents will feel excluded. Therefore, it is important to establish an open and trust-based relationship. To invite parental criticism and ensure that parents feel confident when raising their concerns (Sadownik & Skoglund, 2022, p. 176) and not have the collaboration climate turn conflictual (Venninen & Purola, 2013; Ward, 2018), parents and professionals need to regard each other as equal partners, each bringing something different but equally valuable to the collaboration (Ingebrigtsen & Samuelsson, 2022; Venninen & Purola, 2013; Ward, 2018).

References Bjørngaard, J. H., & Mordal, T. L. (1998). Økt brukertilpasning i barnehagen? Sluttrapport fra utviklingsprogrammet for barnehagesektoren [Increased parent adjustment in Norwegian ECEC? The final report from the development program for the ECEC section]. (SIFO-rapport nr. 2). Statens institutt for forbruksforskning.

300 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

Borg, E., Kristiansen, I.  H., & Backe-Hansen, E. (2008). Kvalitet og innhold i norske barnehager. En kunnskapsoversikt [Quality and content in Norwegian ECEC. An overview]. (NOVA-rapport nr. 6/08). Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring. Børhaug, K., & Bøe, M. (2022). Barnehagelærerprofesjonen [The ECEC profession]. Universitetsforlaget. Bratterud, Å., Sandseter, E. B., & Seland, M. (2012). Barns trivsel og medvirkning i barnehagen. Barn, foreldre og ansattes perspektiver [Children’s well-being and participation in Norwegian ECEC. Perspectives of children, parents, and educators]. NTNU Samfunnsforskning. Drugli, M. B., & Undheim, A. M. (2012). Partnership between parents and caregivers of young children in full-time daycare. Child Care in Practice, 18(1), 51–65. Expert Group on the Role of Kindergarten. (2018). Barnehagelærerrollen i et profesjonsperspektiv – et kunnskapsgrunnlag [ECEC educators in a professional perspective – a foundation]. Kunnskapsdepartementet. Haugset, A. S., Nilsen, R. D., & Haugum, M. (2016). Spørsmål til Barnehage-­ Norge 2015 [Questions to Kindergarten-Norway]. (FoU-rapport 2015:19). Trøndelag Forskning og Utvikling. Ingebrigtsen, T., & Samuelsson, M. (2022). Dialogisk foreldresamarbeid i barnehagen  – medvirkning og partnerskap [A dialogical approach to family-­ professional collaboration in ECEC – participation and partnership]. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2017). Framework plan for the content and tasks of ECEC. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/ rammeplan/framework-­plan-­for-­ECECs2-­2017.pdf Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2019). Foreldreundersøkelsen i barnehage [The parent survey in kindergarten]. Kunnskapsdepartementet. Moen, K. (2021). Kjærlig kamp. En analyse og drøfting av barnehagelæreres dømmekraft i situasjoner med verdimotsetninger mellom foreldre og ansatte i barnehager med religiøst mangfold [The loving battle – An analysis and discussion of kindergarten teachers’ ethical judgment in situations of opposing values between parents and teachers in religiously diverse kindergartens]. Doctoral dissertation, Nord University. Norheim, H. (2022). Partnerships between parents with immigrant backgrounds and professionals in ECEC. Doctoral dissertation, University of South-­ Eastern Norway. NOU 2010: 8. (2010). Med forskertrang og lekelyst. Systematisk pedagogisk tilbud til alle forskolebarn [A desire for research. A pedagogical content for all ECEC children]. Kunnskapsdepartementet.

17  FAMILY-PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION IN NORWEGIAN EARLY… 

301

Pesch, M. A. (2018). Syn på flerspråklighet som diskursive vilkår for barnehagens samarbeid med foreldre til flerspråklige barn [Views on multilingualism as ­discursive conditions for family-professional collaboration with parents of multilingual children]. NOA.  Norsk som andrespråk [Norwegian as a Second Language], 1(2), 158–188. Sadownik, A.  R., & Skoglund, R.  I. (2022). Parental involvement in ECE in Norway. In S. Garvis, S. Philipson, H. Harju-Luukainen, & A. R. Sadownik (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 174–184). Routledge. Søbstad, F. (2004). Mot stadig nye mål: tredje rapport fra prosjektet “Den norske barnehagekvaliteten” [Towards new goals: third report from the project “The Norwegian Kindergarten Quality”]. Dronning Mauds Minne Høgskole for barnehagelærerutdanning. Solberg, J. (2019). Hverdagsmøtene mellom foreldre og ansatte i barnehagen – nok voksenrammer? [Informal encounters between parents and educators in ECEC]. Nordisk barnehageforskning [Nordic ECEC research], 18(1) https:// doi.org/10.7577/nbf.3433 Statistics Norway [SSB]. (2021). Barnehager [Kindergarten]. https://www.ssb. no/utdanning/barnehager Sunnevåg, A-K., Nordahl, T., & Nordahl, S. Ø. (2018). Kultur for læring i barnehagen [Culture for learning in ECEC]. (Oppdragsrapport nr. 2). Høgskolen i Innlandet. The Kindergarten Act. (2005). Kindergarten Act. (LOV-2005-06-17-64). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-­06-­17-­64 The National Parents’ Committee for Kindergartens. (2022). https://foreldreutvalgene.no/fub/ Tveit, A. D., & Cameron, D. L. (2018). Kommunikasjonsutfordringer i tverretatlig samarbeid om barn med nedsatt funksjonsevne i barnehagen [Communication challenges in inter-agency collaboration regarding children with disabilities in kindergarten]. In H. Omdal & R. Thygesen (Eds.), Å falle mellom to stoler. Samarbeid til det barnets beste i barnehage og skole [The collaboration between schools and ECEC – incapable of serving the interest of the child?] (pp. 61–73). Universitetsforlaget. Venninen, T., & Purola, K. (2013). Professionals’ views on parents’ participation on three different identified levels. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 2(1), 48–62. Ward, U. (2018). How do early childhood practitioners define professionalism in their interactions with parents? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(2), 274–284.

302 

M. SAMUELSSON AND T. INGEBRIGTSEN

Wendelborg, C., Kittelsaa, T., Svendsen, S., Haugset, A., Kongsvik, T., & Reiling, R. (2015). Barnehagetilbudet til barn med særskilte behov [ECEC opportunities for children with SEN]. NTNU Samfunnsforskning. Wolf, K. D. (2019). Samarbeid i barnehagen – “Like barn leker best?” Perspektiver på samarbeid fra foreldre med ulik bakgrunn [Collaboration in kindergarten – comparison of parents with different background]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 103(2-3), 172–183. Wolf, K. D. (2020). Alle foreldre med? Syn på kvalitet og samarbeid i barnehagen [Parents’ views of quality in kindergarten and their collaboration with kindergarten]. Doctoral dissertation, OsloMet. Wolf, K. D. (2021). Stakeholders’ opinions of quality in Norwegian kindergartens. Early Years, 41(4), 336–352.

CHAPTER 18

A Parental Perspective on Educational Support for High-Ability Children in Finland Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , Katja Sirvio, and Jonna Kangas

Introduction A child’s educational path, starting from early childhood education, should be a seamless experience, where families and professionals are working together for the best interests of the child. This collaboration or partnership between families and schools is considered significant for children’s learning and development (see closer Garvis et al., 2021) and especially for gifted children (Garn et  al., 2010). This becomes even more

H. Harju-Luukkainen (*) University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] K. Sirvio Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_18

303

304 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

relevant when the child is with special education needs (SEN). An inclusive learning environment requires teachers to support every child’s possibility of fully participating as a member of the early childhood education or school environment. However, in these discussions, children with high abilities are often forgotten. In Finland, the National Curriculum for early childhood education states the following regarding inclusion (FNAE, 2018, pp.  21–22): “In early childhood education and care, the child’s development and learning is supported as required by the child’s needs. It is important for children that the support forms a continuum of coherent education during ECEC… The development of early childhood education and care is guided by the inclusion principle. All children may participate in early childhood education and care together, regardless of such issues as their needs for support, disability, or cultural background”. In this chapter, we will focus more closely on this group of high-ability children who are often in need of extra support in their learning environment. In the chapter, we will focus on the parental perspective of these children. We will discuss how the Finnish early childhood and school systems manage to organize the needed support from the perspective of the parents. In this chapter, our focus will be on the Finnish educational context. Finland is well known for its world-leading education system where all children have equal opportunities to participate in the free education system (Kumpulainen, 2018). In the Nordic countries children’s right to participation, autonomy, and agency in learning are, from an educational perspective, essential components of every child’s childhood (Kangas et al., 2019; Taguma et al., 2012). It is also relevant to note, that parents cannot choose education for their child from a wide range of private or specialized schools, because the educational sector is politically controlled and licenced (Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016). In participatory approaches, parents have limited opportunities to have a direct impact on their children’s education: while children are considered active citizens and agents of their lives from an early age, parents are excluded from educational interaction and collaboration. When it comes to determining the educational path of high-ability individuals, environmental moderators, such as family and education, are thought to play a more significant role in their early development than their cognitive features (Stoeger et al., 2014). The

J. Kangas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

305

environmental factors include parents’ appreciation of education, teachers’ scaffolding and guidance, and external motivation from the environment, where the environment regulates the learning process through feedback and support until the child takes greater responsibility for their learning (Stoeger et al., 2014). From these premises, this chapter answers which type of support processes the high-ability children receive during their educational path in Finland from a parental perspective. In this chapter we will firstly introduce the Finnish education context and parental collaboration premises and define high-ability children’s educational challenges according to research literature. Secondly, we describe our data and used methods and finally answer the research question. At the end of the chapter, we critically discuss the outcomes of this chapter.

The Finish Context The early childhood education and basic education system in Finland are based on Basic Education Act (628/1998) (Ministry of Education, 1998), Early Childhood Education and Care Act (540/2018) (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2018), and Child Welfare Act (417/2007) (Social and Health Ministry, 2007). For Finland the responsibility for education on the national level lies with the Ministry of Education and Culture. The private sector in education is limited in Finland. Most of the education is provided, organized, and quality controlled by the municipalities. Of the ECEC services around 17 per cent are for-profit, while only 6 per cent of primary education is for-profit. (Alila et al., 2022; Kumpulainen, 2018). Both public and private sector education providers need to follow the national curriculum guidelines, like the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE, 2018), the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (FNAE, 2016), and the Core Curriculum for Primary Education (FNAE, 2014). The first document guides the work with children under the age of six, the second the work with children during the pre-primary year, and the latter two the work with children during primary education aged 7 to 15. The documents are prepared in collaboration networks with educators, education specialists, researchers, trade union representatives, the third sector as well as administrators (Alila et al., 2022; Kumpulainen, 2018). Parental collaboration has a special role across all the Finnish curriculums. An entire chapter in the national core curriculum is devoted to this

306 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

partnership and its implementation. Consequently, the National Core Curriculum for ECEC (FNAE, 2018, pp. 32–33) states that the purpose of the partnership is to support the child’s growth and development, and learning between ECEC and parents is defined by such terms as “trust, respect, and equality… and parental knowledge is underlined” (Alasuutari, 2010, p. 150). Initiation of this collaboration exists in the education system, which requires expertise in meeting families with understanding and respect. In this partnership, the family’s diversity and children’s individual needs are also taken into consideration. A translator is used so that both parties can communicate with each other. The importance of an open and positive dialogue between the guardians and the personnel is emphasized on two occasions. Firstly, when an ECEC educational plan is designed for each child and secondly when a support plan for the child’s development and learning is designed. The partnership can have multiple functions and it can take different forms during the child’s ECEC (FNAE, 2016, 2018). However, the child’s everyday experiences and occurrences related to their learning and development are shared with the guardians in support as well as in a positive way. Creating a trusting environment between the guardians and personnel is especially critical in challenging situations, where for example there is a concern about the child’s well-being. The observations parents and the personnel make and share with each other form the basis for the child’s overall well-being and positive development. The partnership is seen as especially significant during transitional phases: when the child transitions to ECEC or to basic education. Research shows that trust in education is built by teachers’ characteristics, collaboration, and teaching practices where parents have only a limited opportunity to influence (Lerkkanen et al., 2013). Inclusion and High-Ability Children High-ability children are statistically uncommon, and these children are qualitatively different from children who are simply for instance “good at math” (Miller, 1990). Due to this fact, there is very little research conducted on high-ability children (Leikin, 2011). Jolly and Matthews (2012) found multiple gaps in research on this area. These were in the areas of attitudes, values, and expectations of families of underserved gifted children; relationships between parents and schools; parents’ understanding of giftedness; parents of gifted underachievers; and how parents support and influence their children at home. In Finland there are policies for

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

307

identifying both low- and high-performing students in ECEC and school contexts. Early intervention and individually designed support structures within a multi-professional context are outlined in the legislation (Ministry of Education, 1998; Ministry of Education and Culture, 2018). Also, the national curriculum for basic education (2014) highlights the importance for individual support for all students with or without a diagnosis. Therefore, both high- and low-ability children are entitled to support according to their needs, and the inclusion as a value is an overarching principle for special education in Finland (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022). However, it is important to note that according to Tirri and Kuusisto (2013) Finland has supported academic and creative talent mostly through different gifted programmes and special schools to give students the opportunity to meet like-minded. The focus here has been on mathematics and linguistic programmes. When a child has been identified as a high ability, she/he needs special support in the learning environment to develop further. These children need teachers who will provide them with learning activities that are rich enough to challenge them (Plourde, 2008). Although research on this topic is limited, there are some published literature on the “best practices” around teaching high-ability children. According to Leikin (2009) there are several crucial components in developing students’ potential. These include parental support, special settings in school, involving technological tools that promote creativity, problem-solving and learning challenges and teachers’ proficiency. At all ages, mentoring and supplemental resources (i.e. resources other than the textbook) are recommended (Johnson, 2000). The social and emotional support of high-ability students remains however often vague, and students’ challenges in these areas are often understood as behavioural and attitude problems (Eren et al., 2018; Fornia & Frame, 2001). These challenges influence in both schools and home when frustration or lack of motivation emerges through undesired behaviour (Eren et  al., 2018). Further, some research discusses whether “acceleration” or “enrichment” is a better strategy. Acceleration focuses on learning concepts and understanding earlier, and enrichment focuses on a deeper understanding of the content in the current math class (Koshy et  al., 2009). Enrichment in the curricular level might include inquiry-based learning, meta-cognitive questions that scaffold students to explain how and why they got their answer, and problem-solving assignments without set answers (Johnson, 2000; Plourde, 2008). Students can participate in both acceleration and enrichment activities during their

308 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

classroom. Further, in some elementary schools, high-achieving students are frequently pulled out of class to work in small groups with other similarly high-achieving peers. Research has shown that “pull-out” classes can be beneficial (Plourde, 2008).

Method and Participants In this study our primary aim is to study parents’ experiences of the educational support they have received for their high-ability child or children in Finland during the child’s educational path from early childhood education to the end of primary education. In addition to self-reporting, parents are also asked to describe their child’s high-ability status. However, the parents described that their child had, at some point in their educational path, undergone a test conducted by a medical expert or similar. They also described that they had received verified information that their child had a high ability of some kind. Since there is no register of children characterized as having high ability, we had to develop a methodology and study design that would target these parents and attract their interest to participate in the study. Finland is a small country and sparsely populated in many areas, making social communities online a popular way of finding and interacting with persons with equal interests. Further, research conducted on social media platforms has become more significant in modern societies where people spend much of their free time online, connected to different social networks. It is therefore possible to collect data and conduct different types of research utilizing social media (Laaksonen et al., 2013). According to Hine (2000), computer-mediated communication (CMC) can enrich research data collection, especially when this can be done regardless of limitations in space and time. In this study the data informants were recruited from a national support group for parents of gifted children. This group can be found on social media through Facebook. On this platform we posted a message targeting parents and participation in this study was based on their initiative. Altogether ten parents were in contact with the research group and wished to be interviewed about their experiences. In these families a total of 15 children could be described as high ability. The age of the children ranged from 4 to 20 years of age during their parents’ interviews. In the fall of 2021, the interviews were conducted in Finnish, Swedish, or English, depending on the language that the parents preferred. The interviews ranged from 30 minutes to an hour. Further, all

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

309

the respondents were female. This is consistent with research on participants’ demographics in online discussion forums. According to Finnish Official Statistics (2016), most of the participants in online discussion forums in Finland are female. In this study we have used content analysis for our transcribed textual data. Content analysis can be considered an “umbrella term” that refers to diverse research approaches. Qualitative research involves the purposeful use of describing, explaining, and interpreting collected data (Williams, 2007). Leedy and Ormrod (2001, p. 155) describe this as “a detailed and systematic examination of the content of a particular body of materials to identify patterns, themes or biases”. “The method is designed to identify specific characteristics from the content” (Williams, 2007, p. 69). To identify these patterns of the data, we used a methodological framework, designed for this study, and used a twofold framework. We divided all of the textual data of parental perspectives into two elements of received support. These were (1) structural level operations of received support and (2) interpretation and implementation operations of received support. These were then divided further into four main categories (elements of support or elements of challenges) (Table 18.1). In terms of ethical considerations, the study was committed into adhering to both national and international guidelines on research ethics, including those set by the Finnish National Advisory Board on Research Ethics (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics, 2012), with special considerations to research with young children and families. The research team has provided its participants with adequate information about the field of research at the beginning of the study; the purpose of the research; Table 18.1  Description of the analysis framework Level of operation in early childhood education and schools’ contexts Structural level of operation

Interpretational and implementation levels of operation

Elements of support or elements of challenges in early childhood education or school contexts Structural level elements of received support, for example a legal right to have individual support, support described in the national curricula. Interpretation and implementation levels of received support, for example materials and concrete tools in classroom, opportunity to speed up learning Also, for example teachers’ choices to differentiate the context of learning, or extra assignments given by the teacher.

310 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

who will receive access to the information; the intended use of the results, and the consequences of the research project. The research team also respected participants’ autonomy, integrity, freedom, and right for co-­ determination. The participants could choose if they wanted to participate in the study and they were able to determine their participation at any time. The data has been processed in such a way that personal matters and information was kept confidential.

Results According to the parents, the opportunities and challenges related to the support of their high-ability child appeared on the structural level and the level of operations on teachers’ interpretation and implementation. The findings of this study were divided, according to our analysis framework, into four categories as following. Further challenges on interpretation and implementation operations of received support are further divided into three sub-categories (lack of differentiation, levelling up, and lack of social support). Structural level operations of received support . Challenge on structural level operations of received support 1 2. Interpretation and implementation operations of received support 3. Challenges on interpretation and implementation operations of received support

(a) lack of differentiation (b) levelling up (c) lack of social support

The experiences of parents regarding support for their high-ability children during early childhood education and primary education were scarce concerning the experiences of lack of support. Therefore, our findings will be directed more towards the lack of support. Further, parents’ descriptions of multi-professional networks collaborating with the parents were not highlighted in their answers.

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

311

Support on the Structural Level According to our results, the structural level support for gifted children reflected formal forms of support in the structures of the education system, such as teaching that is not tied to year classes or a child’s age. The forms of structural support used in early childhood education and basic education described by the parents focused on material support. Structural support for high-ability children was mainly limited to the opportunity to study independently using extra materials, such as books, assignments, and sometimes digital tools. For some children (4 out of 13), structural support was manifested through mixed-grade education where, for example, a high-ability child could take part in a math lesson of an upper grade like in the example below. The first grade was differentiated in the math: [my son] spent part of his classes with the second graders. (H5)

Only a few high-ability children were offered a special support plan listing the available structural support methods in basic education and none in early childhood education. In the cases this plan had been made, teachers evaluated the student’s development and the assignments done in order to document the learning process and to communicate this to future practitioners in teacher education. In the rest of the cases no official plan nor documentation of the learning process was recorded on behalf of the school or early childhood education. I went into this mood that this is the sort of day care where my child can be with other children, that that was the number one focus here... by then I had probably just accepted that there is nothing in the Finnish school system for these gifted children. (H1)

Challenges on the Structural Level There were however much more structural level challenges expressed by the parents. The guardians’ experiences of the challenges of supporting children were manifested almost without exception at the level of school structures. In several situations, it seemed that the early childhood or schools did not have structures that enabled flexible teaching that crossed class or age boundaries. As a result, age or cross-class teaching could even

312 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

be banned. Crossing age or class boundaries was discussed in meetings between the school and guardians in a negative tone, without arguments that would increase understanding on the subject. The school’s reasons for not being able to cross age or class boundaries appeared to the guardians as the school’s inability to flex upward. These arguments described the school’s inability to offer a gifted child wider learning opportunities compared to the requirements of the curriculum. This inability to support the learning of a gifted child is described by H1: In the school it was completely stopped, that it was forbidden to cross class boundaries. And the reason was that it only causes challenges for the next grade level, that the next teacher then must come up with something. I was told straight up that what if in the third grade he completes all this, from the third to the sixth grade, to giving performance samples, what do they do then? What do they come up with then? (H1)

Several guardians described that early childhood education and basic education did not seem to understand the learning speed of gifted children, which, according to the guardians, differed significantly from the learning speed of children in the peer group. Because of this, the offered forms of differentiation appeared to be insufficient, as, for example, moving across a grade level did not appear to be a sufficiently broad form of support that could support the child’s significantly faster learning process. In the case the child’s skills were compared to the goals of the curriculum, and in situations where they were met, support for learning that crossed class boundaries was still not offered by the school. Just out of curiosity, last winter I looked at what the city’s curriculum says about these gifted children, and now I found the same entry that can be found in the national curriculum, that this kind of acceleration could be used or not tied to year classes. And when I asked about this in the school meeting, I was laughed at, saying, “Don’t even imagine that something like this would be done, these kinds of things are completely out of the question. (H4)

Support on Interpretation and Implementation Levels According to our results, interpretational and implementation level support reflects the different operations done by teachers and the interpretation of the child’s assessment answers to support the learning of gifted

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

313

students. This category also refers to the different concrete materials provided by the teacher. The teachers supported the children’s talent in both early childhood and basic education through a variety of applied tasks or materials that required advanced knowledge processing and problem-solving skills. These assignments in early childhood education included, for example, crosswords, colouring tasks with written or verbal instructions, and supplementary written materials that develop logical thinking, such as labyrinth tasks. Teachers could print these during school days when they had time to do so. Teachers were described to support the creative development of high-ability students by providing opportunities to make storybooks, act as narrators for the play, or play instruments at school events. Basic education especially for students with high abilities in mathematics was supported by assigning more difficult assignments that required adaptation and problem-solving skills. In their practical work, some of the teachers had developed assignments for students that were not part of the math curriculum and did not exist in the math books. Teachers supported children’s talent in their mother tongue by providing opportunities to read longer and more complex texts compared to peer group activities. Where, for example, peers could practice searching for phonemes and short words from a text, students with high abilities were offered fictional books to read. According to the parents’ experience, teachers’ support was also evident in the interpretation of the test responses. Based on student answers to exam questions, teachers awarded good grades to students with high abilities who refused to answer the simple question directly but had written more applied and broader answers. In one school, money had been budgeted for separate materials to provide more learning opportunities for a student with high abilities. Challenges on Interpretation and Implementation Levels According to our results, in parental narratives we could identify challenges on interpretation and implementation levels for gifted regarding goals of teaching, differentiation in tasks, levelling up and challenges in social support. Goals for teaching. Parents of gifted children described the goals set for teaching and teachers’ interpretations of these goals as the most important challenge for organizing learning support in both early childhood

314 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

education and basic education. According to the guardians’ experiences, the values in educational institutions about the adequacy of reaching the basic level were also conveyed in the teachers’ way of justifying why the child’s talent does not need to be supported. According to the guardians, the teachers described that all children and students must reach the same level before wider contents are offered in the teaching. This is described by H3: The attitude of the ECEC and the school has been that it’s great that your child is gifted but now you just have to wait for other children to reach the same level.

Lack of differentiation. According to the experiences of the guardians, offering differentiated tasks that support the learning of a gifted child seemed to be rare. It was more typical that gifted children did not get differentiating tasks. According to the guardians’ experiences, the teachers gave the gifted children, as a rule, similar additional tasks, which could be, for example, from the textbook material of another publisher. The following two parents’ quotes: In my eyes, it is not differentiation to give the same tasks from another publisher’s material. It’s repeating the same thing with different tasks (H1). And the reality is, of course, that there is no means of support in our school system, there is nothing at all. That at most, that is the cruellest form, when teachers are giving more similar tasks, you were so quick, so we’ll give you more handouts, handouts, handouts. (H5)

The guardians experienced shortcomings even in those situations where the gifted child could get differentiated tasks. Teachers’ interpretations of when it is permissible to start working on the tasks in question seemed to be a challenge in supporting the learning of a gifted child. The guardians described how completing the basic tasks in the textbooks aimed at everyone was a prerequisite for getting into broader tasks. According to the guardians’ experiences, rules like this did not seem to increase the child’s motivation to learn. Due to the rules, gifted children often had to repeat learning tasks mechanically, in which the child might already have known the content to be practised years before. This was done instead of the teacher directly offering the gifted child tasks corresponding to this learning level.

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

315

Now it has come to them that there is an opportunity to do a mathematics diploma. But despite that, you can only start those tasks after all the tasks in the first book have been done, then he counts all the same tasks, even though he already knows how to do them all. The same thing with the fact that when the mother tongue homework is given, he has nothing to do, he does the same tasks, which have already been confirmed by the psychologist, even though he could already do the tasks 5 years ahead, but despite that, he does the same tasks. (H1)

The parents also described the challenges of the child’s behaviour, which followed situations where the too-easy tasks in the textbook did not support the learning of the gifted child. Assigning tasks that were too easy could lead to the child not doing the tasks in the given time during the lesson. Based on these observations, the teachers denied the child the opportunity to get assignments suitable for his learning speed. The child cannot do more difficult tasks because he does them so slowly... that no other tasks can be given. The fact that you can understand that you are doing it slowly because it is too easy. That you are not able to do away with it, suddenly, but because in a way the child dies of having to do the same things. And that enthusiasm disappears and really does not help the speed in doing it. (H6)

In a few situations, the teachers did not change the teaching to support the gifted child’s learning even based on the psychological test results. To the guardians, the situation appeared as if the child was expected to start with the same learning tasks as the other students in the grade level. The school asked for the assessments, now they have been done, and the child’s level and competence have been determined specifically, and despite that, nothing has happened he continues to do the same things everyone else does, everything starts from the same opening of the book and if you get them done fast and there is time, then you can do something else. (H2)

The guardians described also how the lack of support for the gifted child’s learning also manifested itself as the teacher’s inability to support the development of learning skills through homework. The guardians described how the assigned homework did not challenge the child to try to learn something new, but it was possible to do the homework in a short time without any kind of reflection.

316 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

He did maybe a quarter of a day’s worth of homework... he didn’t get any of the challenges he needed, or then he didn’t learn anything. (H4)

Levelling up. In early childhood education and basic education, the challenges of supporting the talent of gifted children appeared to be the teachers’ practices regarding what attention was paid to in everyday life. According to the guardians, the most important thing for the teachers was to develop the weaker skills of the gifted child to a basic level, rather than supporting the identified talent at the same time. The guardians described different situations where the teachers had told them how the child has not yet mastered certain things that were taught. This effort to develop weaker skills seemed to result in giftedness being seen as a threat and something that is a hindrance to the child’s other learning. When he started a new school, it was said that it’s not good for a child to progresses too quickly. Otherwise, his other skills won’t develop, his social skills won’t develop. That it would take away from something else. (H7)

Lack of social support. Inadequate support for gifted children at school was even manifested in teachers’ demands on children, to lower their own competence level in order to be closer to the level of their peer group. Instead of the teachers encouraging and paying attention to the talent, the existing skills appeared as a burden, which was expressed even to the child himself, like following parent H3 explained: For example, in physical education classes: “Don’t try so hard”. How can any teacher tell a student not to try? It just means that when a boy tries, it’s difficult for others. Because he is at such a different level than everyone else and so it was in physical education class and other classes. That it caused trouble for that group if the boy was allowed to be on his own level because we must explain to everyone else in the physical education class, when we run, don’t run so hard, even though the purpose of this is to compete, so don’t run so hard, because the others will lose. Maybe there is something wrong with the method, if not everyone can try, but some. I think it is very good that the school has the goal that every student is at a certain level in a certain class. And the purpose of pre-school education is that everyone will do well and advance to the first grade, and of course that’s the most important thing, but there has to be room for others as well, because otherwise they’ll feel really, really bad.

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

317

Conclusion and Discussion Collaboration between the education provider and home is an important part of any child’s educational path. The Finnish national curriculum for early childhood education and basic education requires teachers to cultivate high-ability children’s talents but this should be done in collaboration with parents. Early intervention and individually designed support structures within a multi-professional context are outlined in the legislation (Ministry of Education, 1998; Ministry of Education & Culture, 2018). Also, the national curriculum for basic education (2014) highlights the importance of individual support for all students with or without a diagnosis. Therefore, both high- and low-ability children are entitled to support according to their needs. However, students who are high achievers are statistically uncommon. For this reason, there is very little research literature available on how this group of children is supported during their educational path. In Finland there are policies for identifying both lowand high-performing students in ECEC and school contexts; however, their talents are cultivated mostly through special programmes (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). Based on the findings of this research, gifted children’s opportunities to develop and learn to learn are not adequately supported in the Finnish educational context, according to the parents. The parents do not describe support that would be designed in multi-professional networks and the collaboration with the home and schools or preschool seems to be limited to discussions with only a few professionals, mostly teachers. Further, the collaboration with the schools is most of the times expressed by the parents in terms of lack of understanding by the school. Most of the supporting elements that the children receive take place at the interpretational level where the gifted children are provided extra assignments, materials, and tools for self-initiated learning while teachers are focusing on instructing “the other” students. The lack of social and emotional support was controversially lacking in the structure, interpretation, and even from the implementation level even when research has shown high-ability children would need extra support in these development areas (Fornia & Frame, 2001). Children were even prompted to lower their performance levels which caused undesired behaviour also at home (see also Eren et  al., 2018). Based on the Lifelong learning trend by OECD (2018) also followed by the Finnish Curricula (FNAE, 2014, 2016, 2018), Lifelong learning and learning to learn competencies should develop in an

318 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

environment, where learning is contextualized and holistic. Social willingness to learn, respective atmosphere, and children’s agency should be the central elements of the education process. This, however, seemed not to be the case in this study. The forms of support seemed to be connected mostly to material choices, additional tasks, or structural forms of support, such as teaching that is tied to age groups or grade levels. When a child understands all of the content of elementary school or of early childhood education subjects and does all the tasks quickly and without effort, it is easy to assume that the learning goals have been met. According to this study, however, it seems that in this way, children do not learn to tolerate the unpleasant sensations that are part of the learning process and end up easily underachieving in the face of challenges. This result is consistent with previous research where the connection between underachieving children’s high abilities and lack of motivation has shown to be linked with unsupportive learning environment (Eren et al., 2018; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). The Convention on the Rights of the Child describes how every child has the right to learn. According to this study, it appears that this right is not always realized for gifted children. New perspectives are needed to support the learning of gifted children, as well as an understanding of why it is important to support the development of each child to their full potential. In the Finnish education system exist high-quality practices for children with SEN and the special education system covers the educational path from toddlers’ nursery classes to university (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022). However, the high-ability children are not necessarily recognized by the teacher, and there is a lack of understanding of their support methods and scaffolding processes. Further, these support measures should be designed and implemented in collaboration with the parents, which is not the case according to our study.

References Alasuutari, M. (2010). Striving at partnership: Parent–practitioner relationships in Finnish early educators’ talk. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 149–161. Alila, K., Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Kangas, J. (2022). Elements of the pedagogical process in Finnish early childhood education. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, J.  Kangas, & S.  Garvis (Eds.), Finnish early childhood education and care: A multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice (pp.  257–274). Springer International Publishing AG.

18  A PARENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT… 

319

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. (2018). https://www.oecd-ilibrary. org/education/education-at-a-glance-2018_eag-2018-en Eren, F., Çete, A. Ö., Avcil, S., & Baykara, B. (2018). Emotional and behavioural characteristics of gifted children and their families. Archives of Neuropsychiatry, 55(2), 105. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2012). Finnish advisory board on research ethics. www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2014). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Finnish National Agency for Education. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2016). National Core Curriculum for Pre. Finnish National Agency for Education. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). National Core Curriculum for Early childhood education and care 2018. Finnish National Agency for Education. Fornia, G. L., & Frame, M. W. (2001). The social and emotional needs of gifted children: Implications for family counselling. The Family Journal, 9(4), 384–390. Garn, C., Matthews, M., & Jolly, J. (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted students: A self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0016986210377657 Garvis, S., Phillipson, H.  H.-L., & Sadownik, A.  R. (Eds.). (2021). Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Routledge. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Hanssen, N. B., & Sundqvist, C. (2022). Special education in the early years: Summary and outlook. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, N.  Hanssen, & C.  Sundqvist (Eds.), Special education in the early years (pp. 277–285). Springer. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage. Johnson, D. T. (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, the Council for Exceptional Children. Jolly, J. L., & Matthews, M. S. (2012). A critique of the literature on parenting gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 259–290. Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2019). Playing to learn in Finland: Early childhood curricular and operational contexts. In S. Garvis & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Policification of early childhood education and care: Early childhood education in the 21st century, Vol. III (Evolving Families) (pp. 71–85). Routledge. Koshy, V., Ernest, P., & Casey, R. (2009). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: Theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 213–228. Kumpulainen, K. (2018). A principled, personalised, trusting and child-centric ECEC system in Finland. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage 1: Early childhood systems that lead by example—A comparative focus on international early childhood education (pp. 72–98). Teachers College Press.

320 

H. HARJU-LUUKKAINEN ET AL.

Laaksonen, S.-M., Matikainen, J., & Tikka, M. (2013). Tutkimusotteita verkosta [Research online]. In S.-M.  Laaksonen, J.  Matikainen, & M.  Tikka (Eds.), Otteita verkosta. Verkon ja sosiaalisen median tutkimusmenetelmät [Research online and research method in social media] (pp. 9–33). Vastapaino. Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall and SAGE Publications. Leikin, R. (2009). Bridging research and theory in mathematics education with research and theory in creativity and giftedness. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 383–409). Sense Publishers. Leikin, R. (2011). The education of mathematically gifted students: Some complexities and questions. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1–2), 167–188. Lerkkanen, M. K., Kikas, E., Pakarinen, E., Poikonen, P. L., & Nurmi, J. E. (2013). Mothers’ trust toward teachers in relation to teaching practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 153–165. Miller, R. C. (1990). Discovering mathematical talent. ERIC Digest# E482. Ministry of Education. (1998). Basic Education Act (No. 628). Finland. https:// www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1998/19980628 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2018). Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (No. 540). Finland. https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/ kaannokset/2018/20180540 Mueller, C.  M., & Dweck, C.  S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33. Plourde, L. A. (2008). Enrichment curriculum: Essential for mathematically gifted students. Education, 129(1), 40. Social and Health Ministry. (2007). Child Welfare Act (No. 417/2007; amendments up to 1292/2013 included). Finland. https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/ kaannokset/2007/en20070417 Stoeger, H., Steinbach, J., Obergriesser, S., & Matthes, B. (2014). What is more important for fourth-grade primary school students for transforming their potential into achievement: The individual or the environmental box in multidimensional conceptions of giftedness? High Ability Studies, 25(1), 5–21. Taguma, M., Litjens, I., & Makowiecki, K. (2012). Quality matters in early childhood education and care: Finland. OECD Publishing. Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84–96. Välijärvi, J., & Sulkunen, S. (2016). Finnish school in international comparison. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 1–21). Springer. Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business and Economic Research, 5(3), 65–71.

CHAPTER 19

The Development of Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration in Early Childhood Education and Care— Lessons Learned Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen

Introduction We are approaching the end of the book. Throughout the 18 chapters, we have been learning about IPC and FPC in ECEC. As clearly stated at the very beginning of this book, education for all (ECEC is in focus here) is key to the world’s economic development, social development, improved integration in many societies and peace around the world (Ainscow, 2021a). The phrase “education for all” is understood in many ways, but for us, there is no doubt that we mean all children, for example, every child matters and matters equally. As the introduction highlights,

N. B. Hanssen (*) Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9_19

321

322 

N. B. HANSSEN

education for all is also about making sure that no one is left behind (Ainscow, 2021a, 2021b). Furthermore, education for all is the way we try to engage with diversity and value equity in education (Hanssen & Khitruk, 2021). However, the different chapters of the book have elucidated a variety of illustrations between the countries regarding who education for all should be for. For example, several chapters about Ukraine (Sofii et al., Chap. 5; Мartynchuk, et al., Chap. 12), Lithuania (Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8; Kairienė & Ališauskienė, Chap. 15), Norway (Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10) and Finland ( Staffans & Sundqvist, Chap. 6) focus specifically on children with special educational needs (SEN), the chapter on the UK (Harju-Luukainen, Chap. 4) enlightens on children with delayed language skills and the chapter about Spain (González et al., Chap. 9) centres on children with autism spectrum disorder. In this book, education for all is also embraced, as the case of Iceland (Ragnarsdóttir, Chap. 14) shows—children with an immigrant background, and one case from Finland (Harju-Luukkainen et al., Chap. 18) focuses on high-ability children. In addition, other chapters on the UK (Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, Chap. 11) and Finland (Yngvesson et al., Chap. 13) encompass all children in ECEC. Across the chapters, it is clear that education for all is not universally understood in all countries or even in all educational spaces. There remains some confusion, disagreement and debate about who education for all actually involves and how it should be converted to educational practice (Hanssen & Khitruk, 2021). As mentioned in the introduction, inequity in education has increased among the disadvantaged, especially those with special educational needs (SEN), shouldering the heaviest burden (Ainscow, 2021a, 2021b). Taking these concerns into account, it is reasonable to assume that researchers set out to focus on education for all, which is interpreted through the narrow lens of traditional special needs education (SNE). However, the analyses presented in previous chapters clearly state that the most important factor helping us to build an inclusive culture where all children learn to live together, to value differences and to learn from each other is the collective will in terms of collaboration between different actors and organisations (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Garvis et al., 2021; Sundqvist, 2021). All chapters underline that IPC and FPC are two important factors in ECEC to support the education of all children, including those with SEN and their learning and development.

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

323

As the chapters of this book demonstrate, IPC and FPC in ECEC can be interpreted as a socially established cooperative activity involving various utterances and forms of understanding, as ways of conducting IPC and FPC and as ways of developing relationships between collaborating individuals. Here, it is useful to state that neither IPC nor FPC occurs in a vacuum. Across the 18 chapters presenting various countries, it can be indicated that all chapters have the same conclusion in common: both IPC and FPC are constrained and enabled by prefigured international as well as national and local traditions, culture, economics and social-political conditions (Hanssen, 2018; Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008, p. 57). The complexity of IPC and FPC poses challenges for the theoretical approaches that attempt to grasp IPC and FPC in ECEC across the book’s chapters. For example, the established child-oriented and family-oriented models as a way of approaching FPC, as well as the model of Epstein (2001), are used in the book (see Hanssen et al., Chap. 3; Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8; Harju-Luukkainen et  al., Chap. 18). Attempting to embrace IPC, several chapters consider theoretical approaches, which include multiple factors or dimensions and involve the ideologies of positioning various professionals as equals in collaboration, aiming at providing support to early-age children and their families (see Hanssen et  al., Chap. 3; Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8). All these models and theoretical approaches provide meaningful descriptions of IPC and FPC in each country and can be used as lenses or analytical tools for interpreting and discovering the best way to approach high-quality IPC and FPC in ECEC. However, the conclusions and future recommendations made by authors go beyond the aforementioned models and theories and, as mentioned before, point both directly and indirectly to the complexities of IPC and FPC, providing the link between the individual meaning, making, actions, relationships and each country’s culturally, economically and social-politically anchored context of being enmeshed with one another, thereby constituting the dimensions that make IPC and FPC possible and from which IPC and FPC emerge (Hanssen, 2019; Sadownik et al., 2021). Therefore, this chapter departs from the authors’ conclusions that embrace the different ways of understanding and theorising IPC and FPC and suggests describing IPC and FPC as areas of ECEC practices using the theory of practice architectures (Hanssen, 2019; Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008; Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017). For me, the theory of practice architectures provides a possibility for fruitful use as an analytical lens through which to portray a complete picture of IPC and FPC. Once

324 

N. B. HANSSEN

Fig. 19.1  The entire picture of practice architectures. (Source: Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 33)

I chose to focus on the IPC and FPC through the lens of practice architectures, the entire picture of IPC and FPC appeared in a seemingly schematic and strictly framed figure (see Fig. 19.1), and complex results were more easily perceived than a static monolith. Thus, I want to emphasise that my way of using practice architectures is merely a specific way of interpreting and viewing IPC and FPC in the present book and that it is not a means to simplify them (cf. Hanssen, 2018, p. 101; Kemmis et al., 2014).

The Theory of Practice Architectures The aim of this section is to provide the background for further elaboration of the theory of practice architectures and to sketch a brief introduction to the key concepts and features of the theory of practice architectures. The theory of practice architectures is influenced by the practice theory of Teodor Schatzki (2001, 2002) and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) points about learning architecture. A brief background on the theories of Schatzki and Lave and Wenger shows that Schatzki (2002) considered practice as

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

325

“doings and sayings”, and what is done and said as overreaching in practice. However, he meant that practices are not as influenced by external factors, such as material-economic arrangements (Hanssen, 2018, p. 50). In turn, Lave and Wenger (1991) developed the concept of the communities of practice (CoP), defined as “a set of relations among persons, activities and the world over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.  98). Wenger and Nake (2004, p. 15) later pointed out that the practice of common historical and social resources, frameworks and perspectives can support mutual engagement in action. According to Wenger and Nake (2004, p.  61), practice is briefly understood as action in a historical and social context and includes both explicit and tacit meanings, learning, structures, boundaries and locality. Moreover, as I interpret it, the term points towards community and the community’s activities. Through this theory, they also showed what it means “to know” in practice and talked about learning architectures (Wenger & Nake, 2004, p. 64; Hanssen, 2018, p. 50). Kemmis and Grootenboer (2008) took the theory about learning architecture based on Schatzki’s (2001, 2002) theory and developed it further by adding “relatings”, such as characteristic aspects of practice. According to the theory of practice architectures, practice is understood as a “socially established cooperative human activity involving utterance and forms of understanding (sayings), modes of actions (doings) and ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings), that hang together in characteristic ways in a distinctive project” (Mahon et  al., 2017, p.  24). Mahon et  al. (2017) also stated that sayings, doings and relatings “hang[ing] together” is significant, since practices cannot be reduced to any one of these aspects on their own and always consist of happening together (Mahon et al., 2017, p. 24; Hanssen, 2018, p. 52). From this standpoint, IPC and FPC, as areas of ECEC practices, are formed of these aspects in the sense that they can be conceptualised and articulated in a certain way, composed of distinct activities and distributed through various relationships between the people involved. To illustrate this simply, IPC and FPC in the context of ECEC are interpreted as the various ways individuals conduct collaboration (doings), the various expressions, words and language individuals use to describe what is going on in collaborations (sayings) and the relationships (relatings) that are also assigned to ensure connectedness and support among the involved individuals (cf. Hanssen, 2019; Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008, p. 57; Mahon et al., 2017, p. 34).

326 

N. B. HANSSEN

Following Kemmis et al. (2014), it is worth noting that practices are always shaped by prefigured arrangements that make practices possible together (Hanssen, 2018). The theory of practice architectures identifies cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements, and these arrangements are referred to as architectures of practice. Every particular practice has its own specific architecture (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008, p. 57), and these arrangements constrain and enable practices and their sayings, doings and relatings (Hanssen, 2018; Mahon et al., 2017). In the context of IPC and FPC as aspects of ECEC practice, these three arrangements enable or constrain what is relevant for individuals to say and think in describing, interpreting, performing and justifying IPC and FPC; what, when, how and by whom IPC and FPC can be performed at a certain time and in a certain environment; and how individuals connect to each other, along with the rules and roles in an organisation and relations to national policies concerning IPC and FPC (Hanssen, 2019; Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017). Furthermore, Kemmis et  al. (2014) stated that practices (sayings, doings and relatings) and the aforementioned three arrangements are always enmeshed with one another in “three dimensions of intersubjectivity” (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 23) or “spaces” (Mahon et al., 2017, p. 11). In the context of the theory, cultural-discursive arrangements and sayings of IPC and FPC are realised in the semantic space, and here, focus is placed on the different concepts, utterances and expressions used by individuals and other stakeholders to describe, perceive and interpret what goes on in IPC and FPC. Sayings and “thinkings” are also utilised to interpret how individuals perceive IPC and FPC, what goes on when individuals realise IPC and FPC and ways of interpreting and experiencing relationships between people involved in IPC and FPC. Material-economic arrangements and doings form the physical space-­ time of IPC and FPC. This space comprises a physical environment and different patterns of carrying out IPC and FPC within a certain space of time (Hanssen, 2018; Kemmis et al., 2014). Relatings and social-political arrangements form the social space. This space includes the relationships between individuals involved in IPC and FPC, stirring them into practice. Associated with participation and positioning (Hanssen, 2018; Mahon et al., 2017). Figure 19.1 below illustrates the complex, mutual relationships between practices and architectures, as well as the spaces in which

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

327

sayings, doings and relatings exist bundled together in the three aforementioned arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 34).

Methods For analytical purposes, in line with the aim of the current chapter, the empirical basis is textual data. Gray and Densten (1998) stated that content analysis is an appropriate way to examine patterns and structures from textual data. Moreover, content analysis determines the occurrence of words and words of similar meaning that are then broken down into manageable categories of concepts (Sadownik et  al., 2021, p.  308). In the context of this chapter, I wanted to reconstruct the existing textual data in a new context to portray a complete picture of IPC and FPC. Therefore, qualitative content analysis (QCA) with a deductive approach was used. Kemmis et al.’s (2014) theory of practice architectures was used as a structured categorisation matrix for the interpretation of IPC and FPC presented in this book (Elo & Kyngös, 2008). The main concepts of semantic space, physical space-time and social space were used as the frames of categorisation. The next step was to review all the textual data for content and code for correspondence with the identified categories (Elo & Kyngös, 2008; Elo et al., 2014). First, all 18 book chapters were analysed individually. The process proceeded as follows: each chapter was thoroughly read, word by word and sentence by sentence, and a list of preliminary codes according to the chosen categories was created for each chapter. The next step was to search more systematically for consistent categories. The preliminary themes were compared for similarities and differences, and if they shared a similar meaning, they were grouped into the same category. By following the same process again, the focus categories of semantic space, physical space-time and social space that constituted IPC and FPC were identified in each chapter. By following the same process again on the second macro level, I abstracted focus categories across all the chapters into main categories of descriptions organised as semantic space, physical space-time and social space of IPC and FPC. However, there are limitations to what an analysis can offer. In this chapter, qualitative data analysis was able to generate issues connected to subjectivity and coder reliability. Moreover, the constituencies of IPC and FPC as ECEC practices from the semantic space, physical space-time and social space became foregrounded, and the entire use of practice

328 

N. B. HANSSEN

architectures was omitted and moved to the background. As such, a onesided perspective may have hindered an expanded understanding of IPC and FPC and impeded different ways of interpreting IPC and FPC as ECEC practices. However, during the analysis, I aimed to achieve reliability by checking consistency within the findings in their entirety, not only identified on an individual chapter level but also applied within each chapter and across the 18 chapters. As far as possible, I tried to make my research reliable and valid by maximising authenticity, understanding, transparency and honesty in all areas of this chapter (Hanssen, 2018). As such, it is reasonable to assume that the main categories strive to capture IPC and FPC features in an adequate manner (Hanssen, 2019). The next section will detail the categories and illustrate them with examples from the chapters analysed. Understanding IPC Through the Three Spaces The semantic space consists of different concepts, utterances, expressions, meanings, understandings and interpretations obtained through thinkings and sayings (Kemmis et al., 2014). From the perspective of IPC, the different concepts and expressions used to describe and generate the meaning and comprehensibility of IPC are most significant in this space. Sayings shape and are shaped by cultural-discursive arrangements in terms of, for example, the discourses used, which make possible or constrain what is relevant to say and think about in IPC and FPC (Hanssen, 2018; Kemmis et al., 2014). For example, across the chapters, different terms, such as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, as well as teamwork, professional collaboration, cooperation and partnership, are being interchangeably applied to IPC in ECEC. The Norwegian authors (Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10) also pointed to the mayhem of definitions and stated that there are a variety of concepts describing IPC used internationally and also in Norway. For example, the terms interaction, collaboration and coordination are often used interchangeably. However, as the authors stated, these concepts have various definitions and are applied for different purposes in ECEC (Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10). A clearer definition, however, is provided in the Finnish context (Staffans & Sundqvist, Chap. 6), where IPC is narrowly concentrated on children with SEN and is defined as a consultation process between early childhood special education teachers (ECSETs) and other professionals in ECEC

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

329

(teachers, child careers and teaching assistants) that aims to help professionals develop attitudes and skills to deliver adequate support to a child or a group of children. The analysis disclosed that in Iceland, IPC is understood more broadly as a professional learning community where staff share experiences and learn together in a purposeful way with the aim of empowering children (Óskarsdóttir et al., Chap. 7 ). In the Lithuanian (Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8) and Spanish (González at. al., Chap. 9) contexts, IPC was described as active relations and communications among various (educational support, health care and social support sectors) professionals working together and aiming at joint problem-solving and provision of service. Conversely, in the Ukrainian context (Sofii et al., Chap. 5), I could not find any definition of the term IPC. Nevertheless, it seems that the term IPC is only indirectly mentioned at the policy level but has neither been discussed nor defined in the research literature. Taking a broader view, the variety in the understanding in terms of the conceptualisation of IPC can also be seen in the sociocultural contexts that prefigure, form, inform and make IPC possible (Kemmis et  al., 2014). However, some chapters in the book (Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8; González et al., Chap. 9; Sofii et al., Chap. 5) point out that traditions, historical and societal views and attitudes regarding IPC are controversial, especially in the case of children with SEN. On the one hand, several countries have a culture and history of uniting features emphasising education for all, including a focus on creating conditions that allow the different professionals to have space for that much-needed collaboration where the interaction of the processes of change are negotiated, planned and sustained. On the other hand, the movement towards fruitful IPC has been constrained by the complex administrative processes and the non-­ inclusive attitudes of the professionals in the different public services (González et al., Chap. 9; Sofii et al., Chap. 5). The physical space-time of IPC is formed by certain physical environments and different patterns of performing activities or doings within a certain space and time. Doings are shaped by (and shape) material-­ economic arrangements—for example, financial resources and various aspects of physical environments that constrain and enable what practitioners do in their IPC (Kemmis et al., 2014). All the chapters have a variety of discussions around doings in IPC. However, the question of time is the most remarkable aspect strongly emphasised in the physical space-time of IPC across the chapters. For example, several chapters generally highlight that establishing routines

330 

N. B. HANSSEN

and systematic collaboration are time-consuming tasks. Lithuanian authors (Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8) show that the lack of initiatives to share opinions and experiences and participate in team discussions can be enabled with a more rational allocation of working time. Moreover, professionals who work in teams are not always familiar with the purposes of team meetings, as they do not always have time to rethink team meeting goals and discuss IPC content. The Finnish chapter (Staffans & Sundqvist, Chap. 6) indicates the same challenge: lack of time to implement consultation, especially the format of group consultations, appears to be a big challenge. Even though ECSETs can manage their time to a certain degree, ECEC staff seldom have time for consultation. As a result of these time constraints, ECSETs often deliver quick-fix advice when they visit a children’s group or after they deliver support to a child outside a group. The Norwegian chapter (Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10) clearly points out that in Norway, doings in IPC seem to be vague, inadequate and disorganised, and a consequence may be that children and families have the experience of being “pinballs” in the Norwegian ECEC system. Several chapters argue that limited resources (in terms of, e.g., education) can restrain what professionals can say or do and how they unfold various relationships. For example, the authors from Spain (González et al., Chap. 9) mentioned some of these barriers, such as the scarce training of various professionals in collaboration strategies and efficient mechanisms, the weakness in the design of collaboration plans or the use of methodologies that are not very inclusive. In addition, the Ukrainian researchers shed light on the barriers to the education of ECEC professionals. The authors claimed that IPC in the majority of educational courses does not include training in collaboration with other professionals (Sofii et al., Chap. 5). However, the positive experiences concerning the doings of IPC are forwarded by a chapter from the UK (Harju-Luukkainen, Chap. 4). The author described an intervention programme from inner London schools, which is unique among early years’ language programmes in the UK. A team of experienced Speech and Language Therapists carefully crafted the package to respond to the specific needs of families and settings in London, UK, where the number of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds is considerably higher than the national average. The author described a programme that was tailored, flexible and sustainable. Among highly specialist SLT’s doings are providing training and support to the

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

331

wider delivery team and providing additional support in settings through joint planning meetings, coaching and joint visits. The author claimed that strong IPC gives more scope for the approach to successfully support children’s language and communication within early years’ education settings in the most disadvantaged communities. Another good example sheds light on the Icelandic context (Óskarsdóttir et al., Chap. 7), describing a multicultural team that, through building connections, trust and a shared commitment, can collaborate purposefully, responsibly and transparently to support students with an immigrant background in ECEC. The social space of IPC is relationally constituted and embraces characteristic relatings in terms of relationships between people (Kemmis et al., 2014). Relatings are shaped by (and shape) social-political arrangements, for example, legislative frames, curricula and principles to provide IPC, which facilitate and restrain the way professionals relate to each other. The analysis identified that professionals are woven into various relationships and that these relations touch a spectrum of different feelings. For example, the chapter on the Finnish context (Staffans & Sundqvist, Chap. 6) points out the tensions between ECSETs and ECEC staff regarding who should deliver concrete support for children with SEN. One group calmly accepted the situation and did their best to meet the needs of the staff and the children, while the other group expressed frustration regarding the conditions. The chapter on the Spanish context (González et al., Chap. 9) points out that the establishment of strong relationships with IPC are left to luck of encountering professionals. As such, weak and scarce collaborative relationships between professionals are mentioned as the main issue in Spanish ECEC. Again, examples from Iceland and the UK point out that showing symmetry, sharing of common status between team members and supporting them can overcome the challenges of a lack of time and high staff turnover (Óskarsdóttir et  al., Chap. 7; Harju-­ Luukkainen, Chap. 4). Another way of understanding the social space of IPC is through a study of related political directives. As the analysis shows, most of the countries presented in this book acknowledge that their governance recognises the value of IPC. However, several chapters (e.g., González et al., Chap. 9; Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10) highlight that IPC in ECEC is controversial. On the one hand, both the legal and legislative documents claim that IPC determines whether children with SEN can achieve strong academic and social outcomes. On the other hand, the guidelines for IPC in ECEC in the legal and legislative documents are weak, as they are

332 

N. B. HANSSEN

combined with unclear and overlapping divisions of responsibilities and tasks (Óskarsdóttir et al., Chap. 7; González et al., Chap. 9; Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10; Sofii et al., Chap. 5) The same situation was revealed by most of the authors. For example, in Lithuania, Spain and Norway, IPC is mentioned in the policy documents, but there are no guidelines provided for it to succeed in ECEC practice with regard to building strong relations characterised by harmonious and emotionally positive interrelations without manifestation of envy, competition and accusing behaviour (Ališauskienė et al., Chap. 1; Ališauskienė & Kairienė, Chap. 8; Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, Chap. 10). Due to conditional barriers existing in the legal system, such as a lack of visibility in political educational documents and a lack of definition of the consultative task in work descriptions, Finish authors state that ECSETs’ jurisdiction to carry out this consultative task is weak (Staffans & Sundqvist, Chap. 6). Understanding FPC Through the Three Spaces In this section, I discuss the space of FPC in ECEC across the chapters. When it comes to the semantic space of FPC, the analysis shows that, in likeness to IPC, FPC is described and defined in a variety of ways. In terms of family-professional relationships, parental involvement and cooperation of families and preschools are interchangeably used. However, most of the chapters agree that FPC refers to equal, active, meaningful and caring partnerships supporting children’s development and inclusion throughout the ECEC years. Despite this consensus, most of the chapters shed light on the challenges regarding the agreement on the interpretation of collaboration and the role of families’ participation. For example, the authors from Spain (Simón et al., Chap. 16) pointed out that individuals involved in collaboration do not always share the same view on collaboration, and therefore, practices vary from a low level of pseudo participation with limited information, counselling and exchange of propositions, although without influencing the decision-making, to real participation with active and equal decision-making. The same impression on FPC seems to exist in the UK context (Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, Chap. 11), where FPC is characterised as “a one-way” and educative, going from the ECEC professionals towards the parents. The authors from Norway shed light on FPC as a formal aspect of collaboration; that is, every ECEC institution reports to its own council or

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

333

committee that has real influence and power over the decisions made in the ECEC institution (Samuelsson & Ingebrigtsen, Chap. 17). The same type of FPC exists in Finland, Sweden and Iceland (Harju-Luukkainen et al., Chap. 18; Ragnarsdóttir, Chap. 14). In contrast, in the Ukrainian context, there is a lack of tradition in partnerships between institutions and families, especially with families with SEN children (Мartynchuk, et al., Chap. 12). Besides the formal aspect of FPC, all chapters highlight that ECEC institutions, parents and professionals usually meet each other face to face every day during drop-off and pick-up. These face-to-face meetings are described by, for example, the Norwegian authors as a natural and fruitful arena for informal collaboration (Samuelsson & Ingebrigtsen, Chap. 17). The variety in understanding in terms of the conceptualisation of FPC and how it is viewed in each country also depends on the sociocultural contexts that either restrict or support FPC (Kemmis et  al., 2014). Although all the chapters in this book agree that parents and ECEC teachers are equipped differently for collaboration across the globe, cultural attributes also play a key role. It is underlined that, in many cases, professionals report their lack of readiness towards collaboration with parents with racial, linguistic and cultural backgrounds that differ from their own. For example, authors from the UK stated that the concern with parental engagement or lack thereof was connected to, among other things, reaching families and children who are “hard to reach” and at risk of social exclusion (Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, Chap. 11). The Icelandic and Norwegian authors added the example of families with an immigrant background (Ragnarsdóttir, Chap. 14; Samuelsson & Ingebrigtsen, Chap. 17), and the Ukrainian authors supplemented the example of parents of children with SEN (Мartynchuk et al., Chap. 12). However, parents with higher education possibly have more resources and a higher level of readiness to collaborate with professionals (Hanssen et  al., Chap. 3; Harju-­ Luukkainen et al., Chap. 18; Samuelsson & Ingebrigtsen, Chap. 17). The analysis of the physical space-time of FPC showed various ways of doings in FPC in all the chapters. As the semantic space of FPC in many countries leaves less room for mutual communication, discussions and joint questions, several chapters report that much of the implementations of FPC were described as traditional teacher-dominated practices without opening spaces for dialogic and fluid engagement with families (Kairienė & Ališauskienė, Chap. 15; Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, Chap. 11; Мartynchuk, et al., Chap. 12). However, the authors from the UK context

334 

N. B. HANSSEN

pointed out that ECEC organises monthly parental meetings and parental council meetings three times per year, which is considered a great deal. Therefore, there are possibilities for personnel and families to meet; however, it is unclear whether this leads to discussions about goals or provides opportunities to strengthen mutual understanding (Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, Chap. 11). Authors from Finland (Harju-Luukkainen et al., Chap. 18) highlighted the forms of doings used in FPC regarding high-ability children. Those forms are primarily material and limited to giving the children an opportunity to study independently using extra materials, such as books, assignments and sometimes digital tools. For example, in Iceland (Ragnarsdóttir, Chap. 14), FPC regarding immigrant children is centred on the initiation of contact and communication with the parents by the availability of daily schedules in a visual way for the children, printing out words in the mother languages of the children and putting these on various objects and places in the preschools to support the heritage language awareness of all the children. Still, Icelandic ECEC does not appear to consistently build on the linguistic resources of families and children and is not aware of the language policies and practices of families. Another example sheds light on the implementation of various programmes to enhance and develop FPC in the Ukrainian context (Мartynchuk, et al., Chap. 12), where guides regarding parental collaboration exist, but they have some challenges. For instance, a rather high number of different interactions, which are important for developing a positive atmosphere, are presented across the documents, but these activities are not sufficient for educational processes. Furthermore, communications platforms, like blogs, Viber groups and chats, are presented as examples, but neither the content nor the parental collaboration is defined in these activities. Several programmes are also listed by the UK authors (Harju-­ Luukkainen & Kangas, Chap. 11) as being good and helping to enhance FPC. Three programmes from Scotland, Every Child Matters, Sure Start and Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), are good examples of endorsing new thinking and best practices for professionals working with families to promote a positive shift in the working culture. However, on a practice level, there is a gap between rhetoric and reality, creating barriers to the implementation of FPC. The analysis identified that the social space of FPC includes close interpersonal relationships that are based on respectful and positive attitudes. Most of the chapters agree that to address the needs of children and families in an appropriate way, equal power relations among professionals and

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

335

parents need to be created. The chapter on Iceland (Ragnarsdóttir, Chap. 14) suggests that emphasising the importance of good communication is a success factor in collaboration. Norwegian authors (Samuelsson & Ingebrigtsen, Chap. 17) also pointed out that the value of daily informal conversations that occur between parents and professionals during drop-­ off and pick-up is founded on a factor-trusting relationship. However, all the chapters note that the most challenging aspect in FPC is to develop a positive climate, sensitivity and respect for parents involved in collaboration and making all parents feel included in the collaboration. As mentioned before, most of the chapters indicate that a more distant pattern dominates in collaboration, while nurturing support in a more emotional closeness seems fragile. The authors from Spain (Simón et al., Chap. 16) claimed that, even though professionals expressed positive emotions regarding collaboration with parents, these positive attitudes were somewhat superficial. Another aspect mentioned in several chapters is an asymmetrical distribution of power (Hanssen et al., Chap. 3). The chapters on the UK, Ukraine, Spain and Lithuania mentioned parents being passive receivers of information and not able to choose and make decisions. As Hanssen et al. (Chap. 3) reveals, such relationships between parents and professionals may represent solid and traditional authority and subordination based on formality and hierarchy. The consequences of such relationships are that teachers first perceive parents as a subject of the child’s educational activity (receivers of knowledge) and only thereafter as personalities. As mentioned before, relatings are shaped by (and shape) social-­political arrangements, for example, legislative frames, curricula and principles for providing FPC, which enable and constrain the way professionals relate to each other. All chapters indicate that FPC has a special role in curriculums, legislations, framework plans for providing ECEC and even in early childhood teacher education programmes for preschool teachers. While in Finland parental collaboration is defined in detail, starting from the mission of the national core curriculum (Yngvesson et al., Chap. 13), the other chapters state that despite FPC having been widely accepted, it is not always clearly identified and articulated at the policy and ECEC programme level in their countries. For example, Yngvesson et al. (Chap. 13), which describes Finland and Sweden, point out that, because of this, differences also emerge in how it is implemented at the course level in the universities. As such, it is advocated that countries wanting to support successful FPC

336 

N. B. HANSSEN

should also look at how it is taught and implemented within early childhood teacher education programmes and professional learning. It is apparent that the Ukrainian government (Мartynchuk et  al., Chap. 12) recognises FPC as important, but at the moment, FPC is rather theoretical and more specific content is needed in order to realise the collaboration in practice.

Conclusions The aim of this concluding chapter was to describe IPC and FPC as areas of ECEC practices using the theory of practice architecture. The findings show that the concepts, utterances and expressions shared through the language used can have a major influence on the definitions and understandings of IPC and FPC (Kemmis et al., 2014). The semantic space of IPC and FPC can be interpreted as a contradictory space in ECEC practices. The reason for this statement is that the conceptualisation, understanding and definition of both IPC and FPC are still diffused and bear wide contrasting overtones of meaning, sometimes in conflicting ways. The weak and diffused conceptualisation of IPC and FPC can be tied to the discussion of the valid core of knowledge in the area of IPC and FPC in ECEC (Phillipson & Garvis, 2020; Åmot & Skoglund, 2019; Uusimäki et al., 2019). As such, the importance is stressed of the potential to create a basis for the conceptualisation and development of ideas and thinkings concerning the definitions and recognition of IPC and FPC, foremost at the policy level, as well as to push for the development of sustainable, relatively independent and finely differentiated knowledge core domains of IPC and FPC at research and practice levels. Such a move will potentially empower various professionals to deal with complexities and dilemmas in collaboration with each other and the parents (Sadownik et al., 2021). As with the conceptualisation of IPC and FPC, the process of creating IPC and FPC requires competence and the facility to gain, select, reorganise and transform knowledge into practices, as well as to make knowledge accessible to professionals through ECEC practices (Hanssen, 2018). Across the chapters, the physical space-time of IPC and FPC seems to be multifaceted and somehow dissonant space. The things that happen in space and time are still controversial; therefore, they mirror the spectrum of diverse thoughts regarding the doings of collaboration and disputes between freedom and normativity. Hence, the idea of cooperation and

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

337

equal and active participation in IPC and FPC requires a common methodology as well as shared theoretical approaches that can explain the nature of collaborations and that can be transferred to different contexts (Alila et al., 2022). In this regard, it would probably be wise to free up time to meet various professionals to discuss and reflect on issues and concerns related to IPC and FPC. There are also notable conflicting tendencies in the symmetries and disparities that are produced and reproduced through the relationships available to individuals involved in the social space of IPC and FPC. As mentioned, both the conceptualisation and the ways of doings of IPC and FPC are contradictory and are not easily identified. This inconsistency draws a complicated picture of the balance between professional autonomy and dependence and, therefore, between cooperation and obstruction when unfolding relationships with professionals and parents involved in ECEC practice (cf. Hanssen, 2018; Mahon et al., 2017; McLaney et al., 2022). This is why professional competence is important because it allows practitioners to position themselves as knowledgeable agents in practice and to legitimise themselves as competent. This can probably make the professionals feel enabled to achieve the tasks expected of them, which also probably contributes to the professionals maintaining a high level of self-esteem and sense of mastery and building harmonious and emotionally positive interrelations without the manifestation of envy, competition and accusing behaviour (Barrett & Keeping, 2005; Hanssen, 2018; Reeves et al., 2010). The key message from the current chapter is that IPC and FPC provide a picture of complexity in all countries presented in this book. Still discussed analytically, IPC and FPC fit into a multifaceted profile, representing architectures of ECEC practices with vague contours and diffused and unclear conceptualisations and definitions of IPC and FPC. There is a heterogeneous sense of coherence in the implementation of IPC and FPC and diverse, sometimes unclear and conflicting relationships between the individuals involved, making it difficult to identify IPC and FPC as clear aspects of ECEC practices. Furthermore, all three spaces create a picture that positions IPC and FPC as vulnerable and labile, and there seems to be a fragile balance between uncertainty, uneasiness, unpredictability and inadequacy and joy, enthusiasm and motivation in each space of IPC and FPC at both practical and policy levels in ECEC. At this point, however, I offer caution in interpreting these spaces as a framework for a narrowed structuring of IPC and FPC. There is a risk of

338 

N. B. HANSSEN

picturing IPC and FPC in such a way, as they might appear reductive, simplified, fixed, static and not able to be transformed, revised or modified (Hanssen, 2018, p. 130). As such, a clear distinction between overlapping and interwoven semantic, physical space-time and social spaces might appear not fully recognised and may distort real ECEC practices. Hence, IPC and FPC are viewed as mobile, dynamic, transforming and changeable living entities. Furthermore, the configuration and content of IPC and FPC constitute a more complex and multidirectional picture than the present chapter depicts. It is important to acknowledge that IPC and FPC in ECEC are complex, multifaceted and permeated by various traditions and tendencies of the modern changeable society. As such, different contexts offer different frames and suggest different interpretations of IPC and FPC aims, structures and tasks (cf. Hanssen, 2018, 2019; Kemmis et al., 2014). On the one hand, this may result in an unsystematic variety of IPC and FPC in ECEC practices that is seen as threatening rather than as supporting, especially for children with SEN. On the other hand, distinct frames of IPC and FPC in ECEC practices may reflect uniformity and reduce professionals’ autonomy, thus generating conformism and mechanical and reproductive collaboration without adequate room for self-­ criticism and new ideas (Hanssen, 2018). A summarising conclusion that can be drawn from this chapter relates to the necessity for further development of IPC and FPC. Through the presented findings, it is apparent that a balance has to be found between collaborative individuals and that their perspectives are considered sincerely, thoroughly and respectfully in accordance with the political and social mandate of ECEC. As such, it is obvious that the time, space and possibilities are needed for the discussion, reflection and articulation of how IPC and FPC should be conceptualised, and which kind of frameworks, both on the practice and policy levels, are necessary for the development of IPC and FPC, which can take care of the diversity and the pluralism represented in ECEC. Furthermore, educating students to be proficient in IPC and FPC in early childhood teacher education and, at the same time, developing students’ competence and knowledge within the key presumptions of IPC and FPC can assure future practitioners’ ability to meet the various challenges in collaboration and strengthen the requirements of society.

19  THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPROFESSIONAL AND FAMILY… 

339

References Ainscow, M. (2021a). Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives, discussant at NERA symposium, Odense, Denmark. Ainscow, M. (2021b). Foreword. In N. B. Hanssen, S. E. Hansén, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. xiii–xxii). Routledge. Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. Alila, K., Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Kangas, J. (2022). Elements of the pedagogical process in Finnish early childhood education. In H.  Harju-Luukkainen, J. Kangas, & G. Susanne (Eds.), Finnish early childhood education and care. A Multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice (pp.  257–274). Springer Nature. Åmot, I., & Skoglund, R. I. (2019). The complexity of recognition in kindergarten and school. Universitetsforlaget. Barrett, G., & Keeping, C. (2005). The processes required for effective interprofessional working. In G. Barret, D. Sellman, & I. Thomas (Eds.), Interprofessional working in health and social care: professional perspectives (pp. 19–31). Palgrave Macmillan. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis a focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2158244014522633 Elo, S., & Kyngös, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-­2648.2007.04569.x Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sadownik, A.  R., & Phillipson, S. (2021). Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world. Routledge. Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (1998). Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables. Quality & Quantity, 32, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004357719066 Hanssen, N.  B. (2018). Special educational needs in Norwegian and Belarusian preschools. PhD dissertation, Nord University. Hanssen, N.  B. (2019). Using the theory of practice architectures to articulate special educational needs practices in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 188–202. https://doi. org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1643149 Hanssen, N.  B., & Khitruk, V. (2021). Understanding inclusion and inclusive education for students with SEN—Ideals and Reality. In N.  Bahdanovich Hanssen, S.-E. Hansèn, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and

340 

N. B. HANSSEN

Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge. Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating practice in praxis. In S. Kemmis & T.  J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling Praxis. Challenges for education (Pedagogy, Education and Praxis Series, Vol. 1) (pp. 37–62). Sense Publishers. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, E., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Springer. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring education and professional practice. Springer. McLaney, E., Morassaei, S., Hughes, L., Davies, R., Campbell, M., & Di Prospero, L. (2022). A framework for interprofessional team collaboration in a hospital setting: Advancing team competencies and behaviours. Healthcare Management Forum, 35(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704211063584 Phillipson, S., & Garvis, S. (2020). Policy and childhood: Making sense of systems. In S. Garvis & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Policification of early childhood education and care: Early childhood education in 21st century (pp.  274–285). Routledge. Reeves, S., Lewin, S., Espin, S., Zwarensten, M., & Barr, H. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care: Promoting partnership for health. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Sadownik, A.  R., Phillipson, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Garvis, S. (2021). International trends in parental involvement of sayings, doings, and relatings. In S.  Garvis, S.  Phillipson, H.  Harju-Luukkainen, & A.  Sadownik (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world (pp. 306–316). Routledge. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction. Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-­ Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of life and change. Pennsylvania State University Press. Sundqvist, C. (2021). Moving towards inclusive schools: Teacher collaboration as a key aspect of the development of inclusive practices. In N.  B. Hanssen, S.  E. Hansén, & K.  Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 202–217). Routledge. Uusimäki, L., Yngvesson, T., Garvis, S., & Harju-Luukainen, H. (2019). Parental involvement in ECEC in Finland and in Sweden. In S.  Garvis (Ed.), Nordic families, children and early childhood education (pp. 81–99). Springer Nature. Wenger, E., & Nake, B. (2004). Praksisfællesskaber: læring, mening og identitet. Reitzel.

Index

A Autism spectrum disorders, 6, 137–153, 322 C Case study, 5–7, 45–55, 84, 105, 107, 120, 121, 143, 181–193, 219–220, 222–223, 250 Children with special educational needs (SEN), 2, 3, 6–8, 16, 19, 31, 35, 61–63, 65–73, 80–82, 85, 87, 88, 92–94, 116–118, 122, 123, 127, 138, 139, 147, 149, 153, 159–162, 164, 166–168, 175, 198–200, 205–207, 247, 248, 251, 287, 288, 295, 297, 299, 304, 318, 322, 328, 329, 331, 333, 338 Collaboration, vi, viii, ix, 1–9, 16–22, 45–55, 62–65, 68–71, 73, 74, 80, 82, 89, 100, 103, 104, 109, 111, 112, 119, 122, 125–129, 138,

140–144, 148, 151–153, 160–162, 164–174, 181–185, 187, 191, 192, 199–207, 215–217, 219, 220, 222, 229, 231, 233, 238, 245–261, 269, 271, 272, 274, 275, 277–280, 287–299, 303–306, 317, 318, 321–338 Communication, 6, 21, 32–36, 48, 51–54, 65, 82, 83, 88, 110, 115–130, 141, 142, 149, 152, 164, 172, 189, 191–193, 204–206, 218, 220, 224, 225, 231, 232, 234–236, 241, 242, 247, 248, 252, 253, 255, 260, 276, 278, 280, 296, 329, 331, 333–335 Consultation, 6, 67, 79–95, 102, 107, 206, 268, 328, 330 Cooperation, x, 16, 17, 21, 22, 66, 102, 105, 110, 119, 141, 204–206, 217–220, 232, 235–237, 241, 245, 253, 289, 290, 336, 337

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Ališauskienė et al. (eds.), Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care, Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9

341

342 

INDEX

Cooperation of families and preschools, 232, 332 Coordination, 36, 125, 149, 152, 153, 161, 163–165, 173, 328 Curriculum, 7, 31, 66, 83, 92, 100, 103, 215–217, 221, 230, 234, 305, 307, 312, 313, 317, 335 D Document analysis, 7, 167, 213–225 E Early Childhood Education, ix, 47, 49, 62, 70, 100, 137–153, 182, 183, 198–200, 207, 213–225, 229–242, 268, 287, 303–305, 308, 310–314, 316–318 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), v–vii, ix, x, 1–9, 15–23, 29–37, 45–47, 51, 53, 61–74, 79–83, 88, 89, 91–93, 99–112, 115–130, 159–175, 183–186, 192, 197–208, 217–221, 245–261, 287–299, 304–307, 314, 317, 321–338 Early years’ foundation stage (EYFS), 46, 48, 54, 184, 185, 187, 188, 192 Education, v–vii, ix, x, 2, 3, 5, 7, 16–18, 22, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 46, 48, 49, 51–54, 61–74, 79–95, 99–102, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116–119, 123–128, 138–144, 147, 149, 151, 152, 162, 167, 170, 175, 182–185, 188, 189, 192, 197–200, 204–207, 213–225, 229–232, 234, 239, 246–249, 251–261, 268, 272, 276, 279, 288, 291, 296, 304–308, 310–314,

316–318, 321, 322, 328–331, 333, 335, 336, 338 Empowerment of families, 8, 141 Epstein, J. L., 31–33, 46, 141, 148, 150, 185, 214, 231, 323 F Families, v, 3, 16, 33, 45, 61, 72, 101, 115, 138, 163, 182, 198, 214, 229, 245, 267, 288, 303, 323 Family-Centered Approach, 8, 141, 267–281 Family–professional collaboration (FPC), v, viii, ix, 1–5, 7–9, 29–37, 139, 150, 198–200, 207, 208, 231–232, 235–238, 242, 246, 247, 249, 250, 252–254, 261, 287–289, 291, 292, 294–297, 299, 321–328, 332–338 Family Quality of Life, 142, 271, 275–277 Finland, 4, 6, 49, 80, 82, 84, 213–225, 303–318, 322, 333–335 Formal family–professional collaboration, 289–290 H High-ability children, 8, 303–318, 322, 334 I Iceland, 4, 7, 99–112, 229–242, 322, 329, 331, 333–335 Inclusion, vi, 2, 6, 16, 30–32, 35, 51, 54, 66, 69, 79, 81, 87, 100, 101, 106, 107, 111, 139–142, 144, 147, 149, 151, 153, 163, 168, 192, 230, 233, 246, 287, 297, 304, 306–308, 332

 INDEX 

Inclusion and exclusion of parents, 31, 32, 35, 184, 185, 192, 246, 296, 297, 299, 333 Inclusive education, 2, 3, 17, 30–32, 61–74, 79, 92, 117, 118, 125–129, 137–140, 143, 151, 152, 159, 167, 168, 171, 239, 247, 248, 259 Informal family–professional collaboration, 291 Interprofessional collaboration (IPC), vi, viii, ix, 2–7, 9, 15–23, 45–47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 61–74, 79–95, 99–112, 116–120, 129, 137–153, 159–175, 321–332, 336–338 Interprofessional communication, 116, 117, 120–122, 125, 130 Interprofessional teams, 19, 20, 22, 23, 115–130, 247, 248, 251, 252, 254 K Kindergarten, 49, 68, 81, 93, 117, 118, 146, 167, 168, 170, 171, 236, 238, 248, 256–258, 289, 298 L Leading from the middle, 99, 103–105, 111 Legislation, 18, 66–69, 73, 74, 81, 117, 152, 161, 167, 205, 207, 220, 247, 268, 307, 317, 335 Lithuania, v, 4, 8, 117, 247, 322, 332, 335 M Multilingual families, 229–242

343

N Norway, 4, 8, 159–162, 164, 173, 287, 288, 293, 294, 296, 328, 330, 332 O Ordinary centres, 6 P Parental collaboration, 46, 182, 193, 200, 206, 207, 215–217, 219, 223, 224, 305, 334, 335 Parental involvement (PI), 46, 69, 185–188, 191, 192, 206, 207, 224, 291, 332 Parents, 33, 34, 47, 53, 102, 109, 162, 185, 186, 189–193, 214, 220, 221, 223–225, 236, 257, 272, 290, 292, 293, 296, 316 Partnership, vi–viii, x, 16, 30, 46, 47, 62, 70, 73, 143, 148, 163, 165, 170, 175, 182–185, 192, 198–200, 204–207, 213–225, 231, 232, 245, 247, 297–299, 303, 306, 328, 332, 333 Policy documents, 4, 7, 8, 62, 64, 83, 87, 92, 93, 95, 185, 188, 189, 198–200, 207, 213–225, 287, 289, 332 Preschools, viii, 8, 67–73, 100–103, 105–112, 159, 182, 183, 186–189, 192, 199, 200, 204–207, 215, 220–225, 229–242, 317, 332, 334, 335 Professional-family relationships, 267–281 Professional learning communities (PLC), 103–104, 111, 329 Professional strategies, 142, 330

344 

INDEX

R Reflective practice, 128 Relationship, v–viii, 8, 19, 21, 32–35, 37, 47, 52, 53, 65, 73, 83, 84, 94, 102, 119, 125, 128, 139–143, 150–152, 164, 165, 183, 214, 215, 221, 232, 245–247, 249, 250, 252, 255, 256, 259–261, 267, 270, 271, 273, 274, 276–280, 291–293, 296–299, 306, 323, 325, 326, 330–332, 334, 335, 337 S Spain, 4, 6, 137–153, 268, 269, 322, 330, 332, 335 Special education, 18, 67, 79–95, 101, 108, 116, 147, 182, 241, 247, 248, 307, 318, 328

Special needs education (SNE), 6, 17, 19, 21, 22, 61, 63, 66–71, 73, 74, 117, 118, 122–125, 162, 199, 248, 251–255, 322 T Teacher education programs, 7, 18, 66, 213–225, 335, 336 Teamwork, viii, 8, 16, 18, 22, 64, 65, 115, 127, 253, 328 Theory of practice architecture, 9, 323, 324, 336 U Ukraine, vii, 4–6, 61–74, 198, 199, 204, 207, 322, 335 United Kingdom (UK), vii, 4, 5, 7, 45–55, 181–193, 322, 330–335