Community Partnerships And Networks As Children Start Primary School In Rural Australia

Author(s):

Bob Perry(presenting / submitting)Sue Dockett(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

14 SES 01 A, Migrant Parents' Perspectives, Engagement and Community Partnership

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

13:15-14:45

Room:

K3.21

Chair:

Rocío García Carrión

Contribution

This presentation reports on one aspect of the Great Start, Great Futures Early Years Transition Project (GSGF) conducted in Queensland, Australia in 2014-2016. The objective of GSGF was to support schools, early childhood settings and communities to build partnerships, processes and pedagogies across the critical years of a child's life from birth to 8 years old to support optimal transitions from early childhood settings to schools.

The key research question in this study was “How has the GSGF helped to enhance transition to school programs in the participating schools, early childhood settings and communities?” This presentation reports on the development of effective partnerships as a means to promote positive transition experiences. The importance of a positive transition to school for all children has been highlighted in recent European research and continues to be a focus of world-wide attention (Vrinioti, Einarsdóttir, & Broström 2010). As part of the enactment of recent Australian educational reforms, the Queensland Department of Education and Training encouraged collaboration and partnership among the early childhood sector, communities, families and schools to support improved learning and development outcomes for children as they start school (Queensland Government, 2015b). Integral to achieving this objective is a new initiative to strengthen transition to school strategies across the state (Queensland Government, 2015a). Transition to school refers to the processes of continuity and change that are associated with starting school (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Education Review Office, 2015). Transition to school is a time of changing roles, status and identities for all involved and is a time of both continuity and change (Griebel & Niesel, 2009). Recently, transitions have been characterised using four ‘constructs’: opportunities; aspirations; expectations and entitlements for all concerned with the transition, including children, families, school teachers, prior-to-school educators, communities and education systems (Dockett & Perry, 2014, 2015; Educational Transitions and Change Research Group (ETC), 2011). Each of these constructs provides a lens through which transition to school experiences can be viewed.

Collaborations and partnerships can facilitate effective transitions. It is beneficial to develop partnerships among teachers and children; teachers and families; school and prior-to-school teachers; schools and communities; and principals and teachers with professionals from other disciplines which impact on the transition to school (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Perry, Dockett, & Petriwskyj, 2014). Effective partnerships extend secure, respectful and reciprocal relationships by focusing on common goals and “a culture of respect and collaboration” (Boyle & Petriwskyj, 2014, p. 5).

Working in partnership and contributing to collaboration can be both challenging and rewarding (Tayler, 2006). There can be challenges to be inclusive, recognise the diversity and strengths of those involved, and respect the range of backgrounds, experiences and qualifications contributing to the partnership. The rewards that can accrue from effective partnerships among professionals around transition to school are great. They can impact not only on the effectiveness of children’s transition to school, but also on the professional esteem of all involved, the wellbeing of families and children, the educational conversations within communities, and work within other areas of service provision that will build upon the respectful and trusting relationships already developed by the participants (Flottman, McKernan, & Tayler, 2011). Such ongoing partnerships have the potential to inform and improve educational practice (Keast & Mandell, 2013). In this paper, the characteristics of such partnerships within GSGF are highlighted.

Networks can provide an important forum for community focus on transition to school. Within networks, there are opportunities for information sharing, professional recognition and support as well as critical reflection on practices and expectations. Effective networks generate critique that encourages reflective practice and promotes positive change (Alvestad & Rothle, 2007).

Method

The study reported in this paper considered the effectiveness of the partnerships developed in regional, rural and remote communities in enhancing the transition to school experiences of All involved, particularly the children and families starting school. The community-based partnership model utilised in GSGF resulted in various forms of ‘transition networks’. The model relies on Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) and it was through this framework that community-based case studies of partnerships designed to optimise transition to school were developed. Yin (1984, p. 23) defines the case study research method “as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.” The case studies in this project were the result of ongoing interaction with as many of the various groups of stakeholders as possible in as many ways as possible. Hence, these case studies are built upon a mixed-methods design using a variety of data generation approaches in a large number of geographical sites, and through repetition of interactions, wherever possible. Examples of data generation methods that have been used include: individual and group conversations; Eviews (interviews via email); surveys; and drawing tasks. As well, the development of a new tool - the Transitions Reflection Instrument (TRI) - has led to an approach which has the potential to become a substantial contribution to the practice of educational transitions. The TRI is based upon the four transition constructs introduced earlier and is applied across the key membership groups of the transition networks – children; educators (both in school and early childhood services); families and community – in order to enable the network to assess its progress towards providing optimal transition to school experiences for all involved. In this paper, two case studies of effective transition networks will be introduced. One is from a regional community and the other from a rural community in Queensland. Characteristics of these effective networks will be synthesised. As well, an overview of seemingly ineffective networks will be shared.

Expected Outcomes

There were transition networks of some form in all of the communities in which GSGF was implemented. The networks varied greatly in size and scope of membership. In Case Study 1 – the regional community - membership of the network exceeds 80 people with representatives from the state school, 24 early childhood settings, eight non-government community health and interagency organisations and five government agencies. In Case Study 2 – the rural community – membership is a more modest 12 people with representatives from the state school, the Catholic school, the three early childhood settings in the community, the community nurse and the leader of the Chamber of Commerce. The network in the first community has established trusting and respectful relationships among all involved in children’s transition to school. On the basis of these relationships, transition to school programs have been reviewed and revised so that they better meet the needs of all concerned; children’s perspectives on transition to school have been sought and published; families are more involved; and community organisations beyond education are key to the transition programs. In the second community, there is cooperation among both schools in the town, even though they are competitors for enrolments, strong relationships with the early childhood settings, and the establishment of annual community events highlighting the importance of education within the wider community. In both of these transition networks, there was a strong leader in a position to make things happen. However, this was not sufficient, as there was also another person in each network who was the organiser, the person who made the ideas work. Resources, particularly time, was needed to allow the organiser to do the necessary work to keep the network’s momentum going. Both of these networks were also characterised by strong professional partnerships, based on trusting, respectful relationships.

References

Alvestad, M., & Rothle, M. (2007). Educational forums: Frames for development of professional learning: A project in early childhood education in Norway. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(3), 407-425. Boyle, T., & Petriwskyj, A. (2014). Transitions to school: Reframing professional relationships. Early Years: An International Research Journal. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2014.953042 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P.A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R.M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793-828). Hoboken: John Wiley. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Transitions to school: Perceptions, experiences and expectations. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2014). Research to policy: Transition to school position statement. In B. Perry, S. Dockett, & A. Petriwskyj (Eds.), Transitions to school – International research, policy and practice (pp. 277-294). Dordrecht: Springer. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2015). Transition to school: Times of opportunity, expectation, aspiration and entitlement. In J.M. Iorio & W. Parnell (Eds.), Rethinking readiness in early childhood education: Implications for policy and practice(pp. 123-139). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Education Review Office (2015). Continuity of learning: Transitions from early childhood services to schools. Wellington, NZ: Author. Educational Transitions and Change (ETC). 2011. Transition to school: Position statement. Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/research-groups/etc/Position-Statement.pdf Flottman, R., McKernan, A., & Tayler, C. (2011). Practice principle 2: Partnership with professionals. Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework Evidence Paper. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/childhood/providers/edcare/pracpartner.pdf Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2009). A developmental psychology perspective in Germany: Co-construction of transitions between family and education systems by the child, parents and pedagogues. Early Years, 29(1), 59-68. Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2013). Your guide to building collaborative capacity: Fact sheets. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY).Retrieved from http://www.aracy.org.au/comment/fact-sheets-your-guide-to-building-collaborative-capacity Perry, B., Dockett, S., & Petriwskyj, A. (Eds.) (2014). Transitions to school: International research, policy and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Queensland Government. (2015a). Statewide approach to transitions. Retrieved from http://deta.qld.gov.au/earlychildhood/about/successful-transitions/statewide-approach.html Queensland Government. (2015b). Strategic plan 2015-2019. Retrieved from http://deta.qld.gov.au/publications/strategic/pdf/det-strategic-plan-2015-19.pdf Tayler, C. (2006). Challenging partnerships in Australian early childhood education. Early Years, 26(3), 249-265. Vrinioti, K., Einarsdóttir, J., Broström, S. (2010). Transition from preschool to primary school. Early Years Transition Programme (EASE). Retrieved from www.ease-eu.com/documents/compendium/chapter02.pdf Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Author Information

Bob Perry (presenting / submitting)

Peridot Education Pty Ltd

Thurgoona

Sue Dockett (presenting)

Charles Sturt University