Practices that support the development of secure relationships in ECEC settings

With an increased use of ECEC in Australia, there are implications for education and care settings when considering how to support infants and toddlers to develop secure relationships with educators. R. Bowlby (2007) recommends that to facilitate the development of

secondary attachments within ECEC, children must receive personalised continuity of care that stretches over several years. He proposes a model outlining guidelines for attachment-based education and care, including only accepting babies nine months and older, reducing educator- to-child ratios and supporting educators to maintain relationships.

2.10.1 Primary caregiving / key worker / key educator approach

The EYLF defines curriculum as “all the interactions, experiences, routines and events, planned and unplanned, that occur in an environment designed to foster children’s learning and development” (DEEWR, 2009, p. 9). The literature suggests that some aspects of the

curriculum have higher value than others to educators. Fewster (2010) argues that while up to 80% of an infant/toddler’s day consists of routines and transition times, these times are not as highly valued as other experiences within the curriculum. Degotardi (2010) also considers routines less valued than other experiences within the curriculum, suggesting that educators are more focused on complying with procedures than ensuring interactions are sensitive and engaging. Lately however, a relationships-based approach to curriculum known as primary caregiving is of growing interest to settings in Western Australia, and already popular in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The approach places high value on caregiving practices and rituals, such as nappy changing and feeding, proposing that these moments help

infants/toddlers understand that they are worthy of love. The original version of the New Zealand early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996), defines primary caregiving as:

A staffing arrangement, particularly suitable for infants and toddlers, in which one staff member has primary responsibility for a small group of children. The rationale for primary caregiving is that it facilitates the attachment of very young children to one adult. (p. 99)

18

Lee (2016) describes how in a primary caregiving system, each child is assigned an educator who maintains responsibility for the child’s needs throughout the day and provides “the ‘secure base’ for the child within the centre” (Colmer et al., 2011, p. 18). As the relationship develops, the child becomes confident in exploring the environment and developing additional relationships. The social experiences that children are exposed to in the early years are considered contributing factors relating to their IWM of their selves and others (Lee, 2016). Colmer et al. (2011) advocates for a primary caregiving system that promotes the ability for children and educators to develop secure relationships through the involvement of activities relevant to the individual child, enabling the child to feel more secure in the setting. The system recognises that primary caregivers cannot always be present, however, fostering a secure relationship supports children to feel safe in their caregiver’s absence as they have already been supported to feel secure in the environment. The English early learning

framework, the Early Years Foundation Stage, describes a similar system to primary caregiving, mandating that all children must have a ‘key worker’ up to the age of five. The key worker’s role is to “help ensure that every child’s care is tailored to meet their individual needs … offer a settled relationship for the child and build a relationship with their parents” (Department for Education, 2014, p. 21).

In 2013, the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health (AAIMH) published a position statement on non-familial care for young children. Significantly, they identified primary caregiving as a key feature of high-quality ECEC for infants and toddlers. They concluded that educators are considered attachment figures for children in education and care settings in the absence of their parents, however, the type of attachment relationship is perceived as

different to that of a child and their primary attachment figure. While it is common for educators to describe their relationship with young children using the term ‘love’, there has been scant use of this term in the literature. In recent years, however, an increasing number of researchers have begun to acknowledge this special relationship and use the word ‘love’ in its description. Recchia, Shin and Snaider (2018) argue that the term ‘love’ has been replaced with more scientific terms including attachment by researchers. In their study with student educators and infant/toddlers, they investigated the conditions in which a loving relationship was developed, and concluded that it was through routine caregiving moments, such as nappy changing and feeding, that this love relationship developed. They additionally proposed that the process of concentrating on a key or focus child provided the educator with the

opportunity to acquaint themselves with the child on a deeper level as an individual and invest in the relationship.

19

Page (2017) coined the term ‘professional love’ to describe this authentic and close

relationship between educators and infant-toddlers, which has the permission of the child’s parents, considering this type of relationship a ‘professional attachment relationship’ where educators have increased self-awareness of their own feelings to support children’s needs. However, Rolfe (2004) proposes that the formation of quality relationships can be hindered by an educator’s attachment experiences from their childhood. Their sensitivity towards infants will affect the development of a bond (Meins, 1999) and educators must be able to

emotionally commit to the relationship, otherwise this bond may not develop (R. Bowlby, 2007).