Continuing professional development and the early years workforce

Against a background of rapid changes in the social and policy context of early childhood education and care and advances in related research, the need for sustained professional development for those working in the early years field is widely recognised. However, the number of studies looking critically at professional learning systems in these times of accelerated reform has been limited. How is continuing professional development (CPD) defined and debated by policy-makers and stakeholders? Do all members of the early years workforce have similar entitlements and access to CPD? How can CPD support practitioners in ongoing and workplace-based reflective practices? Does participation in CPD contribute to career advancement? Is there a visible balance between political and reform-driven, practice-driven and profession-driven topics and approaches? What kinds of CPD are particularly effective and supportive? A recent six-country study in the European context (Oberhuemer 2012) suggests that whereas there may be similarities across countries regarding understandings and discourses about the value of CPD for early childhood practitioners, both policy and employer commitment and opportunities and support for participation vary considerably.

In this themed edition of Early Years, a number of the above issues are reflected in seven papers by researchers from six countries. The first three contributions – each located in a different national context – focus on the systemic conditions which may support or hinder effective professional learning.

In his analysis of continuing professional development options and strategies in England, Jim Hordern utilises the concept of a ‘productive system’ to identify some of the tensions and challenges currently facing both those initiating and those participating in professional learning activities. Taking recommendations for a more systematic approach towards professional development made in the 2012 Nutbrown Review as a frame of reference, the author considers the varying roles of key contributors at different levels of decision-making and networking. By placing a specific emphasis on regionalisation, virtual e-learning, and workplace-based re-contextualisation of knowledge gained through CPD activities, it is argued that a system of sustained and organised collaboration between early years settings, higher education institutions and independent CPD providers could provide practitioners with an opportunity ‘to take greater control in the productive system of their own formation’.

Early years practitioners in New Zealand have experienced two decades of increased opportunities for ongoing professional learning. Sue Cherrington and Kate Thornton provide a comprehensive picture of the place of CPD within major government reform initiatives such as the early childhood curriculum Te Whāriki and a pledge to significantly increase the number of graduates in the workforce, and of related research. They question predominantly policy-driven and essentially short-term transmission and delivery models and argue instead for a systemic, planned, coordinated, sustained and funded bottom-up approach towards CPD. Ideally, this would make space for more co-constructive strategies emphasising participant-driven learning and debate and allowing for sustained, in-depth approaches within a framework of ongoing critical reflection.

The contribution from Italy by Arianna Lazzari, Mariacristina Picchio and Tullia Musatti provides an analysis of such a supportive framework – in this case established by municipal authorities in their role of responsibility (alongside other providers) for a large number of early childhood services. Case studies of innovatory practices are provided, including the implementation of a coherent CPD system in the city of Rome. The authors conclude that significant and sustained funding is a prerequisite, not only for providing a variety of CPD activities but also for promoting workplace conditions that support ‘pedagogic mobilisation’ and ‘collegial confrontation’ and include regular collaboration with pedagogic consultants and strong links with researchers.

The next three papers look at within-centre professional development strategies such as group supervision and mentoring. Anita Soni uses a contextualised evaluation approach to analyse a series of group supervision sessions with 12 family support workers from a cluster of four Children’s Centres in England. This is ground-breaking work, since the group supervision approach is not widely used within the education system and the early years sector. The research identified a number of supportive outcomes of the supervision process, and the centre managers involved have subsequently decided to strengthen this approach as a regularly timetabled part of CPD for practitioners.

The following paper written in the Australian context by Andrea Nolan, Anne-Marie Morrissey and Iris Dumenden looks at the situation of education-trained early years teachers new to the profession or working as lead teachers in full-day childcare centres and experiencing a sense of ‘professional isolation’. Within a context of fast-paced government reform initiatives at both the state and federal level, a mentoring programme has been made available in the state of Victoria specifically for this section of the early years workforce. An analysis of the views and expectations of teachers applying for mentoring support illustrates a clear need for active engagement in a form of professional learning which stimulates ‘a deeper understanding of their own beliefs and experiences’.

Terri Jo Swim and Zeynep Isik-Ercan from the USA argue that notions of a linear pathway for professional growth may not sufficiently take into account the contextual dynamics of everyday practices and teachers’ perceived need to actively co-construct understandings of work with young children through an enquiring and reflective lens over time. Acting in a mentoring capacity, the authors focus on the ‘dispositional development’ of staff in a university-linked childcare centre, and provide two detailed case studies of individual teachers’ responses to enhanced opportunities for questioning their own belief systems and reflecting on practice routines. They conclude that in these times of increased regulation and scrutiny of teacher practices, a clear case needs to be made for centre-based and inquiry-led approaches towards professional learning with the support of trusted facilitators.

The final paper in this issue comes from the French-speaking region of Canada. Joanne Lehrer has researched the perspectives of professional development consultants working within an independent CPD organisation in Montreal/Quebec and the centre managers and pedagogic advisers using this service. The findings illustrate a certain discrepancy in the understanding and enactment of the CPD provider’s theory-based constructivist approach of ‘contextualisation, decontextualisation and recontextualisation’ and the centre managers’ tendency to emphasise the quality improvement aspects of CPD. As previous research has suggested, both administrative support and a critical-collaborative team environment are essential ingredients of effective professional learning approaches.

Looking at this collection of papers as a whole, a number of recurrent themes with implications for policy and practice appear to emerge. I will refer to just three. First, CPD in a diversity of forms needs to be seen as an entitlement for all those working in early childhood education and care, with the necessary funding support both for centre providers and practitioners to make sure it becomes a reality. Second, professional development approaches that support active engagement and critical reflection in the centre context are more likely to ‘touch a nerve’ in practitioners who may be struggling to continually review the complexities of working with young children and their families, to encourage ongoing critical reflection, and thus lead to improvement of practices. Finally, CPD needs to be viewed within a system-wide perspective which takes into account the sometimes very varying goals and needs of policy-makers and centre providers and practitioners. Sensitive and rigorous research will help to make sense of the inevitable ambivalences.

We conclude with a Call for Papers on ‘Documentation, diversity and democracy: three interrelated aspects of early years education’, a special issue planned for 2014, which will be guest edited by Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and Marjatta Kalliala from the University of Helsinki, Finland. If you are engaged in research related to the topic of pedagogic documentation, we hope you will consider submitting a paper.