How educators are supported in their understanding of attachment theory

Educators discussed the various ways in which they can access further information relating to the development of attachment relationships and attachment theory.

Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF)

Educators were asked whether they felt that the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) supported their understanding of attachment relationships. Emily initially stated that she believed that the EYLF supported her understanding of attachment relationships, but after further reflection, changed her mind and concluded that it did not:

“I think … yes, it does … but. It is one’s own personal knowledge that actually defines it and what we have been taught through development which I don’t believe that all students are actually taught through development units – about attachment and all the theorists, not enough work is done cos, for infants especially that’s where it starts. All children, it is a very big part, so no I do not think it does.”

When probed further as to how she felt it covered attachment relationships, Emily suggested that the EYLF was “very broad. Very broad. It’s not about the intricate stuff about forming those relationships with parents. Having the knowledge of, almost common sense, being taught.” Amelia was unsure if it supported her understanding of attachment relationships, commenting “it’s not very clear, to be honest. But I think they say the first outcome is that children have strong sense of identity. It mentions the relationship … but not very strong.” Layla believed that the EYLF had "a lot of information”, adding “here’s our EYLF book. It’s all there. And also, too with the principles and practices come in too, in line with that.” Hannah was unsure at first but after further reflection decided that it did support her understanding of attachment relationships:

“I guess so? I don’t really – yeah! I guess it does. I like the new framework. It isn’t new anymore but it’s definitely better than the last one. And yes, I think – is that like the Being, Belonging and Becoming? I think those three are definitely the main focus I even like preach that at my friends that are parents that this is what needs to happen. No, I do, it’s very good.”

Jane gave practical examples of how the EYLF supported her understanding of attachment relationships, specifying that “in our physical environment, curriculum planning, and programming and practice, we are told children’s rights … We respect child’s background, culture … sometimes we might include our children’s community as well. Ask for their cultural information.” Layla immediately agreed that it did support her understanding, stating that “it’s all there”. Raj believed that it did support her understanding but also voiced that she believed that there was capacity to create a separate area that focuses on attachment:

94

“In one way yes. I think in the being, becoming belonging module, definitely. Ok, we take that model, it definitely does talk to me, it can be interpreted and looked at in terms of attachment because it does look at relationship building, it looks at the importance of a child’s culture, and it looks at the importance of the whole macro and micro system. So, I think that’s really valuable … There are other areas where I think you probably need to look a little bit closer at babies and toddlers. But … I think in the being becoming model I think it definitely does link towards that and as our

relationships are core. And the other thing I think it’s probably quite good at is some of the principles and practices – our partnerships with our parents, our respect for

diversity. So, I say yes, it does address it in those areas. I’d like to see it even more so, I would probably like to see it as its own separate area. Because I think it’s a beginning, you know … I think we’re already talked for a long time about the significance of the early years and early brain development, I think probably I would like to see a bit more of that in the document.”

National Quality Standard (NQS)

Educators were asked if they believed that the NQS (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2013) supports their understanding of attachment relationships. A variety of responses were elicited, with some more political than others. Emily proposed that the NQS takes away from opportunities to ‘be’ with children, arguing:

“I’ve just been in the industry for so long. The relationships that you form with the parents, you become, sometimes you might be the first person that’s actually ever, ever looked after their child. Which is a big thing. And you are bound by all the ethics, all of the everything being having to be documented. And it’s taking away from the child. Letting them be themselves. You know, oh you need to work on this because we need that, to be ticked off the box for you. I personally feel nowadays in the National Quality Standards it’s more for legal aspects. It’s not about the care anymore, the children, and the more paperwork that they make us provide, it actually takes away from the children.”

Layla believed that the NQS supported her understanding of attachment relationships, explaining how “in our physical environment curriculum planning and programming and practice, we are told children’s rights … we respect child’s background, culture, we … might include our children’s community as well. Ask for their cultural information.” When considering relationships with children, Raj thought that the NQS “definitely focuses on how crucial that is. It talks about in terms of individuality of children with our program processes and that. And partnerships with our families.” Amelia thought that the NQS did “mention” relationships with children and developing partnerships and communication with families but added that this was her “daily job”, believing that this was “not enough. We need to understand more, to do more.”

95

Reflect, Respect, Relate

Five of the six educators who participated in the interviews had not heard of Reflect, Respect, Relate (DECS, 2008). Once she received the interview questions from the researcher, Jane conducted her own personal research into this resource and concluded that “They support educators how to reflect on practice and reflect on how engage with children’s relationships. This is very important. But I haven’t got the real copy of that document yet.” Raj was aware of the resource but stated that “we’d like to be able to break it down I guess you could say cos it’s quite a big document.” She believed that Reflect, Respect, Relate was helpful to use:

“a tool to look at the practices of your educators and I don’t know if we have had a tool before that lets us to look at our practices, and to actually see quite specifically where we can actually improve the quality of it. So, I think it is a very good diagnostic tool in terms of that. And now that one thing which it have grown from the quality system and what we have learned about critical reflection, so I think it’s gonna work hand in hand with our critical reflection.”

Participation in professional development relating to attachment theory

Educators were asked about whether they had access to professional development relating to attachment theory. While some stated that they had participated in professional development that had mentioned attachment theory, Hannah disclosed that “it wasn’t all attachment theory, but attachment theory was covered I think in one”. Raj had attended “RIE training”, which was an information evening hosted by a local service, however, none of the educators were aware of any professional development specifically focusing on attachment theory in Perth.

All educators stated an interest in learning more about attachment theory, and Raj voiced her disappointment that:

“most of the training is Sydney/Melbourne based, and a lot of the stuff I have looked at is very much eastern states … we need a lot more. A lot more to be actually based this side here. We are very limited with training in our state.”

Hannah expressed that she enjoyed attending professional development, reflecting that “there’s always room for improvement”. She shared that she would like to engage in additional professional development to “better, explain myself as to – I guess I can’t explain myself so well because maybe I don’t have a firm understanding as to why I do things, I just know I do them”. Emily believed that there was always a capacity to learn something new from professional development such as different techniques and strategies to improve practice and support educators to create a “calming environment”. She also believed that professional development would have a subsequent effect on educators’ stress levels, adding “even for

96

yourself it’s stress management, to make a calmer you. Not to take things on board.” Amelia expressed a desire to learn more about attachment theory, to support challenging behaviours, explaining “I really want to know about attachment theory, I want to learn more than handle with like challenging behaviour? ... Once you build good relationships it will be easier to handle challenging behaviour but have lots of things to learn.”