Supporting leaders in early childhood education settings: an evaluation of a clinical supervision program for centre directors

Abstract

Early childhood educators’ work, especially with children and families experiencing vulnerability, is complex, highly skilled, and can place significant psychological burdens on educators. This may adversely affect educators’ well-being and contribute to the high levels of attrition seen globally. This article reports on an evaluation of a clinical supervision program supporting centre directors in Australian early learning services facing disadvantages. Drawing on data from surveys of centre directors, and interviews with centre directors and clinical supervisors, findings indicate that best-practice supervision has a range of benefits for centre directors’ well-being, professional practice, and growth. Implications for employers and policy-makers are discussed.

Keywords:

• Clinical supervision
• early childhood
• well-being
• centre directors
• leaders

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Sammy King Fai Hui
• Curriculum & Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong
• Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Sustainability Education, Training & Leadership
• Childhood
• Early Years

Introduction

The everyday work of early childhood (EC) educators¹ with children aged birth to five, their families, and communities, is complex and highly skilled. This complexity and the skills required are heightened when children (and their families) attending early learning services are experiencing vulnerability, disadvantage, and marginalisation (e.g. having a disability, experiencing negative effects of the legacy of colonialism, living in poverty) (Hazen et al., 2020). Research has identified that working with these populations places a significant burden on educators and can have adverse effects on their well-being (Kwon et al., 2020), ultimately contributing to the high levels of attrition of EC educators identified globally (Caven et al., 2021).

Educator well-being matters not only for educators themselves and their families, but also for the children and families with whom they work, and the organisations they work for. Poor educator well-being can negatively impact educators’ capacity to work effectively (Cumming & Wong, 2019), including their ability to provide stable, stimulating, supportive, and effective learning environments for children (Ylitapio-Mäntylä et al., 2012); support children’s resilience (Bouillet et al., 2014); engage in high quality interactions with children (Cassidy et al., 2017); and provide support for children’s emotional and behavioural needs (Kwon et al., 2019). Furthermore, when educators have poor well-being, they may need time off work or end up leaving the early child education (ECE) sector altogether (McMullen et al., 2020).

The loss of highly skilled educators is a significant challenge for ECE organisations and policy-makers alike. In their review of relevant literature from the United States, Totenhagen et al. (2016) identified annual turnover rates in ECE of between 26 and 40% across studies. High educator attrition is problematic because it can disrupt stable relationships with children, negatively affect children’s experiences and outcomes (Ota et al., 2013), and be costly for employers (Kusma et al., 2012). In contrast, ECE services with lower staff turnover have been found to have higher quality educator–child interactions (Moon & Burbank, 2004).

The role of ECE organisations in supporting educator well-being

Educator well-being has been conceptualised holistically, encompassing both physiological and psychological aspects within the organisational, sociocultural, economic, and temporal contexts within which they work (Cumming & Wong, 2019). Although individual actions play a role in maintaining educators’ well-being, supporting work-related well-being is also the responsibility of the services/organisations that employ EC educators (Logan et al., 2021).

In Australia, the site of the current study, most ECE services are assessed and rated by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA)—an independent national authority—against the National Quality Standard (NQS) (ACECQA, 2022). The NQS sets a national benchmark for quality of care and education. While the NQS is primarily concerned with children’s learning and well-being, the Guide to the National Quality Framework does briefly address educator well-being, stating that:

to achieve the best outcomes for children and families, a service requires a skilled and engaged workforce, sound administrative and risk management systems, well-documented policies and procedures, [as well as] a safe and healthy learning environment for children. (ACECQA, 2022, p. 278)

However, despite this attention to educator well-being, Australia’s NQS only emphasises educator well-being as it contributes to children’s learning and well-being (Cumming et al., 2021). Importantly, the NQS does not address many of the relational aspects of the adult work environment that support employee well-being (OECD, 2017). Given that educator well-being relates to attrition from the sector, it is important to create supportive work environments.

Importantly, there is a long-established ‘business case’ for attention to employee well-being (Baptiste, 2008). For instance, research in the organisational sciences has consistently linked work environment practices with improvements in employee well-being (Grawitch et al., 2006). To date, however, few studies examining educator well-being have attended to the organisational context within which educators work.

Three Australian studies are among the few that have examined educator well-being within the ECE organisational context. Corr et al. (2014) found that the quality of relationships between regulatory bodies, organisations, and families all contribute to the mental health of family day care providers. The authors concluded that health promotion by organisations, with regulatory support, are essential to support educator health and maintain workforce stability. Additionally, Logan et al. (2020, 2021) highlighted the organisational challenges of keeping educators well in the workplace, identified operational challenges to addressing educator work-related stress, and found that there is a need to recognise the emotional complexities inherent within educators’ work. These studies in the ECE sector are in line with findings from organisational sciences research, suggesting that structural characteristics and cultural practices within organisations are important for promoting employee well-being (Nielsen et al., 2017).

Supporting employee well-being can be beneficial for organisations through reduced absenteeism, turnover, injury, and accident rates, as well as better employee morale and motivation (Nielsen et al., 2017). In contrast, poor employee well-being may place significant financial burdens on employers through workers’ compensation claims and higher absenteeism, as well as increased costs in recruiting and replacing staff due to turnover (Kusma et al., 2012). In the ECE sector, staffing is the greatest expense; thus, if organisations pay more attention to improving working conditions, overall outcomes for the organisation are likely to improve as well (Bloechliger & Bauer, 2016).

There is some evidence that supports educator well-being, such as stress-reduction workshops, assist educator resilience (Zhai et al., 2011). One particularly promising approach for supporting educators is clinical or reflective supervision (Frosch et al., 2018; Hazen et al., 2020).

Clinical supervision

Clinical supervision is a formalised process of review and reflection on a supervisee’s work, undertaken with a (usually) more experienced worker or skilled facilitator. Clinical supervision is distinct from other forms of professional development, such as coaching or mentoring. These latter approaches tend to use modelling or motivational strategies to support educators in the use of specific practices (Susman-Stillman et al., 2020). The aims of clinical supervision processes are to assess and assure quality—to potentially improve the supervisee’s work with their clients; to facilitate emotional processing, assist with coping and relieve work-related stress; and to support and further the supervisee’s competence and capability (Bernstein & Edwards, 2012).

Reflective supervision is a process related to clinical supervision. Its aims are to increase educators’ capacity to manage the strong emotions inherent in their work and to better understand relational dynamics within families, and between family members and educators (Susman-Stillman et al., 2020). The focus of both clinical and reflective supervision is on the effectiveness of practice with clients, and the effects for the supervisee of doing so, rather than on whether organisational outcomes have been met—the latter is the focus of supervision with a worker’s ‘manager’.

High quality clinical supervision has been shown to improve supervisees’ well-being, ameliorate the effects of vicarious trauma, and reduce burnout in professionals working in child welfare (Hazen et al., 2020). Frosch et al. (2018), for example, evaluated the effects of group reflective supervision on degree-qualified ‘early childhood interventionists’ in the US. The authors found that participants were highly satisfied with their supervision experience, that their self-efficacy increased, and that it positively influenced their overall job satisfaction, job performance, and professional development. Furthermore, while participants reported experiencing significantly greater stress over time, they also advised that reflective supervision had positively impacted their ability to effectively manage that stress.

The provision of clinical supervision is common in some caring professions, such as social work (Frosch et al., 2018; Hazen et al., 2020), infant mental health practice (Many et al., 2016), and increasingly, in early intervention (Frosch et al., 2018). However, clinical supervision in the ECE sector is rare. There is increasing interest among Australian ECE providers in offering clinical supervision as a way of supporting educator well-being (Logan et al., 2021). However, little is known about the effect of clinical supervision on EC educators.

The provision of clinical supervision has been shown to play a key role in reducing burnout (Decker et al., 2002), being a cost-effective means of supporting staff job satisfaction (Gilkerson & Kopel, 2005) and supporting educator well-being (Susman-Stillman et al., 2020). These benefits may have positive flow-on effects on the quality of education and care that educators provide for children, for working relationships, and to reduce costs to employers (Gilkerson & Kopel, 2005). For example, Hazen et al. (2020) evaluated the effect of the Facilitated Attuned Interaction (FAN) approach to reflective practice on child welfare social workers, child welfare attorneys, and EC educators working with children experiencing trauma. Hazen et al. (2020) found that:

reflective practice quality significantly moderated the effect of vicarious trauma on professional burnout such that higher quality reflective practice reduced the impact of vicarious trauma on child welfare and early childhood professionals’ levels of burnout. (p. 8)

However, Hazen et al. (2020) research did not differentiate between the groups of practitioners. Consequently, the effect on the EC educator participants specifically is unknown. Susman-Stillman et al. (2020) investigated 97 reflective supervisors’ perceptions of how reflective supervision supports the ECE workforce through open-ended responses to a survey. While some participants offered reflective supervision to professionals working in ECE, the majority worked with other professionals in EC-related mental health, allied health, or early intervention. In addition, while some examples of participants’ contributions were ECE-related, there were no findings that clearly indicated the effects of reflective supervision for educators. At the same time, however, Susman-Stillman et al. (2020, p. 1164) particularly highlighted the value of educators having access to reflective supervision, affirming that it would be excellent ‘relationship-based professional development’ that would very likely enhance educators’ ‘reflective capacity, perspective-taking, emotional resilience and coping skills’ (p. 8), as well as their well-being.

A search of extant literature turned up no published peer-reviewed studies of the use of clinical or reflective supervision with EC educators specifically. However, two doctoral theses reported on the effects of reflective supervision in the US context, with the same EC teacher sample. Lepore (2015) investigated ways that 37 EC teachers’ own attachment and trauma histories might be contributing to their stress in teacher–parent relationships, and what role reflective supervision might have in alleviating that stress. Participants had spent between one and five years receiving reflective supervision. Lepore found that more time spent in reflective supervision acted to protect teachers against some of the frustrations they were experiencing in teacher–parent relationships. Meanwhile, Brown (2016) investigated a reflective supervision implementation with the same teachers in the context of their work in therapeutic preschools with families experiencing extreme disadvantage. Brown found that receiving reflective supervision acted to protect these teachers against some work-related stressors, and helped the teachers to retain their compassionate stance with families. In addition, in official conference proceedings, Fortin et al. (2023) report on a quasi-experimental evaluation of a ‘reflexive coaching device’ for group coaching sessions for early childhood managers. The evaluation showed positive outcomes for work-related well-being for a group receiving coaching, as compared to worsening outcomes for a control group.

Given the somewhat sparse literature, there is a need for evaluations of clinical supervision programs for EC educators, including those with leadership responsibilities, such as centre directors. Before the study reported here, to the authors’ knowledge, no such evaluation has been conducted in the Australian context.

The role of centre directors within EC services

In Australia, centre directors are the authorised supervisors in children’s services. They hold a range of legislative and business managerial responsibilities and must have formal qualifications in ECE—either a bachelor’s degree or diploma (ACECQA, 2022). Centre directors are responsible for developing a service philosophy that reflects the principles of the National Quality Framework (NQF) (ACECQA, 2022), that articulates a clear vision for children and families, and that reflects a commitment to continuous improvement. Centre directors also ensure that there are systems in place to manage risk, and they establish clear roles and responsibilities within their service, which are understood by everyone.

Centre directors regularly evaluate staff performance and ensure that opportunities exist for professional development. Additionally, centre directors promote respectful relationships with families, establish management and administrative systems, and oversee the operating budget of the centre (ACECQA, 2022). Their role is critical to the operation and culture of the centre.

An evidence-informed professional supervision framework

To enable centre directors to perform the complex work of supporting families and children—especially those experiencing vulnerability, disadvantage, and marginalization—as well as leading educators and facilitating multidisciplinary teams, Goodstart Early Learning, Australia (Goodstart) organisation developed a supervision program, based on a professional supervision framework (Goodstart Early Learbing, 2018).

The purpose of the Goodstart Professional Supervision Program was to provide professional supervision to 100 centre directors, across the organisation’s network, working in services likely to have high levels of complexity. This complexity included those in communities with a low Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) or with families entitled to the highest level of government subsidies (including subsidies for disability); and/or services with high levels of child protection and/or child–staff incidents; and/or services with allegations of child harm.

The Goodstart Supervision Framework (Goodstart, 2018) outlined the theoretical and evidential basis of the professional supervision program. In brief, the Goodstart Professional Supervision Program was intended to be:

• relationship-based (i.e. warm, caring, empathetic, emotionally available);

• reflective (i.e. engaging and supporting curiosity);

• trauma-informed;

• strengths-based; and

• supportive of supervisee well-being.

Under the program, centre directors participated in ongoing, monthly, either individual (1 h) or group (1.5 h) professional supervision (hereafter supervision) sessions, either in-person or via telephone and/or videoconferencing, with a suitably qualified supervisor.

The supervisors were engaged as independent contractors from outside the organisation. They were engaged through an expression of interest and subsequent interview process and met the following selection criteria to ensure they were committed to the purpose and philosophy of the Goodstart Professional Supervision Program, which stated that supervisors needed to:

• have appropriate capability (i.e. qualifications—a degree in psychology, social work, social science, or a counselling qualification);

• meet registration requirements within the professional body appropriate to their qualification;

• have a thorough knowledge of state or territory child protection reporting obligations; and

• have experience in providing supervision satisfactorily.

Knowledge of the ECE context was also considered highly desirable.

Supervisors were allocated to centre directors based primarily on geographic location and mode of supervision offered by supervisors (e.g. group/individual) to meet centre director preferences. The number of centre directors supported, and sessions offered by individual supervisors varied depending on demand and supervisor capacity. Typically, however, supervisors supported up to 10 centre directors each.

The anticipated outcomes of participating in supervision were that centre directors would experience:

• increased feelings of being valued and supported;

• increased resilience and well-being, related to:

  • coping capacity; and

  • stress management.

• increased reflective capacities, related to:

  • professional identity;

  • self-efficacy

  • leadership capacity; and

  • capacity to meet the needs of children and their families.

This article reports on two components of a process and outcomes evaluation of the Goodstart Professional Supervision Program, aimed at determining (RQ1) the degree to which the program was being delivered as intended, and (RQ2) what impact (if any) the professional supervision had on the expected outcomes for centre directors.

Methodology

Data for this evaluation were collected via a mixed methods approach. In this article, we report on findings from (i) a supervision experience online survey of centre directors; and (ii) telephone interviews with centre directors and supervisors about the supervision experience.

Supervision experience online survey of centre directors

To determine the degree to which supervision was conducted in accordance with best supervisory practice, centre directors’ experiences were examined via an anonymous online survey between March and July 2019 (n = 68: 68% of centre directors receiving clinical supervision at this time), post the centre directors’ 2nd supervision session—and again in May 2020 (n = 71: 71% of centre directors receiving clinical supervision at this time), post their 12th supervision session. The survey utilised 16 items from the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale (Gonsalvez et al., 2017), a validated instrument for measuring a supervisee’s evaluation of supervisory competence on a range of elements reflecting ‘best practice’ in supervision. The scale uses a 7-point Likert scale to indicate the level of agreement with statements about the quality of supervision (e.g. Supervision provides a safe place for emotional ventilation and support). Reliability in the current sample was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = .94). Permission was sought from, and given by Gonsalvez et al. for use of the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale. The survey also included two open-ended questions seeking participants’ feedback on supervision.

Telephone interviews with centre directors and supervisors about the supervision experience

To elicit centre directors’ and supervisors’ professional perspectives on the benefits, or otherwise, of supervision—including the degree to which centre directors considered the supervision was making a difference to their practice—telephone or videoconference interviews were conducted with centre directors and supervisors.

Our target was to interview close to 50% (n = 50) of centre directors receiving clinical supervision. A list of all centre directors receiving supervision was compiled, and each one was contacted sequentially in July–October 2019 until interviews with a total of 46 centre directors were completed. These same centre directors were contacted again in June–July 2020. All those centre directors who had previously been interviewed, who were continuing to receive supervision, agreed to participate again (n = 25). Additional centre directors were contacted from the list until a total of 46 were reached.

Interviews were conducted with all supervisors in June 2020 (n = 12) and again in January 2021 (n = 15), to capture supervisors’ views on the experience of centre directors attending supervision. Both types of interviews lasted between 10 and 30 min and were semi-structured with four overarching questions—each with follow-up probe questions to elicit further in-depth responses. The four overarching questions were:

1. Could you start by telling me a little about your experience of supervision so far?

2. Have you found any benefits for you/the centre directors from attending supervision for your/their work?

3. Have there been any challenges related to your/centre directors’ professional supervision?

4. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience of supervision?

A total of 119 interviews were conducted. Individual responses from centre directors to each question at each time point were entered directly into an Excel spreadsheet. These responses made up the interview data corpus.

Analysis

Mean scores from the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale were calculated for each item on the overall sample at each time point for those centre directors receiving supervision: at Time 1 (T1—after at least two sessions) and at Time 2 (after at least 12 sessions). As the data were non-normally distributed, comparisons between scores at T1 and T2 were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Interview data and open-ended survey responses were analysed using a grounded thematic approach (Clarke et al., 2019). The data for five interviews were read and coded at the sentence or group of sentences level by a research team member—and checked by the lead author until consensus was agreed. The remaining data were then coded by the lead author. Next, the lead author grouped like coded data together, across all responses, across both time periods, to identify sub-themes and overarching themes. The themes were checked by another research team member and are presented in the findings section. The same process was followed for the supervisors’ interviews. The findings section includes illustrative quotes throughout.

Ethical statement

All participants, in each component of the evaluation, were informed about the purpose of the evaluation, their right to not participate, how the data would be used, and that any information gathered would be treated confidentially. The project was approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Findings and discussion

Findings are presented in alignment with the two research questions.

RQ1 finding: Supervision was conducted in accordance with best supervisory practice

Analysis of the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale (see Table 1) indicates that supervision was delivered in accordance with best supervisory practice. At T1, participants rated most items at 5+ on a 7-point Likert Scale, where 1 = very negative and 7 = very positive. Rating increased to mostly 6+ at Time 2. The highest rating was for the item The supervisor came across as skilled and effective. The lowest scoring (though still high at 4.55 at T1 and 5.05 at T2) item was related to the question The supervisor expertly uses a range of techniques (e.g. case presentation, DVDs, role play) to facilitate competence development. Moreover, scores for all items improved over time, with several reaching statistical significance.

Table 1. Scores from the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale.

Item	T1: After two sessions mean [SD]	T2: After 12 sessions mean [SD]	Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for participants who have responses for both time points
I get along well with the supervisor	6.54 [.74] (n = 68)	6.84 [.50] (n = 70)	Z(N = 40) = 25.5, p = .073, rrb = −.51
The supervisor came across as skilled and effective	6.63 [.69] (n = 67)	6.87 [.45] (n = 70)	Z (N = 39) = 11.00, p = .021, rrb = −.72
The supervisor expertly uses a range of techniques (e.g. case presentation, DVDs, role play) to facilitate competence development	4.55 [1.79] (n = 55)	5.05 [1.87] (n = 63)	Z (N = 33) = 143.5, p = .41, rrb = −.18
Supervision goals focus on important and achievable work-related competencies	5.84 [1.21] (n = 67)	6.30 [1.05] (n = 69)	Z (N = 38) = 56.5, p = .02, rrb = −.55
Supervision goals are formulated collaboratively and articulated clearly	6.03 [1.13] (n = 67)	6.37 [1.04] (n = 68)	Z (N = 38) = 54.5, p = .06, rrb = −.48
In supervision, I felt comfortable discussing difficulties, dilemmas, and aspects that required improvement	6.46 [.94] (n = 65)	6.81 [.57] (n = 70)	Z (N = 40) = 28.5, p = .019, rrb = −.63
The supervisor is approachable, caring, and supportive	6.69 [.63] (n = 67)	6.89 [.44] (n = 70)	Z (N = 40) = 18.5, p = .36, rrb = −.33
Supervisor feedback is constructive and informative (e.g. explaining what could be better and how I could make progress	6.22 [1.10] (n = 67)	6.66 [.84] (n = 70)	Z (N = 39) = 32, p = .06, rrb = −.53
The supervisor is knowledgeable, explained theoretical concepts, and enunciated their practical applications	6.03 [1.35] (n = 65)	6.50 [.91] (n = 70)	Z (N = 39) = 85, p = .28, rrb = −.26
Supervision goals and competencies were designed to match my developmental needs	5.99 [1.14] (n = 66)	6.44 [1.04] (n = 68)	Z (N = 38) = 64.5, p = .07, rrb = −.44
The supervision session was thoughtfully structured and supervision activities were goal driven	5.78 [1.47] (n = 64)	6.29 [1.02] (n = 69)	Z (N = 38) =, 57 p = .11, rrb = −.40
The supervisor was sensitive to the impact of my work on emotional well-being and self-care need	6.55 [.75] (n = 66)	6.84 [.50] (n = 70)	Z (N = 40) = 9, p = .05, rrb = −.67
The supervisor improved my awareness and analyses of how ethical issues affected client (child and family) care and professional activities	5.91 [1.25] (n = 65)	6.53 [1.00] (n = 70)	Z (N = 39) = 44.5, p = .02, rrb = −.58
Supervision provides a safe place for emotional ventilation and support	6.49 [.77] (N = 67)	6.75 [.65] (N = 69)	Z (N = 40) = 21, p = .08, rrb = −.54
The supervisor helped me understand how evidence-based principles are translated into practice	5.63 [1.38] (N = 65)	6.13 [1.34] (N = 69)	Z (N = 39) = 79, p = .04, rrb = −.47
The supervisor helped me understand my patterns of emotional responding in my work with children, families, and/or colleagues	6.02 [1.10] (N = 65)	6.66 [.72] (N = 70)	Z (N = 39) = 14, p < .001, rrb = −.87

Note: Figures in bold indicate statistically significant differences. Effect size is shown as the rank-biserial correlation (r_rb). Values range from −1 complete dominance of the second timepoint (all values of the second timepoint are larger than all the values of the first timepoint) to +1 complete dominance of the first timepoint (all values of the second timepoint are smaller than all values of the first timepoint).

Correspondingly, in interviews, centre directors reported that the supervision they received was: (1) Largely goal directed; and that it gave them; (2) Opportunity for professional and personal reflective conversations; (3) Alternative, confidential, objective perspectives; and (4) Helpful support, advice, strategies, and resources. Centre directors reported that supervision sessions were being conducted in a highly professional, relationship-based, reflective, and strengths-based way. They valued the opportunity to talk openly and confidentially about their experiences, issues, and challenges as a centre director, with their supervisors, who centre directors perceived as unbiased, objective, and able to provide an ‘outsider’ and/or alternative perspective. One centre director noted, for example:

It [supervision] really gets you to delve into why you do things, experiences, your reactions, makes me reflect on that. Makes me mindful, I’m more self-aware of the reasons why I do certain things. I’m finding it really good. It’s non-judgemental. (Centre director)

The topics covered in supervision can be wide-ranging. Centre directors especially noted supervisors’ skills in facilitating discussion and providing strategies for their roles as leaders:

The session content is all about how my educators are going through stressors and how I can help them. Educators with personal issues can be draining for me. She [supervisor] has taught me how to close conversations and refer them to counsellors. We take on a lot of personal things from our staff. If they aren’t in a good state, we don’t want to escalate their emotions as we don’t have much time to talk to them. It’s not in our job load to take on all the emotions from staff. (Centre director)

Topics also included the opportunity for centre directors to talk about personal issues that were affecting their work:

They [centre directors] used to always make themselves available even when they are at home. So, we do try to manage the anxiety in terms of that issue. We challenge the idea of not responding to emails at home. In terms of family life, they mention that they miss out on things with the kids and they don’t have the energy for their own children when they come home. They have also mentioned issues such as drought and environmental problems. So we have been talking about this. (Supervisor)

There was overwhelming positivity towards supervision from both centre directors and supervisors—that increased over time. All but three centre directors interviewed were highly positive about their experience of supervision, describing the program variously as ‘fantastic’, ‘valuable’, and a ‘good investment’. Likewise, all supervisors were highly positive about the program. Most centre directors and all supervisors’ comments, communicated their strong appreciation for the opportunity to access or provide supervision. One Centre Director commented for example:

I’ve been with Goodstart on and off for 10 years, and I just think it’s such an important thing for centre managers to have an opportunity to have these conversations. … One of the best things that Goodstart has brought in. Massive difference for me. (Centre Director)

Nevertheless, there was some initial negativity towards supervision apparent from three centre directors, two of whom noted that they did not understand the purpose of supervision, or what the expected outcomes were. One centre director said that she found participation in the program to be a ‘chore’, and another said that she had come to a mutual decision with her supervisor to cease sessions. Overall, though, the centre directors’ initial concerns with supervision were due to unfamiliarity with the process. As one centre director commented:

I didn’t know what the program was initially. I thought someone was coming to my work, or maybe I was underperforming. But once I had the first session, I realised what it was about and it has been great. (Centre director)

Likewise, one supervisor commented:

It’s been really challenging as reflective supervision is new to this industry. So, getting people to trust the process with it being a confidential space, etc., some people could shift that mindset, but some others took it personally and thought they were maybe not doing their job right. That has been a major challenge to inform them of what reflective supervision is all about. (Supervisor)

There were no negative comments from centre directors in the second-round interviews, and no supervisors expressed negativity in either interview.

Centre directors reported some challenges in regard to accessing supervision. One challenge was centre directors’ capacity to manage their time and responsibilities so that they could attend supervision—particularly in the face of staff shortages and other competing organisational demands. A second challenge related to the emotionally challenging nature of supervision, which some centre directors found difficult. A final challenge was around ensuring confidentiality—both in terms of reporting requirements and finding private spaces within early learning settings in which centre directors could participate in supervision during work hours. Each of these challenges also arose in the interviews and are discussed further in the paper.

RQ2 finding: Supervision had multiple benefits for centre directors’ well-being and professional capacity

Analysis from the interviews revealed five key areas of professional and personal benefit from centre directors’ participation in supervision. The first, and most highly reported, benefit of participation in supervision was that it improved centre directors’ health and well-being. Centre directors commented that talking things through ‘helps to lift a weight’, ‘move their thinking forward’ and ‘reduce the stress’ associated with their work. For example:

I think because I’ve been able to find more balance in my space and putting in plans. I then find I’m not as stressed, I do have more time now for the educators, to be on the floor and interact with the children, the balance is a happier mix. (Centre director)

Centre directors reported feeling ‘better’, ‘relaxed’, and ‘more positive’ following a supervision session, and that it supported their mental health, improved their personal relationships, and improved their work–life balance—as demonstrated in the quote from a centre director below:

Our role is very isolating. It’s hard to debrief with anyone. But it has been great to offload and know that I can tackle another day. When negative things happen, I know it won’t last all day, I am more positive about it. In terms of my personal life, I would say it has benefited me. I can naturally tackle situations now. (Centre director)

Supervisors and centre directors also reported that supervision enabled centre directors to be self-reflective on their work, their interactions, and their impact on, and contribution to, the work environment:

I have been able to think about how things and my actions may affect everyone else in the centre, including the educators, families and children. (Centre director)

I have noticed their reflective capacity has grown in time and they have been less reactive. It has been clear that they have improved in terms of managing difficult staff and the staff dynamic. So, when they are dealing with a situation, they will know how to approach the person in a strength-based way. (Supervisor)

Second, supervision gave centre directors strategies, and increased their capacity and ability to effectively communicate, lead and manage their team, and manage problems and difficult situations:

It’s really positive. Whether it’s work with an educator, child or family. It all has to do with my leadership role. My work as a decision maker, either way the leader they get is someone who has the confidence to talk through tricky things and I can normalise and make the situation calmer. Some of the work we do is emotional, so when that emotion is supported, then more work can be done for the educators, families and children. (Centre director)

Third, supervision supported centre directors’ capacity to meet the needs of children and their families. For instance, supervision helped centre directors better understand how to implement evidence-based principles into practice, as well as develop strategies for working with children and families. In particular, centre directors highly valued the way that supervisors helped them to understand their patterns of emotional response in their work with children, families, and/or colleagues, and to set boundaries. As one centre director said:

I constantly think about how I can help the families, but the program has taught me how to know where the boundary is, when do I stop, what is my responsibility for these families? I want to do everything for the family, but I can’t. (Centre director)

Setting boundaries is particularly challenging when child protection issues are evident. Supervision has assisted centre directors in this regard, as these example quotes from a supervisor and centre director illustrate:

Centre directors are very driven and very hard-working people that tend to put their own needs down the line. A lot of the sessions, we work out boundaries about managing workload with interruptions at work. We talk about their rights around that. Supervision has assisted them with managing work issues, including child protection cases. It has caused stress with the staff as they have bonded with children and family and then changes happen/children are removed. Having that place to talk about this difficult situation has been good. (Supervisor)

It’s absolutely changed the way I work. I have been reflecting a lot…Having [supervisor] to talk to and bounce ideas off and help me see things differently. I can truly say our centre wouldn’t be in the position it’s in without it. I see my strengths, to have my cup full. She makes me reflect differently on my practices as a leader. I’m not a stressed bunny. I entered the program with a pivotal attitude – either suck it up or find something new. Having her there has made me feel like I can do this. It’s made me better. (Centre director)

Fourth, these increased capacities contributed to centre directors’ sense of self-efficacy, professional identity, and professionalism. Indeed, centre directors reported that supervision had increased their feelings of empowerment and confidence, as well as assisted them to recognise and celebrate their achievements—contributing to their feelings of being valued and supported:

Having an unbiased person to talk to. She’s able to look at things objectively. Empowered me as a leader. (Centre director)

We don’t accredit ourselves at all, so it’s nice to have that credit with what we do. Having that affirmation, makes me realise that I’ve done okay. (Centre director)

For many centre directors, supervision has increased their job satisfaction:

My own personal job satisfaction. I don’t bring my problems home with me. I am more present. I feel valued. An organisation that recognises the high pressure of work, an organisation that can invest in our mental health. (Centre director)

A number of keys to success for supervision

The data also revealed factors that centre directors and supervisors considered key to the success of supervision sessions. The main key to success was the high quality of the supervisors who provided supervision based on ‘best practice’ principles. Centre directors commented, for example, on the approachability and warmth of their supervisors, that supervisors were both inviting and supportive, and had excellent listening and relationship-building skills. The quality and relevance of supervision was also enhanced by supervisors’ thorough knowledge of the ECE sector and the organisation:

[Supervisor] is wonderful. The quality of her knowledge is a credit to her. I have been to other counsellor-type people who haven’t understood the industry. It’s a bonus that she knows the industry. (Centre director)

Maintaining confidentiality was seen as another key aspect of supervision. Centre directors needed to feel safe to freely discuss sensitive issues and the importance of having a private space for supervision sessions. A private space allowed centre directors to engage in confidential conversations without interruptions from other staff. Another aspect of maintaining confidentiality is ensuring that records are kept secure and private, while at the same time balancing the imperative to report, both for administrative purposes and so that issues can be surfaced and addressed at an organisational level.

Other keys to success included flexibility in delivery, including being able to adjust methods of communication, location, regularity, and length of sessions, as well as decide between group and individual supervision sessions. There was no one delivery model that suited all participants. In addition, flexibility in scheduling allowed centre directors to adjust supervision sessions to fit within their busy schedule and be conducted in a manner that suited their personal preference. Enabling this approach and flexibility was a well-managed system with a clearly articulated supervision framework, clear communication from the manager of the supervision program in regard to scheduling and other administrative aspects, and continual monitoring of utilisation to alert the manager when a centre director–supervisor relationship may not be working well—so that adjustments (e.g. to the allocated supervisor) could be made. A final element that underpinned the success of supervision was its ongoing nature with a stable supervisor. During the course of the evaluation, many centre directors had received in excess of 20 sessions. The benefits of ongoing supervision seemed to accrue over time.

Conclusion and implications for employers and policy-makers

Ensuring educators are well, sustained, and able to do their critical work, is significant for educators themselves and their families, and the children and families with whom they work (McMullen et al., 2020). This evaluation, though limited in size and scope, and for a supervision program only provided to centre directors, has provided a glimpse into the challenges and benefits of providing supervision for those working in the ECE sector. The findings indicate that supervision with appropriate content and structure was not only acceptable—but was also highly valued. While some centre directors were initially a little cautious; overall, their satisfaction with supervision was extremely high and increased over time. That is, when they understood the purpose of clinical supervision, and with experience and familiarity, their confidence in and appreciation of supervision increased.

The findings also demonstrate that supervision has multiple benefits. Supervision supported centre directors through very difficult situations with staff and with children’s families, and contributed to their personal and professional growth. Supervision helped to alleviate the sense of isolation some centre directors felt and provided a safe person with whom they could ‘debrief’ outside their own organisation. Perhaps the most compelling finding, however, was the way that centre directors reported that supervision contributed to building their resilience and well-being—as suggested by Susman-Stillman et al. (2020).

Despite some centre directors noting the emotional challenge associated with ‘opening up’ during supervision sessions, they commented that talking things through in a safe space with supervisors was cathartic. It enabled them to ‘unload’ and reduced stress associated with their work (as found by Brown, 2016 in relation to teachers), and in doing so, they were then able to move their thinking forward. As Gilkerson and Kopel (2005) suggested, participating in clinical supervision contributed to a flow-on effect for centre directors’ improved working relationships with their staff, and in some cases, seemed to also improve other staff members’ reflective capacity. An important aspect of the success of the clinical supervision program was assistance for centre directors to develop strategies for self-care, including balancing work and home life, and maintaining healthy boundaries with staff who were expressing distress that required professional mental health assistance. These self-care strategies increased centre directors’ coping capacity and contributed to retention—which was higher in services where supervision was provided than in other services within the organisation. As one centre director noted:

Without this I wouldn’t be where I am now. My centre has lots of work still to be done. I’ve been able to lead the team quickly, empowering the staff. I wouldn’t have been able to do that without her [supervisor]. I can stop and acknowledge, have the validation, cup full as a centre director. I am now very productive. And this has led to better outcomes for educators, families, children. (Centre director)

There are implications of this study’s findings for both employers and policy-makers. Clearly, the provision of supervision has contributed to sustaining educators, and as such, is likely to reduce attrition—which will have cost benefits for employers. Moreover, centre directors appreciated their organisation’s investment in this provision, and for some, made the difference between a director leaving or staying in the sector. It may well be that in an employment market where there is a significant shortage of educators—offering supervision may contribute to organisations being viewed as an ‘employer of choice’ and improving their ability to attract educators.

The initial caution with which centre directors approached supervision, and reported hesitancy based on not understanding its purpose, is perhaps not surprising, given the pejorative connotation of the word ‘supervision’. This caution suggests that organisations wanting to introduce supervision would do well to clearly communicate the goals and purposes of their professional supervision program, and might need to consider different nomenclature. Organisations also need to be open and transparent about confidentiality and provide appropriate physical ‘safe spaces’ within which centre directors can access supervision during work hours.

In regard to policy, given the high levels of attrition in ECE, making evidence-informed supervision more widely available may be one way to improve retention—especially for new centre directors and/or those working with children and families with complex needs. Concerns about cost could be further investigated; however, clinical supervision has been shown to be cost-effective in the US context, where at least one state has invested in clinical supervision for its early intervention workforce (Gilkerson & Kopel, 2005). Finally, the success of supervision is reliant on the provision of well-trained and knowledgeable supervisors (including knowledge of the ECE profession), flexible delivery modes, and adequate amounts of time.

We therefore agree with Hazen et al. (2020), that:

without evidence-based interventions that can ameliorate professional burnout among child welfare professionals, the negative impacts of workplace stressors endemic to the child welfare and early childhood fields (e.g., heightened levels of job turnover, low levels of institutional knowledge, increased workplace stress (Maslach et al., 2001) on professionals is unlikely to change. (p. 8)

We encourage further investigation of the effect of clinical supervision on educators—perhaps using objective measures of educator well-being.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sandie Wong

Sandie Wong is a Professor and Co-Deputy Director of the Centre for Research in Early Childhood Education, at Macquarie University, Australia, and a Research Fellow with Goodstart Early Learning. Sandie works in collaboration with academics from a range of disciplines, early childhood organisations and practitioners, and governments, to co-design, lead, and support high quality research, evaluation, and practitioner enquiry, that contributes to best practice in early childhood. Her current work investigates: early childhood practices; workforce issues; educator well-being; and the history of early childhood internationally.

Rebecca Bull

Rebecca Bull is a Professor at the Macquarie School of Education, Australia. Before this, she was the Principal Research Scientist at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Rebecca’s research focuses on the impact of home and classroom-based experiences on children’s learning and developmental outcomes. This includes the interactions educators have with children and how educator well-being may impact the quality of interactions. She has been instrumental in bringing together researchers from across the world to form a research alliance looking at the pan-cultural and unique contextual factors associated with well-being. The outcomes of Rebecca’s research have been published widely in the field of early childhood education and child development, contributing to work on policy, pedagogy, learning, and measurement of developmental outcomes.

Tamara Cumming

Tamara Cumming is a Senior Lecturer at the Macquarie School of Education, Australia. Tamara has worked in the early childhood sector for over 20 years. Tamara’s research concerns the complexity of early childhood practice and the well-being and sustainability of the early childhood workforce. She is co-leader of the Early Childhood Educators’ Well-being Project, and a Chief Investigator on the Exemplary Educators at Work Australian Research Council Linkage Project.

Laura McFarland

Laura McFarland is a Research Fellow at the Research in Effective Education in Early Childhood Centre (REEaCh) at The University of Melbourne, Australia. Laura has worked in the early childhood education field for over 20 years in a variety of roles including early childhood teaching, family support, consulting, and university teaching and research. The overarching theme of Laura’s research is supporting the mental health and well-being of children, families, and educators in the early childhood education context. Laura’s research focuses on supporting quality relationships among children, families, and educators, to provide the best outcomes for children. Laura’s research also recognises the importance of high-quality early childhood education settings and educator–child interactions in contributing to children’s learning and development.

Notes

1 We use the term ‘educator’ to refer to all educators working in early learning in birth-to-five settings regardless of their qualifications.