El utilitarismo

The issues, most frequently expressed by the practitioners, were concerns around: (a) Promoting awareness of social inclusion benefits

(b) Ensuring families feel comfortable (c) Structured and/or relaxed approaches (d) Improving participation

(e) Catering for differing groups (f) Recruiting isolated families

(a) Promoting awareness of social inclusion benefits

Responding to an interview questions, which invite practitioners to highlight the main issues impacting on social inclusion facilitation, all sixteen practitioners described, in various ways, the difficulty of informing and enlightening some families of the benefits of being socially included. Practitioners were unanimous in expressing the difficulties in imparting cognitive awareness and acceptance of the value of attending programs, without invoking a negative response. CFC worker, James, was aware of the need to be sensitive in avoiding an emotional reaction, if parents consider they are being told what to do:

We know what works and what doesn‟t but it‟s getting the parents to see it for themselves – and making them realise – they know the answers. For them to accept, be accepting of those answers… rather than just being told what should really be happening. (James, CFC worker)

Early learning leaders were keen to convey, to families, the advantages of being socially included and how social support and integration can be gained through access to services. Practitioners‟ work was based on implementing the practices set out in the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) curriculum; this National framework is designed to assist educators and practitioners who work with families and their children from birth to five years. The development of EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) is based on the need for children to form trusting relationships and acknowledges that the family is the primary educator. Even though play is acknowledged as an important tool for learning, practitioners are now required to instil trusting relationships by encouraging parents to engage more with their children:

..to educate parents to see the importance of what we‟re doing, so, they‟re not just playing…and having fun …actually fine motor skills and language skills and if we can get the parents to learn that‟s why we‟re choosing to do this then the parent might be more likely to go and copy it at home. (June, leader)

June explained how parents were encouraged to engage with their children in a playful way to help with their literacy, numeracy and social skills. The idea was:

to make play visible to parents…so that we do what we call learning stories. (June, leader)

At the same time practitioners tried to show parents how to be alert to their own responses and, if their child‟s behaviours were inappropriate, to feel comfortable in discussing ways to encourage more sociable behaviours:

…express themselves as well and sort of being observant adults – the parents can sort of see that and yes, you can discuss with parentsabout, you know,how your child is … not willing to share. (June, leader)

Practitioners explained that the best way to instil positive behaviours was through role modelling. They said that their experience and observations had shown them not to assume that all children would have been taught even basic social behaviours, such as sitting at a table for meals. Role modelling, therefore, helped them convey the rules that were expected to be followed in programs:

…show them ways … just things like we sit the children up to eat their fruit for morning tea. They may never have sat at a table…they might not even have a table in

their house, let al.one sit at it to eat meals all the time, so its understanding …simple things that we expect. (Mary, leader)

Facilitating new ways of thinking, in order to instil more helpful social behaviours is not a simple task, as Nash (1990) explains. Although cultural practices are mostly arbitrary, if the education culture does not align with the culture of certain family groups, the ability to transmit the program‟s preferred cultural practices will be lessened. As Nash (1990) states, families who have differing values to those expected in the education setting, may feel culturally alien and unable to benefit from the strategies in place. Bourdieu (1990a) doubts that education programs can act arbitrarily. He notes that, in reality, practitioners/teachers will find it naturally easier to respond to parents/children who are keen to participate, as opposed to those who are inclined to withdraw.

Enlightening families, who have differing cultural practices, of the benefits of participating in ECEC program can present challenges. Practitioners know their role is to encourage parents to engage with their children, as well as to socialise with other parents, but especially for parents to actively interact with their children, to strengthen bonding and enhance social learning. Sue said she wanted to avoid the situation of families coming to her sessions just to relax and have a chat and ignore the purpose, which is to interact with their children:

You want them to be working with their children at the same time, because you can fall into the trap of having some parents that come along – their child can just run around and do anything and they can sit back and chat and not do things with their child, which is what the purpose of Launching into Learning is. (Sue, LiL teacher)

It is clear that one of the main underpinning objectives of ECEC programs is that parents be encouraged to interact with their children. As Coyne (2013) notes, this approach is in line with the shift in early childhood approach, which now seeks to integrate attachment-based psychodynamic neuroscience considerations into practice. Practitioners are now expected to ensure that parents understand the importance of paying attention to their children‟s state of mind by using interactive behaviours and language.

Regular attendance in the ECEC programs is, however, necessary to ensure that parents have the opportunity to gain optimum socio-educational benefits for themselves and their children. Nevertheless, in order to maintain regular attendance in programs, families

first need to feel relaxed and comfortable, especially on their first visit to the unfamiliar setting.

(b) Ensuring families feel comfortable

Nash (1990) describes the phenomenon of self-exclusion, which occurs when people feel rejected in an unfamiliar social setting. Similarly, Bourdieu (1990a) suggests that difficulties occur, because of the constraints and demands imposed on people to behave in particular ways in certain circumstances.

Within CFC programs, for example, Vanessa noted that parents, who were unaccustomed to the rules and boundaries, tended to self-exclude and withdraw from the mainstream group. Often when new families arrived, Vanessa observed that some seemed unaware of the protocol and just seemed to do their own thing without making an effort to engage in the activities:

If a large group of parents come from out-of-area and don‟t understand Child and Family Centres and why we‟re here and that it is a community networking

opportunity, and they just sit by themselves and don‟t include themselves in the

activities that are going along – that can make it difficult for a parent that‟s coming in to the space, because they‟re being sort of segregated and isolating themselves.

(Vanessa, CFC worker)

To avoid this situation, CFCs are specifically designed to minimise segregations and ensure people could move through the different areas seamlessly. CFC settings are organised as a “soft entry” point so that families could more readily assimilate:

Eventually, they‟re included in the conversation (and) the flow of the space and, yes, the design facilitates it most definitely and that was part of the brief - that it would be a welcoming space and that the kitchen was there as a meeting hub. (Vanessa, CFC worker)

The focus for CFCs is to ensure a welcoming atmosphere which encourages families to be able to mix in a non-threatening environment. This is also the case with LiL programs, which, although slightly more structured and school-oriented, are aimed to create a welcoming

(c) Structured and/or relaxed approaches

While the interview questions (Appendix A) did not ask practitioners directly about

attachment issues, the need to assist parents with engagement and bonding arose as a major goal within ECEC programs. LiL teachers were mindful that, although play-based, there was an ECEC purpose behind all the tasks, which differed from the more relaxed free-play model of the past, as Theobald et al. (2013) note:

…children need their parents to work with them, because that‟s the purpose of Launching into Learning…so it‟s not a traditional play group where we just go…and we have a play. (Sue, Lil teacher)

Some practitioners, for example, Tracey (CFC worker) and Julie (LiL teacher), preferred a more flexible, adaptable style; while Sue (LiL teacher) liked to be more in charge to ensure that the activity goals were achieved. She explained that there was a:

purpose behind everything we do and why I‟ve set those things up, why we‟re doing it and the teacher is in charge…to take control, bring everyone back to the group again, discuss our rules and that kind of thing. (Sue, LiL teacher)

Julie, an early childhood teacher who was involved with both CFCs and LiL, preferred the casual relaxed style where practitioners/teachers could interpret the situation and instigate programs to suit. Julie suggested that teaching style was a matter of preference and although teachers were highly trained, some would simply impart information without having any real understanding of parent-child issues. As a consequence, she was concerned that some

families were not getting the understanding and support they needed, because some programs:

are rigid and regimented - casual works best – the teacher interprets. Some are not early childhood trained teachers…have no empathy or understanding of

people/children - run program like a classroom. CFC is not like a school – we want children to interact. (Julie, CFC and LiL teacher)

Sue, however, preferred the structured approach and suggested that the families, who attended her LiL sessions, responded well to her purposeful activities and were eager to comply with the rules and instructions in order to gain long term benefits for their children. This concurs with Bourdieu‟s (1990a) suggestion that the school culture needs to mirror the values and habits of those who participate. Sue related that:

people…tend to come here (who) are looking for that kind of structure as well. (Sue, LiL teacher)

There is no doubt that the aim of both LiL and CFC programs is to create an atmosphere where all families feel relaxed and comfortable. Sue preferred to be in charge of her

organised, pre-planned activities. While she was pleased with the extra resources available, she found that the relaxed, spread-out setting of CFCs was not always practical. Always endeavouring to create a welcoming atmosphere, Sue maintained that the structure and purpose enabled her to assist parents and their children to engage in interactive and purposeful activities:

When I tried the one at CFC, I couldn‟t really provide that, because of the space of CFC…yes, there was no way to…the parents that came on that Friday afternoon just wanted to sit up the top and have their coffee and the children were coming to

play…whereas the group (LiL) is about parents working with their children, engaging with their children, gaining skills, learning things that they need, understanding what skills their child needs, to start school. (Sue, LiL teacher)

As Sue said, LiL strategies were designed to deliver results but she did concede that her programs were:

becoming a bit too hectic and too busy…but what is the purpose for coming, if not to do activities which encourage parental engagement and child learning? (Sue, LiL teacher)

Overall, the aim of ECECs services, such as LiL and CFCs, was to foster an interest in early learning, parental involvement and social inclusion and to be accessible so that these ideas could be communicated, understood and accepted. The issue of participation is, consequently, central to the success of programs.

(d) Improving participation

Allman (2013) asserts that issues of social inclusion/exclusion have recently become more focussed on social rights. These social rights relate to availability and access to services as integral to participation and paramount in ensuring all families have an equal opportunity to gain socio-economic wellbeing.

To provide easy access to services and programs, CFCs are open from 8.30/9am until 4/5pm to ensure families are able to drop in at any time during the day. The Education Department of Tasmania has implemented these centres in easily accessible, designated areas throughout the community, which are specifically non-school-oriented. Community inclusion worker, Vanessa, explained how easy access and a welcoming environment were the main features of the CFCs design to encourage participation. The emphasis was on accessibility and the provision of a welcoming, non-school, environment:

We hope that we could help parents in this area to access the centre a little bit more readily…they have easier access and I guess we‟re not a school. (Vanessa, CFC worker)

Promoting a desire to attend is paramount and both CFC and LiL programs offered a variety of programs and activities designed to encourage families to participate. LiL teacher, Jane, observed that the more sociable families appeared more enthusiastic than those families who needed extra support from the programs. In an effort to encourage some of the disengaged families, Jane instigated a specific activity solely for this group. Rather than increasing the enthusiasm of the target group, however, her innovative strategy created ructions within the regular families:

You know I‟m trying to offer something to this particular group of people…well that didn‟t rock their boat and this didn‟t rock their boat and I wonder if this will and we only had it for a small group of people…then you get the other group saying “Oh, that‟s not fair, we should have…how come we don‟t get to go?” (Jane, LiL teacher)

Another way practitioners tried to enhance participation was by using popular technologies, that are commonly used to communicate. They found that the most effective way to make contact was through texting and using social media sites, because most families had access to these means of communication. Unfortunately, the use of technology, while improving access to information about services, sometimes reinforced the lack of parent-child

engagement. James observed that most parents possessed the latest technologies and seemed to enjoy checking their phones and social media sites, but that this distracted them from interacting with their children:

They… have an iPhone but yeah, and quite often they‟ll just come with the kids and sit on the phone for hours and not engage with their children. (James, CFC worker)

As a means to encourage participation, various incentives have been offered to encourage attendance at LiL and CFC services. The growth of CFCs, Tasmania-wide, is a relatively recent initiative, as is outlined in the Centre for Community Child Health, Phase Two Report (Department of Education, Tasmania, 2013). After consultation with community leaders and parents, the design of these centres became the initial incentive with which to encourage participation. All three CFC centres, visited for the study, appeared modern, impressive and highly resourced. The purpose-built structure, interior décor and exterior landscape denoted high standards of creative design. Based on community input, each CFC was different but all exuded a charming atmosphere, with planned garden areas, tastefully decorated indoor spaces and fully resourced kitchen, computer and sitting areas. The CFC buildings were designed to reflect the people and history of the area and to provide the most comfortable and well- resourced community gathering space. These centres have been constructed using the most fashionable and elegant designs and materials; all areas appearing functional, purposeful, comfortable and stylish.

An interesting, albeit unintended, outcome of the provision of such fashionably designed CFCs was noted by Bridget, who stated that the modern appearance initially proved a disincentive for many people. Bridget related that the ultra-modern appearance of the premises proved daunting for some families who were hesitant to enter. She commented that the people, for whom the centres have been initiated, seemed to feel they did not belong in such a “posh” space. To overcome this, practitioners in one centre tried to make the areas look more “lived-in” so that people would feel more relaxed on visiting. Bridget claimed that, because the building looked so new and modern, some people became anxious about how to behave and worried about doing the wrong thing:

We struggled, when we opened our CFC, to actually have people to come in, because of the beautiful setting…it just wasn‟t like home, wasn‟t comfortable for them, yes, so once it‟s started to get a bit messier and we had a lot more things around it wasn‟t so new and people weren‟t worried about where you put your cup, all of that kind of thing, it‟s taken twelve months for that feeling to go. (Bridget, leader)

As Bowlby (1973, 1982) states, an early acquired self-perception and expectation of other peoples‟ responses can impact on a person‟s ability to participate in unfamiliar environs. The difficulties in adjusting to the new CFC setting, was noted by Raelene. She observed parents who, especially on their first visit, seemed to be experiencing difficulties in trying to avoid embarrassment. Simple things, like being unsure of where to put their prams, created angst:

…not knowing what to do in a new place, what was expected of them, where to park their pram.(Raelene, CFC worker)

LiL teacher, Helen, also noted that the inviting surroundings and resources could not compensate for the anxious feelings some people experienced:

people feel uncomfortable in programs no matter how beautiful the surrounds are…just makes them feel worse. (Helen, LiL teacher)

Practitioners observed that rather than functioning as an inducement, the modern well- resourced centres proved more of a deterrent for some parents, who initially seemed to become anxious at the very appearance of unfamiliarity. Nash (1990) explains how behavioural dispositions and family attitudes to educational institutions will determine the cost/benefit of fitting in, as opposed to feeling inadequate, in unfamiliar cultural groups. Similarly Bourdieu (1984) notes that the issue is that some people are unable to negotiate social relationships in a culturally prescribed fashion. That is, some people will feel alienated in places in which they are unsure of the “rules”.