14 SES 02 A, Policies and Actions to Promote School-Family-Community Links II
In an international context where policy and investment have increasingly become focused on early childhood provision, the rationale for early childhood provision lacks consensus (Kaga, Bennett and Moss, 2010). Within this diverse landscape, parents are positioned variably, for example, parents are seen as less powerful than early childhood practitioners in their children’s lives (Cannella, 2002), more powerful than early childhood practitioners in their children’s lives (Government of Kazakhstan, 2012), yet also viewed as empowered consumers (Hursh, 2005); they are seen as busy employees (Kaga et al., 2010), yet also regarded as potential supporters of their children’s premature schoolification (House et al., 2012). Against this varied backdrop, inconsistencies are apparent in the nature of relationships between parents and early childhood providers, both within countries and between countries (Watson, 2012).
This cross-cultural study is an extension of an earlier project that was originally devised by two early childhood researchers from England and Kazakhstan who met through a Kazakh scholarship programme in an English university. In the course of academic discussion, the two researchers perceived disjuncture in their two countries concerning practitioner-parent partnerships in early childhood provision. Equally, they noted anecdotally a dissonance in each of their countries’ policy, literature and research regarding practitioner-parent partnerships in early childhood provision.
Consequently, the researchers reviewed relevant literature from both countries to provide scientific evidence confirming this proposition in terms of the quality of literature that was available. Nevertheless, their review revealed a range of themes that were prominent in the literature across both England and Kazakhstan. A second phase of the study was planned: the capture of authentic narratives from a range of Kazakh and English early childhood academics concerning parent-practitioner partnership in their home countries. However, before this stage could be enacted, a team of Hungarian early childhood academics learned of the project. A tripartite comparison between England, Kazakhstan and Hungary of an early childhood issue is rare and it was agreed that much could be gained by developing the project to include Hungarian perspectives.
Subsequently, the Hungarian team has reviewed relevant Hungarian literature and has discovered much synergy with the themes that emerged from the English and Kaszakh review. Thus a comparative review of the literature concerning practitioner-parent partnerships in early childhood provision in England, Kazakhstan and Hungary is nearing completion at the time of writing. While contemporary English research concerning parent-practitioner partnership is prolific (Evangelou et al., 2005; Nutbrown et al., 2005; Whalley and the Pen Green Team, 2007; Goodall and Vorhaus, 2011) and a corpus of Hungarian research and literature focuses on parent-practitioner cooperation in Hungary (Kovács Györgyne et al., 2002; Török, 2004; Kovács and Korintus, 2012), Kazakh ECEC is currently influenced by a rather limited range of predominantly Russian research (Vinogradova, 1989; Danilina, 2000; Khalipova and Telepiyeva, 2004).
The second stage of the study draws on five key themes presenting in the review of the literature to elicit new discourses concerning parent-practitioner partnership in early childhood through a series of focus groups conducted with academics working in the field in Kazakhstan, Hungary and England.
The study’s research question is: ‘What do academics and the literature reveal about the similarities and differences concerning practitioner-parent partnerships in early childhood provision in Kazakhstan, Hungary and England?’ and there are two objectives for the study:
1) To review literature, policy and research focused on practitioner-parent partnership in early childhood provision in Kazakhstan, Hungary and England.
2) To capture similarities and differences in early childhood academics’ perspectives of issues arising from a review of literature, policy and research focused on practitioner-parent partnership in early childhood provision in Kazakhstan, Hungary and England.
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: BERA. Cannella, G.S. (2002) Deconstructing Early Childhood Education. New York: Peter Lang. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, C. (2007) Research Methods in Education. 6e. London: Routledge. Czarniawska, B. (2004) Narratives in Social Sciences Research. London; Sage Publications. Danilina, T (2000) Contemporary issues of family and kindergarten interaction. Early Childhood Care. 1 (2): 44-49. Evangelou, M., Brooks, G., Smith, S., Jennings, D. and Roberts, F. (2005) The Birth to School Study: A longitudinal evaluation of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) 1998–2005. London, DfES. Goodall, J. and Vorhaus, J. (2011) Review of Best Practice in Parental Engagement. London: Department for Education. Government of Kazakhstan (2012) State Compulsory Standard of Early Childhood Education and Care approved by the Government of Kazakhstan. Astana: Government of Kazakhstan. House, R. et al. (2012) Letter to the Editor. Helping children to develop in their early years: An alternative curriculum for under-fives. The Telegraph. 7th February 2012. Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS) (2010) Ethics Code of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Hursh, D. (2005) Neo-liberalism, Markets and Accountability: Transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education. 3 (1): 3-15. Kaga, Y., Bennett, J. And Moss, P. (2010) Caring and Learning Together. Paris: UNESCO. Khalipova, A.P. and Telepiyeva, N.F. (2004) Kindergarten and Family. Mozyr. Kovács, E. and Korintus, M. (2012) An Element of Intensive Partnership with Parents in the Nursery and in the Kindergarten. In Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development (2012) Early Childhood Education and Care: Specificities of the Hungarian System. Brussels: Europa. Pp. 10-11. Kovács Györgyne, V., Kósáné, V.O., Szabό, L., Ranschburg, J., Körmöci, K., Bakonyi, A., Deményné, S.E. and Petren, F. (2002) Óvodavezetők kézikönyve X., Budapest: Okker Kiadó. Ling Pan, M. and Lopez, M. (2008) Preparing Literature Reviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishers. Nutbrown, C., Hannon, P. and Morgan, A (2005) Early Literacy Work with Families: Research, policy and practice. London: Sage. Török, B. (2004) A gyermeküket óvodáztató szülők körében végzett országos felmérés eredményei. Budapest: Felsőoktatási kutatóintézet. Vinogradova, N.F. (1989) For Practitioner about Partnership with Family: Guidance for preschool practitioners. Moscow: Prosvesheniye. Watson, J. (2012) Starting Well: Benchmarking early education across the world. London: EIU. Whalley, M. (Ed.) (2007) Involving Parents in Their Children’s Learning. 2e. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.