Waring and Currie (2009) suggest it is the language of a profession that can become the instrument by which certain ways of working are adhered to: that practitioners adopt a professional identity through their working practices. As already explored in sections 2.2 and 2.3, there are discourses that relate specifically to working practices in early years that are affected by a number of factors. Those examined include EYTs having specialized
knowledge and also attributes and characteristics that enable them to demonstrate behaviours conducive to appropriate professional conduct in different contexts. The inference here is that specialized knowledge and attributes are discipline specific (early years): they are situated within a profession and locally demonstrated in practice (in settings). However, in
safeguarding and child protection this is problematic. Legislation and guidance is interpreted across children’s services. It is the responsibility of professionals to ensure that practice specific requirements meet compliance categories within their own professions. For EYTs there is challenge of understanding safeguarding and child protection within the context of the legal jurisdiction of their professional domain (early years). As discussed in section 1.3 definitions and practices in safeguarding and child protection differ within and between professions. The discourse related to multi-agency working is therefore relevant to the
46 meanings to their experiences of safeguarding and child protection and how they work with others.
The Working together to safeguard children (DfE, 2015) guidance document outlines differences between safeguarding and child protection. The definition stated relates to safeguarding as an aspect of children’s welfare: ensuring actions are taken to avoid children becoming at risk of harm and considered to be the responsibility of everyone in contact with them. Child protection relates to actions taken when a child has been identified at risk of harm: where specialised intervention is implemented to protect the child. Other
documentation specific to education such as Keeping children safe in education (2015) focuses on safeguarding aspects of practice and states,
Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined for the purposes of this guidance as: protecting children from maltreatment; preventing impairment of
children’s health or development; ensuring that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes. Where a child is suffering significant harm, or is likely to do so, action should be taken to protect that child. (DfE, 2015, no page)
Practitioners have long understood that maltreatment of young children has far reaching implications into adulthood (Finkelhor, 2008; McKee and Dillenburger, 2010). Legislation determines that all education practitioners are therefore trained to recognize signs of abuse. There is some research in primary education to suggest teachers are aware of safeguarding and child protection policies and procedures (Baginsky, 2008; McGarry and Buckley, 2013). Registered early years settings are required to have policies that specifically define
safeguarding and child protection and state processes and procedures to be undertaken at local level (Ofsted, 2015; DfE, 2017a). The challenge for EYTs is not only to know what safeguarding and child protection means, but to more fully appreciate the inference arising from definitions that imply a certainty of being able to protect children, prevent abuse, ensure safety and enable potential. It is this certainty that is explicitly outlined in legislation (DfE, 2017a) and, by implication, understood by society to be the responsibility of the
professional/teacher. However the notion of professional is generalized within safeguarding and child protection legislation. It does not recognize difference within separate professions. ‘Change of career’ graduates with EYTS enter early years as the professional with
endorsement from the DfE (2013) and face societal and political expectations within the complexities of safeguarding and child protection policy which are not fixed but dependent
47 upon constant change (Walsh et al., 2010). There is tension that all professionals regardless of discipline should have agreed understandings of safeguarding and child protection but this is not the case (Munro, 2011).
EYTs are awarded their professional status when they have demonstrated competency standards. Included in these is a statement requiring EYTs to ‘Understand the importance of and contribute to multi-agency team working’ (NCTL, 2013, p. 5). Whilst rather problematic it is essential that the phrase, ‘multi-agency team working’ is highlighted in terms of
positioning this research within education as opposed to a health or social care context. Research specifically examining the context of multi-agency team working in the context of safeguarding and child protection practice in early years is very limited. Therefore, related works in education have been critically explored to enable some understanding of potential complexities facing EYTs as they undertake training and begin their careers.
Baginsky’s (2007) four-year research study examined how teachers and social workers (in England) work together and found many teachers unclear about their role in child protection. He reports failings to recognise or report situations where children might be deemed at risk or suffering harm. He notes some teachers consider their responsibilities fulfilled once they make a referral to children’s social care. Baginsky (2007) concludes ambiguity exists between what is meant by working with other agencies and between respective roles and responsibilities. Subsequent research by Baginsky, Driscoll and Manthorpe (2015) explores changes to professional guidance for practitioners in safeguarding and child protection and found that rather than providing clarification, ‘Greater dependence on professional judgment is emphasised, requiring professional expertise and confidence in responding to safeguarding concerns’ (Baginsky, Driscoll and Manthorpe, 2015, p. 256). In section 2.2, literature
examined suggests EYTs are entering the profession encountering uncertainties in role as a result of rapid legislative reform. In addition the notion of knowledge gained through experience (Eraut, 2004) and the relationship between experience and confidence has been critically explored. Baginsky, Driscoll and Manthorpe’s (2015) findings are therefore
concerning as the requirement to work with other professionals from different agencies might exacerbate some of the challenges EYTs may already be facing. As Dyson, Farrell, Kerr and Mearns (2008) caution, reform of welfare services raises concern over the potential for practitioners to,
48 move beyond existing working practices and procedural arrangements in order to engage in the sorts of evolutionary and negotiated approach to role definition [which] may result in considerable role ambiguity, interprofessional tension and the
temptation to work beyond professional competence. (Dyson, Farrell, Kerr and Mearns, 2008, p. 3)
They highlight emerging tensions between professionals working across disciplines: the suggestion that practice might be compromised. Research by Anning et al., (2006) also found the traditional position of having training in safeguarding and child protection undertaken within separate disciplines, results in misunderstandings across professions: exacerbating challenges with agency specific policies and practices. This in turn may contribute to a sense of uncertainty when EYTs are ‘faced with complex situations that require cooperation and collaboration’ (Trodd and Chivers, 2011, p. 43).
Lumsden’s (2012) research examines the perceived roles of practitioners holding the
predecessor to EYTS: namely EYPS. Her findings note the emergence of a ‘new professional space’ at the intersection between health, education and social care. Lumsden (2012) suggests legislative reform and the requirement to work with other agencies, as specified in the
Children Act 2004, raises concern over roles and responsibilities. She suggests that to work effectively with other agencies requires particular and different knowledge, skills and
attributes than those developed through discipline specific training courses. Lumsden (2012) suggests that those with a professional status in early years presents an opportunity to
recognise them as advocates for young children as they lead on working with others to ensure quality outcomes.
Research reviewed in this section suggests overarching safeguarding and child protection legislation and guidance in terms of multi-agency practice may affect EYTs in terms of understanding their role and responsibilities. EYTs will be working within environments of political and social reform generating uncertainty. In the following section I critically explore a related tension of EYTs working with parents when faced with the challenge of identifying a child deemed in need or at risk. I examine the legislative position of required ‘partnership working’ (DfE, 2017a) and how this relates to the notion of relationships between
49
2.5 Early Years Teachers working with parents/carers in safeguarding and child