Professional development for ECEC practitioners with responsibilities for children at risk: Which competences and in-service training are needed?

Abstract

There is growing evidence among researchers and international
organisations that quality of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), and
ultimately the outcomes for children and families – especially disadvantaged
ones – is dependent on well-educated and competent staff, and that a lack of
higher pre-service training can be partly compensated by in-service training of a
sufficient intensity and length. In this article an overview is given of three
qualitative studies of the competences needed to work in ECEC with children
and families at risk. These three studies focus on ECEC practitioners who have
played an active role in a change process aimed at developing a new pedagogical
approach to working with children and parents with disadvantaged backgrounds.
The three studies also strengthen the view that pedagogical support, sustained
over long periods of time and developed by specialised staff (such as
pedagogical coaches), is seen as a successful way to develop reflective thinking
on practice and to construct new knowledge and practices when working with
families and children. To conclude, the article tries to define how in-service
training can be organised in a comprehensive way.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Jan Peeters]
On: 07 July 2014, At: 06:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20
Professional development for ECEC
practitioners with responsibilities for
children at risk: which competences
and in-service training are needed?
Jan Peeters
a
& Nima Sharmahd
a
a
Ghent University, Belgium
Published online: 02 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Jan Peeters & Nima Sharmahd (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, DOI:
10.1080/1350293X.2014.912903
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.912903
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

Professional development for ECEC practitioners with
responsibilities for children at risk: which competences and
in-service training are needed?
Jan Peeters
*
and Nima Sharmahd
Ghent University, Belgium
ABSTRACT: There is growing evidence among researchers and international
organisations that quality of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), and
ultimately the outcomes for children and families – especially disadvantaged
ones – is dependent on well-educated and competent staff, and that a lack of
higher pre-service training can be partly compensated by in-service training of a
sufficient intensity and length. In this article an overview is given of three
qualitative studies of the competences needed to work in ECEC with children
and families at risk. These three studies focus on ECEC practitioners who have
played an active role in a change process aimed at developing a new pedagogical
approach to working with children and parents with disadvantaged backgrounds.
The three studies also strengthen the view that pedagogical support, sustained
over long periods of time and developed by specialised staff (such as
pedagogical coaches), is seen as a successful way to develop reflective thinking
on practice and to construct new knowledge and practices when working with
families and children. To conclude, the article tries to define how in-service
training can be organised in a comprehensive way.
RÉSUMÉ: Il est aujourd’hui suffisamment clair, selon les chercheurs comme les
organisations internationales, que la qualité de l’accueil et de l’éducation de la
petite enfance et les effets sur les enfants et les familles – et en particulier ceux
vivant dans la précarité – dépendent largement des compétences et de la
formation des professionnel(le)s. Il est également clair qu’une formation initiale
insuffisante peut être en partie compensée par une formation continue, pourvu
que celle-ci soit conséquente. Cet article donne un aperçu de trois études
qualitatives sur les compétences requises dans le travail avec des familles et
enfants à risques. Ces trois études concernent des professionnel(le)s ayant joué
un rôle actif dans un processus de changement visant à développer une nouvelle
approche pédagogique avec ces enfants et familles. Elles montrent que le soutien
pédagogique par des équipes spécialisées et sur des périodes suffisamment
longues est un moyen efficace pour développer une réflexion critique sur les
pratiques et de nouveaux savoirs et savoir-faire. Pour conclure, l’article tente de
définir l’organisation d’une telle formation continue.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Evidenz von wissenschaftlichen Studien und auch von
internationalen Organisationen stärkt zunehmend die Annahme, dass die Qualität
frühkindlicher Bildung und Betreuung und letztendlich auch die Auswirkungen
auf Kinder und ihre Familien – vor allem auf benachteiligte Kinder – abhängig
von gut ausgebildeten und kompetenten Fachkräften sind. Dabei kann eine
fehlende Ausbildung auf Hochschulniveau teilweise durch Fort- und
© 2014 EECERA
*Corresponding author. Email: jan.peeters@ugent.be
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2014
Vol. 22, No. 3, 412–424, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.912903
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

Weiterbildung von ausreichender Intensität und Dauer kompensiert werden. Dieser
Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über drei qualitative Studien hinsichtlich der
Kompetenzen, die für die frühpädagogische Arbeit mit Kindern und Familien in
Risikolagen erforderlich sind. Im Mittelpunkt dieser drei Studien stehen
frühpädagogische Fachkräfte, die eine aktive Rolle in einem
Veränderungsprozess gespielt haben, der sich auf die Entwicklung eines neuen
pädagogischen Ansatzes in der Arbeit mit Kindern und Eltern aus
benachteiligten Milieus richtet. Die drei Studien stärken auch die Annahme, dass
pädagogische Begleitung über einen längeren Zeitraum – zum Beispiel durch
qualifiziertes Coaching – als erfolgreiche Strategie gesehen werden kann, um
Reflexion und die Konstruktion neues Wissens und neuer Praktiken in der Arbeit
mit Kindern und Familien zu fördern. Schließlich versucht der Beitrag
aufzuzeigen, wie Fort- und Weiterbildung in einer umfassenden Form organisiert
werden kann.
RESUMEN: Existe una evidencia cada vez mayor entre investigadores y
organizaciones internacionales de que la calidad de la Educación y Atención de
la Primera Infancia (EAPI) y en última instancia, los resultados para los niños y
familias – especialmente los más desfavorecidos – dependen de la buena
educación y las competencias del personal, y que la falta de capacitación
superior previa al servicio puede ser compensado en parte por la capacitación en
servicio, siendo proporcionada por intensidad y longitud suficiente. En este
artículo se da una visión general de 3 estudios cualitativos sobre las
competencias necesarias para trabajar en EAPI con niños y familias en situación
de riesgo. Estos 3 estudios se centran en profesionales de EAPI que han
desempeñado un papel activo en un proceso de cambio dirigido a desarrollar un
nuevo enfoque pedagógico en el trabajo con niños y padres desfavorecidos. Los
3 estudios también están fortaleciendo que el apoyo pedagógico, siendo
sostenido durante largos períodos de tiempo y desarrollado por personal
especializado (técnicos pedagógicos), está visto como un medio eficaz para
desarrollar el pensamiento reflexivo sobre la práctica y la construcción de nuevos
conocimientos y la práctica en el trabajo con familias y niños. Para concluir, el
artículo trata de definir cómo la forma de capacitación en servicio se puede
organizar de manera integral.
Keywords: professionalism; early childhood education; diversity; disadvantaged
children; child poverty
Introduction
The European Commission has recommended that Member States ‘reduce inequality at
a young age by investing in early childhood education and care (ECEC)’ and ‘revise
and strengthen the professional profile of all teaching professions and prepare teachers
for social diversity; deploy special cultural mediators and role models to facilitate the
integration of Roma children and children with an immigrant background’ (European
Commission 2013, 2.2).
Through this important recommendation, the Commission strengthens the broad
consensus that already exists among researchers and international organisations
(OECD 2006; UNICEF 2008) that the quality of ECEC and ultimately the outcomes
for children and families – especially for those with disadvantaged background
1
– is
dependent on well-educated, experienced and competent staff (Urban et al. 2012).
As stated in the Handbook of Early Childhood Education (Pianta et al. 2012, 6),
which aims to give an overview of the most effective interventions to include children
in the ECEC sector, ‘early childhood teachers should be well educated and well paid [
… ] Teachers need strong mentoring and supervision to guide their instruction and
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 413
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

interaction with students’. Good workforce preparation is a critical measure to meet the
dual challenge of providing generalised access to ECEC while retaining the quality of
provision. But what does ‘good workforce preparation’ mean, and more specifically,
what makes an early childhood worker competent? For the purposes of this article, it
s important to underline that there is strong evidence to suggest that a lack of pre-
service training can be partly compensated by in-service training sufficient intensity
and length (Fukkink and Lont 2007; Jaegher, Shlay, and Weinraub 2000; Pianta
et al. 2008). Although there is a consensus on the importance of in-service training
for the early years’ workforce, research on the content and format of this in-service
training for practitioners working with children at risk is lacking.
In this article, the following research questions are put forward:
.
What competences do ECEC practitioners and teams need in their daily work
with young children and their parents from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds?
.
What kind of in-service training is needed to support the practitioners who work
with families and children at risk?
In the following pages, an overview is given of three qualitative studies on profession-
alism in the context of diversity (i.e. poor families at risk and families from ethnic min-
ority backgrounds). The first study on professionalism, among practitioners working
with children aged 0- to three-years-old, has been conducted within the Department
of Social Welfare Studies of Ghent University in collaboration with the Centre for Inno-
vation in the Early Years (VBJK) (Peeters, 2008; Peeters and Vandenbroeck, 2011).
The second study among practitioners working with children aged 0- to six–years-
old (DECET and ISSA, 2011) has been coordinated by VBJK, and carried out
within two European networks, Diversity in Early Childhood Education and Training
(DECET) and International Step by Step Association (ISSA).
2
The third study ‘Com-
petences Requirements in ECEC – practitioners working with 0- to three–year-old chil-
dren’ (CoRe) is part of a research commissioned by the European Commission and
realised by the University of Ghent and the University of East London (Urban et al.
2012). The three studies share some common visions and values: a choice for partici-
pative research, the added value of an intensive collaboration between researchers from
universities, ECEC organisations and ECEC networks, which guarantees a strong link
between theory and practice, and a conviction that competence requirements are not the
sole responsibility of the individual, but of what the CoRe research has called a `com-
petent system’ (Urban et al. 2011, 2012).
In referring to these qualitative studies the focus is on the ‘agentic’ practitioners
(i.e. ECEC practitioners engaged in reflective processes, who are searching for better
ways to address the specific needs of children and parents belonging to vulnerable
groups) and on how they succeeded in transforming their practices. As in most quali-
tative researches, the sample of practitioners does not represent the entire population of
ECEC practitioners or those who are ‘average’ practitioners. Instead, they may be
identified as ‘actors of change’ (Urban 2006), as they have played an active role in a
change process aimed at developing a new pedagogical approach to working with chil-
dren and parents from vulnerable groups.
There is a lack of qualitative empiric data about how practitioners and parents in
ECEC initiatives reflect and create meanings. Moreover, there is even a bigger lack
in terms of involving practitioners as ‘subjects’ in this discourse. Involving stake-
holders becomes a priority in order to co-construct knowledge (Tobin, Mantovani,
414 J. Peeters and N. Sharmahd
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

and Bove 2010). Listening to the voice of practitioners is not only a way to understand
the meanings behind what they think and do, it is also a way to link research to reflec-
tion, and thus to transformation. Two movements can take place in this way: the con-
nection between observable behaviour and ideas or representations; and the
involvement of stakeholders as subjects (rather than objects) of research. As involved
subjects, practitioners can think and re-think about their educational experience, and
about their personal and professional story, through research questions and narrative
or visual instruments (Bove 2009; Sharmahd,2011).
The three studies that we are going to present share the use of a participatory meth-
odology by giving voice to the actors involved, with specific connection to action
research (Pourtois 1990). For each study, the practitioners involved have taken part
in an active way, and have been informed of each step of the research.
Research 1: A study of practitioners’ narratives: the ‘Construction of a new
profession’ research
VBJK, the research centre on ECEC within the Ghent University, set up different action
research projects inspired by both the social constructivism concept of the teacher as
researcher (Mantovani and Gattico1998; Stenhouse 1975) and the Freirian notion of
‘cultural action’ (Freire 1970). One of the guiding principles of the action research con-
ducted by the VBJK is the use of documentation (Dahlberg and Moss 2005; Picchio
et al. 2012; Rinaldi 2005). Since the first project in 1979, all action research projects
(11 in total) have been documented by ‘little narratives’ (Lyotard 1979)ofECEC
practitioners involved in a process of change: video and written interviews with
practitioners compiled in journals and book chapters. Since 1994, the VBJK has
been actively involved in four European projects focused on working within the
context of diversity (families living in poverty and with an ethnic minority back-
ground). In 2008, a PhD study on professionalism in childcare analysed a selection
of these ‘little narratives’ (Peeters 2008). The selected fragments focused mainly on
the way childcare practitioners, parents, researchers, coordinators interpreted the
work of the ‘agentic’ practitioner from the 1970s to today. In total, 30 videos,
181 articles and three books were analysed featuring 146 practitioners, 39 parents,
37 researchers, 17 policymakers, 10 directors, and seven children.
An analysis of the narratives shows that, within the projects, discussions on respect
for diversity and inclusion in the 1990s played a crucial role in changing practitioners’
concepts and understandings of the early childhood profession. ‘The narratives suggest
that, when addressing diversity and poverty, the early years practitioners are facing
complex problems which cannot be solved solely with a technical body of knowledge.
They require a different interpretation of professionalism, grounded in continuous
reflection on practices, but also moving beyond reflection towards developing the
ability to be reflective’ (Peeters and Vandenbroeck 2011
, 69).
The study revealed that pedagogical counsellors/coaches, working inside a service
for young children or in a specialised coaching centre, can play an important role in the
construction of new pedagogical knowledge by supporting practitioners in reflecting on
their practices. Pedagogical coaches can stimulate ECEC practitioners in ‘discovering
what is possible’ (Dalli 2008, 17) by trying to look at concrete situations from different
perspectives (Catarsi 2011; Musatti and Mayer 2003). Thus, pedagogical coaches
become ‘guiding facilitators’ supporting practitioners in addressing diversity by
encouraging diversity within their own team as well as by providing different points
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 415
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

of view, different stories, different implicit/explicit ideas. The same approach is also
highlighted in the recent international Methodology Guide (ERATO 2011), which
also underlines the role of pedagogical documentation within the ’reflection process’.
By facilitating communication amongst actors, as well as with colleagues from other
services, pedagogical documentation favours the development of a real intersubjectiv-
ity (an exchange of perspectives amongst the actors involved). This exchange gives
voice to the diversity within the group and becomes the basis to co-construct meanings.
Documentation can be seen as both an individual and a group knowledge-building
process, which enables those involved to reduce their intellectual ego-centricity.
Observing and documenting are not just ‘tools’; they are in fact ‘a way of living, think-
ing, doing’, ‘a habitus’ (Galardini 2003), a way to listen and give voice, thus a way to
express and build democracy (Malavasi and Zoccatelli 2012; Reggio Children 2009;
Rinaldi 2009; Tognetti 2003).
Furthermore, the study of the narratives of the Flemish actors of change showed that
it is important that childcare practitioners are given sufficient autonomy by the pedago-
gical coaches, meaning practitioners must remain the main ‘actors of change’. In this
sense, ‘a close and open collaboration between pedagogical coaches and practitioners,
blurring the boundaries between both, is crucial’ (Peeters and Vandenbroeck 2011, 70).
The role of the coach and the practitioner stays different, but the knowledge and experi-
ences of practitioners are valorised and connected with those provided by the pedago-
gical coaches. Starting from practices, practitioners can reflect on these in group,
thereby creating a circular process between theory and practice (Bove 2009).
Due to societal changes, it is impossible today to define a single model of ‘the
family’,of’the child’,of‘the childcare service’ (Jésu 2010; Jubete 2002). However,
it becomes urgent to reflect on these concepts and to deconstruct their meanings, in
order to rediscover them in a negotiating process (Mortari 2009; Pourtois and
Desmet 2004). The international research Children Crossing Borders (Tobin,
Mantovani, and Bove 2010) shows that ECEC services are places where ‘implicit’
ideas about what education is are exchanged. These
‘taken for granted’ concepts
need to be questioned and discussed by ‘reflective practitioners’ (Schön 1983) within
a context that helps them to negotiate and deal with uncertainty.
Literature that unveils the meaning of reflective professionalism in working with
children and parents at risk is rather scarce, and the voice of practitioners referring to
what kind of professionalism is needed when working with families at risk is often
missing. The analysis of the narratives of the actors of change in Flemish childcare
services shows that by being part of innovative projects that aim to tackle disadvantage,
professionals felt encouraged to strongly consider and include parental opinions and
views in their discourse. The same analysis also showed that the ‘agentic’ childcare
practitioner gradually conceptualised the child’s education as a shared responsibility
between the parents and the childcare practitioner. In addition, they confronted ques-
tions of inclusion and exclusion and challenged the traditional power relations.
These projects questioned taken-for granted opinions in a profound way and invited
professionals not only to think about ‘doing things right’ but also about ‘doing the
right things’ (Coussée et al. 2008).
Competences to work with families and children at risk
In a provisional attempt to further unravel and concretise the concept of reflective pro-
fessionalism, working with children and families at risk requires four categories of
416 J. Peeters and N. Sharmahd
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

basic and generic competences (Peeters 2008, 248–255; Peeters and Vandenbroeck
2011, 63):
(1) The ability to look for solutions in contexts of disagreement. ECEC practitioners
who work with families from vulnerable groups need to have the ability to
discuss intensively in teams and confront different opinions on which concrete
decisions can be taken and put into practice.
(2) To focus on meeting with the Other, the one we do not know.ECEC
practitioners should try to understand the child and parent who is ‘different’.
This is a basic competence, especially when working in ECEC services with
poor parents and children at risk (Dahlberg and Moss 2005).
(3) The ability to co-construct knowledge with others (colleagues, parents,
children). The ECEC practitioners who work with children at risk must have
the competence to construct new practical knowledge, as well as new
ways of working with children, parents and colleagues in collaboration with
the pedagogical counsellor.
(4) Acting with a focus on social change. ‘Actors of change’ should develop
competences that help them discover what is possible in working with children
and parents at risk, and to change the pedagogical practice aimed at providing
children with more opportunities for development and learning.
Research 2: A survey among practitioners in 10 countries: ‘Diversity and Social
Inclusion, Exploring Competences for Professional practice in ECEC’
The researchers involved in the work pack on professionalism from DECET-ISSA
(Diversity and Social Inclusion, Exploring Competences for Professional practice in
ECEC) embraced an approach similar to the ‘Construction of a new profession’
study in Flanders. A survey was conducted among practitioners working with children
aged 0 to six in Belgium, England, France, Ireland, Mexico, Morocco, Scotland, Serbia,
Spain and the Netherlands. In each of these countries five ‘actors of social change’,who
were seen as successful in dealing with children and families at risk by the ISSA or
DECET staff of that specific country, were interviewed in a semi-structural way, fol-
lowing a specific grid. What was interesting in this survey was that regardless of the
differences in working conditions, contexts and qualifications, the actors of change out-
lined the following ten fundamental and essential competences for ECEC practitioners
in addressing equality, diversity and poverty issues (DECET and ISSA 2011):
.
Willing to accept diversity in society and respecting other ways of being;
.
Being non-judgmental;
.
Having an open mind;
.
Having empathy and understanding;
.
Showing flexibility and adaptability;
.
Being sensitive (aware of children’s and parents’ needs) and responsive (act on
awareness);
.
Supporting a sense of belonging;
.
Having enthusiasm: being engaged and motivated;
.
Being creative in order to find alternative solutions and approaches;
.
Showing warmth and being loving.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 417
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

The interviewed practitioners seemed to focus on conceptual and attitudinal qual-
ities rather than on practical skills, which is in line with previous researches (Moss
2008; Peeters and Vandenbroeck 2011; Urban 2008): a practitioner working with
families and children at risk needs to have generic broad competences, but also special-
ist knowledge. DECET and ISSA researchers, with the coordination of the VBJK, have
tried to summarise the above list of 10 competences into five broad competences, which
can inspire practitioners that work in this field:
(1) Working towards social change;
(2) Open communication;
(3) Critical reflection: exploring complex issues from various angles;
(4) Learning from disagreement;
(5) Co-constructing new practice and knowledge with children, parents and
colleagues.
However, the researchers warn that this is not a standard list of competences that prac-
titioners need to possess for promoting and providing inclusive environments and prac-
tices. For the DECET and ISSA researchers the list of five competences should be used
for critical discussions and reflections in order to challenge and change pedagogical
practice.
Research 3: in which context do practitioners learn about poverty and
inclusion? ‘CoRe case study of Ghent’ (Directorate General for Education and
Culture [DG EAC])
The CoRe research (2009–2011), conducted jointly by the School of Education of the
University of East London and the Department of Social Welfare Studies of Ghent Uni-
versity, explored the competences and professionalism in early childhood practices.
The research included a comprehensive literature review, a survey among experts in
15 countries and seven in-depth case studies. In the Ghent case study, the researchers
were interested in which contexts and circumstances practitioners with a rather low qua-
lification (secondary vocational education) in early years services from disadvantaged
neighbourhoods acquired competences during their career (Peeters and Brandt 2011).
The research question of this case study was defined as follows: ‘Through what kind
of in-service training and pedagogical coaching can individuals and teams increase
their competences to work with families and children at risk?’ The perspective of the
professional is central in this case study and a diverse group of practitioners was inter-
viewed (i.e. coordinators, practitioners from diverse ethnic backgrounds, experienced
and less experienced practitioners). The selected ECEC institutions were services
which are perceived by the Pedagogical Guidance Centre as providing high quality pro-
vision for families from disadvantaged backgrounds. The case study started by explor-
ing the history of pedagogical coaching and of the system of professional development
of childcare services in the city of Ghent since 1979. Following this, a focus group with
four coordinators was set up to study professional development policies at an insti-
tutional level. There were then nine biographical interviews with actors of change
from three different ECEC services. In these last interviews, the researcher focused
on the following question: ‘where did you acquire the competences for working with
ethnic minority, disadvantaged and poor families?’ After one month the researcher con-
ducted a thematic interview with the same nine practitioners. In this interview, four core
418 J. Peeters and N. Sharmahd
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

themes that had become apparent from the biographical interviews were discussed: how
did the vision of the practitioner about working with the parents evolve? What was the
impact of working with children at risk on their interpretation of professionalism? What
did they learn at school and what in practice? Where did they learn the openness
towards other visions and values? In total, more than 16 hours of interviews and
focus groups were transcribed. The last phase of the research consisted of contextualis-
ing the data with the coordinators of the ECEC services, and with the coordinator of the
Pedagogical Guidance Centre who is responsible for the professional development of
childcare practitioners in the city of Ghent.
Pedagogical coaching and the ECEC institution as a learning community
The case study of the city of Ghent showed interesting findings about what kind of in-
service training is needed to support practitioners with rather low qualifications who
work with families at risk. Firstly, an equal and reciprocal relation between theory
and practice in all in-service training is essential in order to facilitate reflection on
working with poor and migrant parents and their children, and to develop new
ECEC practices.
The researchers also concluded that experienced childcare practitioners had reached
a high level of professionalism, and had an open approach towards poor and disadvan-
taged parents. The difference between the broad vision of their profession, held by
experienced practitioners, and the narrower technical interpretation held by less experi-
enced practitioners (with the same rather low qualification), can possibly be explained
as the effect of the long-term pedagogical coaching of childcare practitioners by the
Pedagogical Guidance Centre of the city of Ghent over the course of the last 30
years. In this sense, a continuous investment in a coherent and diversified policy
towards professional development, organised by specialised staff (pedagogical
coaches) over long periods of time, has been identified by the researchers as one of
the key success factors for staff’s professional development within ECEC services.
The research shows that it is important that coaching is implemented in such a way
that members of staff have ownership over changes. The CoRe study, while discussing
in detail the critical success factors for competence development at an individual, team
and institutional level, also identifies some key challenges. In fact, if positive effects on
the competences of practitioners are the result of long-term investment by the Pedago-
gical Guidance Service in a coherent approach towards professional development, the
challenge will be to use a system of pedagogical advice in contexts that lack a long-term
investment in this area.
Overall, this case study suggests that in order to enhance practitioners’ competences
to work with families and children at risk at the individual and team level, a learning
community (Wenger 1998) should be created within ECEC institutions. Such a learning
community should be sustained by:
.
a common culture inside the ECEC services that is underpinned by:
– a common vision (an inspiring pedagogical framework);
– a system of ethical values when working with parents, children and
neighbourhoods;
– a strong commitment towards each child and parent;
– an openness to dialogue with parents, children and colleagues.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 419
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

.
a vision of learning starting from practice that creates opportunities for peer
coaching (learning from other practitioners), takes into account intergenerational
exchange of knowledge and competences (experienced and less experienced
practitioners learn from each other) and is focused on team learning.
In line with the other case studies of the CoRe research, the results of this case study
indicate the importance of a competent system for working with families and children
from vulnerable groups. As Peter Moss (2012) states, ‘a competent system is not poss-
ible if only one story is listened to’. In a competent system this ‘diversity of stories’
needs to be supported by pedagogical coaches who can guide the reflection process
by valorising intersubjectivity.
‘This conceptualisation extends the traditional understanding of competence as an
individual property to the institutional and governance domain. Hence, our understand-
ing of competence moves beyond the acquisition of knowledge and training of skills to
embrace reflectiveness as its core’ (Urban et al. 2012, 516). On the team level, meetings
have to be organised on a regular basis during child-free hours. In these meetings a
pedagogical coach or mentor supports the team in reflecting critically on practices,
and in developing new pedagogical knowledge and practices. On the inter-agency
level (e.g. local government or large ECEC institutions) supervision should be supplied
for directors, and start courses should be organised for new practitioners of services that
work around inclusion are organised. On this level the exchange of interesting practices
and peer group discussions on common themes such as poverty and inclusion should be
organised, as do peer groups on common themes around poverty and inclusion.
Resource and guidance centres can play an important role in identifying the pro-
fessional development needs of practitioners in the institutions and in developing a
coherent in-service offer for the ECEC institutions situated in disadvantage
neighbourhoods.
On the level of the governance, standards on accessibility and equal opportunities
need to be developed and financial resources for mentoring and professional develop-
ment to be provided. In addition, the government has to assure special training paths
that allow low qualified practitioners in certain target groups to become qualified.
Pedagogical coaching in practice: Wanda
The results of the three studies highlight the need for methods that could inspire ped-
agogical coaches in their work. Therefore the VBJK and the Artevelde University
College of Ghent have set up a project, financed by the European Social Fund, to
develop Wanda, a method rooted in the French Analyse de Pratiques (Favre 2004;
Sellenet 2004) and in the Anglo-Saxon Appreciative Inquiry Method (Cooperrider
2003),
3
which aims to support reflection in ECEC services under the guidance of a
facilitator (Van Laere et al. 2012). Over the course of two years (2010–2012), a
mixed group of 15 centres (childcare centres, family day-care services, out-of-school
services) experimented with this method, and four training centres used it in the men-
toring of students. Through critical reflection on pedagogical practice, Wanda helps
practitioners develop new forms of learning and construct innovative practice. By ana-
lysing concrete situations with respect towards all the actors involved, this method sup-
ports practitioners in working on concepts such as inclusion or diversity, and thus
becomes a way to build new practices also regarding children and families at risk.
The evaluation of the Wanda project showed that this method of coaching can be
420 J. Peeters and N. Sharmahd
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

effective in stimulating a dynamic relationship between theory and practice, and in
facilitating the reflective thinking of practitioners, even when the initial qualification
was low. Through Wanda competences on an individual, team and institutional level
can be increased, thereby supporting the concept of a ‘competent system’ as described
by the CoRe research (Urban et al. 2011). The Wanda project was awarded by the Euro-
pean Social Fund; this made it possible to start an international project in partnership
with ISSA, aimed at experimenting and adapting Wanda to the ECEC sector of four
European countries within the ISSA network.
Discussion
The three different studies highlighted in this article all give voice to the practitioner
who is an important ‘actor of social change’, when working successfully with children
and families at risk. The fact that the three studies have been realised by different
research and with different instruments, should be taken into account when reading
the results, and we should be careful in generalising conclusions. At the same time,
one should notice that the researchers of the three studies have exchanged and discussed
these results. Moreover, as underlined in the introduction, they share the broader meth-
odological framework, which belongs to the field of participatory research.
Considering our first research question: ‘What competences do practitioners and
teams need in their daily work with young children and their parents from poor and dis-
advantaged background?’, from the analysis of the narratives of the actors of change in
the different studies, we can answer that competences cannot simply be understood as
an individual responsibility of the ECEC practitioner. On the individual and team level
the following broad competences are needed when working with ethnic minority
families, poor families and children at risk:
.
Openness to dialogue with parents, colleagues and children on the basis of
reciprocity;
.
An engagement and ability to work towards social change;
.
The ability to reflect critically on the own pedagogical practice and that of the
team and the institution;
.
The ability to create new pedagogical knowledge and practice.
Regarding the second research question: ‘What kind of in-service support is needed to
support the practitioners who work with families and children at risk?’, the importance
of pedagogical coaching is stressed. Pedagogical support being sustained over long
periods of time and developed by specialised staff (pedagogical coaches) is seen as a
successful tool to develop reflective thinking on practices and to construct new knowl-
edge and practice in working with inclusion. This is also confirmed by a quantitative
study of Leseman and Slot (2011), where it is stressed that investing in building
team competences via coaches could support quality regulation at the team and
institution level. ‘Providing professional development activities at the centre is associ-
ated with higher process quality, which is consistent with other studies in ECEC and
with research on concepts of professional development such as reflective practice
and team learning’ (Slot et al. in press). However, it is obvious that we need further
research on the effect of different kinds of coaching on the process quality of ECEC
services.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 421
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

From the CoRe study, and the case study from Ghent in particular, we can learn how
an in-service training can be organised in a comprehensive way. Being competent in
working with children and families at risk is not an individual responsibility, the
CoRe case studies show that we need competent systems, with governance level finan-
cing and expertise to take in charge important measures, such as child free hours, and
effective access policies and funding for in-service training and coaching at both inter-
agency and team levels. These measures and methods are addressed to raise the quality
of ECEC for all children and families; however, since they support reflection and
investment in diversity and inclusion, they become particularly important in working
with children and families from vulnerable groups.
Notes
1. In this article, the expressions ‘from a disadvantaged background’, ‘at risk’ and ‘from vul-
nerable groups’, refer to children and fami lies that are at risk of being excluded by society.
Being poor or coming from an ethnic minority background can be conditions that raise this
risk in Wes tern societies, so these can be taken into account as social is sues rathe r than as an
individual responsibility. It is not the condition itself that we consider ‘at risk’ (as coming
from an ethnic minority background can also be considered as a strength), but the condition
within a certain model of society.
2. For more information: www.decet.org; www.issa.nl.
3. Analyse de pratiques originated in France in the 1969s on the incentive of Michael Balint.
This English-Hungarian psychoanalyst analysed medical practices together with a gr oup of
doctors, since a disease is not always simply cured by a proposed treatment. This way of
working later found its way into the broader social sector and came to be utilized from a
systemic perspective (Favre, 2004; Sellenet, 2004).Appreciative inquiry was developed in
the US in the mid-80s by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivasva. They found that the
focus on successful experiences yields more and leads more quickly to effective changes
than problem-oriented strategies (Cooperrider, 2003).
References
Bove, C. 2009. Ricerca educativa e formazione. Contaminazioni metodologiche. Milano:
Franco Angeli.
Catarsi, E. 2011. Coordinamento pedagogico e servizi per l’infanzia. Bergamo: Spaggiari.
Cooperrider, D. 2003. Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Brunswick: Crown Custom Publishing.
Coussée, F., L. Bradt, R. Roose, and M. Bouverne-De Bie. 2008. “The Emerging Social
Pedagogical Paradigm in UK Child and Youth Care: Deus ex machina or Wal king the
beaten Path?.” British Journal of Social Work 39 (1): 1–17.
Dahlberg, G., and P. Moss. 2005. Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education. London:
Routledge.
Dalli, C. 2008. “Early Childhood Teachers in New Zealand.” Children in Europe 15 (2): 16–17.
DECET, and ISSA. 2011. Diversity and Social Inclusion. Exploring Competences for
Professional Practice in ECEC. Brussels & Budapest: Colette Murray, Siobhan Dignan.
Accessed November, 2013. http://www .decet.org/fileadmin/decet-media/publications/
Diversity-and-Social Inclusion.pdf
ERATO. 2011. Guida Metodologica. Accogliere la diversità nei servizi educativi per l’infanzia
(0–6 anni). Analizzare, valutare, innovare , Coordinated by EADAP, with the support of
Bernard Van Leer Foundation. Parma: Spaggiari.
European Commission. 2013. Commission Recommendation. Investing in Children: Breaking
the Cycle of Disadvantage. Brussels: European Commission.
Favre, D. 2004. “Quelques réflexions de formateur sur l’analyse des pratiques professionelles en
secteur petite enfance.” In Professionnel(le)s de la petite enfance et analyse de pratiques,
edited by D. Fablet, 39 –66. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
422 J. Peeters and N. Sharmahd
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

Fukkink, R. G., and A. Lont. 2007. “Does Training Matter? A Meta-Analysis and Review of
Caregiver Training Studies.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22: 294–311.
Galardini, A. L., Ed. 2003. Crescere al nido. Gli spazi, i tempi, le attività le relazioni. Roma:
Carocci.
Jaegher, E. A., A. Shlay, and M. Weinraub. 2000. “Child Care Improvement on a Shoestring:
Evaluating a Low-Cost Approach to Improving the Availability of Quality Care.”
Evaluation Review 24 (5): 484–515.
Jésu, F. 2010. “Principes et enjeux démocratiques de la coéducation: l’exemple de l’accueil de la
pétite enfance et notamnent des conseils de crèche.” In Parents-professionnels: la
coéducation en questions, edited by S. Rayna, M. N. Rubio, and H. Scheu, 37–48.
Toulouse: Erès.
Jubete, M. 2002. “Democrazia e partecipazione in Spagna.” Bambini in Europa 2 (2): 8–12.
Leseman, P., and P. Slot. 2011. “Increasing Team Competence in Examining Practice
Critically.” Children in Europe 21 (10): 10–11.
Lyotard, F. 1979. La Condition Post-Moderne. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Malavasi, L., and B. Zoccatelli. 2012. Documentare le progettualità nei servizi e nelle scuole
per l’infanzia. Bergamo: Junior.
Mantovani, S., and E. Gattico, Eds. 1998. La ricerca sul campo in educazione. I metodi quali-
tativi. Milano: Mondadori.
Mortari, L. 2009. La ricerca per i bambini. Milano: Mondadori.
Moss, P. 2008. “The Democratic and Reflective Professional: Rethinking and Reforming the
Early Years Workforce.” In Professionalism in the Early Years, edited by L. Miller and
C. Cable, 121–130. Abingdon: Hodder Education.
Moss, P. 2012. Experimenters, Critical Thinkers and Democrats: The Role of Educators in a
World of Conflicting Alternatives. Opatija: Keynote International Congress ISSA-
DECET. Accessed September, 2013. http://issa-decet2012.com.h r/followup.php
Musatti, T., and S. Mayer. 2003. Coordinamento dei servizi educativi per l’infanzia. Una
funzione emergente in Italia e in Europa. Bergamo: Junior.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. Starting Strong II: Early
Childhood Education and Care
. Paris: OECD.
Peeters, J. 2008. De warme professional. Begeleid(st)ers kinderopvang construeren professio-
naliteit. Ghent: Academia Press.
Peeters, J., and S. Brandt. 2011. CoRe Study: Case Study of the City of Ghent. Commissioned
by the European Commission. Unpublished report. Ghent University, Belgium.
Peeters, J., and M. Vandenbroeck. 2011. “Child Care Practitioners and the Process of
Professionalization.” In Professionalization and Management in the Early Years, edited
by L. Miller and C. Cable, 62–74. London: Sage.
Pianta, R. C., A. J. Mashburn, J. T. Downer, B. K. Hamre, and L. Jus tice. 2008. “Effects of
Web-Mediated Professional Development Resources on Teacher-Child Interaction in
Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (4): 431–451.
Pianta, R. C., W. Steven Barnett, L. M. Justice, and S. M. Sheridan, Eds. 2012. Hand book of
Early Childhood Education. New York: The Guilford Press.
Picchio, M., D. Giovannini, S. Mayer, and T. Musatti. 2012. “Documentation and Analysis of
Children’s Experience: An Ongoing Collegial Activity for Early Childhood Professionals.”
Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development 32 (2): 159–170.
Pourtois, J. P. 1990. “La ricerca-azione in pedagogia.” In Manuale critico della sperimentazione
e della ricerca educativa, edited by E. Becchi and B. Vertecchi, 134–155. Milano: Franco
Angeli.
Pourtois, J. P., and H. Desmet. 2004. L’éducation implicite. Paris: PUF.
Reggio Children. 2009. Project Zero. Rendere visibile l’apprendimento. Bambini che appren-
dono individualmente e in gruppo. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Rinaldi, C. 2005. In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. London: Routledge Farmer.
Rinaldi, C. 2009. “Documentazione e valutazione: quale relazione?.” In Project Zero. Rendere
visibile l’apprendimento. Bambi ni che apprendono individualmente e in gruppo, edited by
Reggio Children, 76–86. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner . How Professionals Think in Action. London:
Temple Smith.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 423
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014

Sellenet, C. 2004. “Former les professionnels de la petite enfanc e à l’observation.”
In Professionnel(le)s de la petite enfance et analyse de pratiques, edited by D. Fablet,
17–39. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Sharmahd, N. (2011). Ricerca educativa e servizi per l ’infanzia. Bergamo: Junior.
Slot, P., P. Leseman, J. Verhagen, and H. Mulder, in press. Associations between structural and
process quality in Dutch ECEC. Manuscript submitted to Early Childhood Research
Quarterly.
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London:
Heinemann.
Tobin, J. J., S. Mantovani, and C. Bove. 2010. “Methodological Issues in Video-Based Research
on Immigrant Children and Parents in Early Childhood Settings.” In Phenomenology and
Human Scienc e Research Today, edited by L. Mortari, 204–225. Bucharest: Zeta Books.
Tognetti, G., Ed. 2003. Creare esperienze insieme ai bambini. La document azione delle esper-
ienze dei bambini al nido. Bergamo: Junior.
Unicef Innocenti Research Centre. 2008. Report Card 8. The Child Care Transition. Florence:
Unicef.
Urban, M. 2006. Strategies for change. Gesellschafts und fachpolitische Strategien zur Reform
des Systems frühkindlicher Bildung. Halle: Bertelsmans Stiftung.
Urban, M. 2008. “Dealing with Uncertainty. Challenges and Possibilities for the Early
Childhood Profession.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 16: 135–
152.
Urban, M., M. Vandenbroeck, J. Peeters, A. Lazzari, and K. Van Laere. 2011. Competence
Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care. CoRe Research Documents.
Brussels: European Commission.
Urban, M., M. Vandenbroeck, K. Van Laere, A. Lazzari, and J. Peeters. 2012. “Towards
Competent Systems in Early Childhood Education and Care: Implications for Policy and
Practice.” European Journal of Education 47 (4): 508–526.
Van Laere, K., B. Devos, B. De Schepper, and E. Rutgeerts, Eds. 2012. Wa=Wanda? Gent:
VBJK, Artevelde Hogeschool, ESF.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Prac tice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
424 J. Peeters and N. Sharmahd
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 06:50 07 July 2014