Qualitative and Observational Evaluation of Kids’ Own Pre-School Workshops in County Waterford by Kids' Own Publishing Partnership

Kids’ Own Publishing Partnership Qualitative and Observational Evaluation of Kids’ Own Pre-School Workshops in County Waterford

Research commissioned by Kids’ Own In partnership with the University of Ulster – funded by the Arts Council Touring Award

Introduction

The research that led to the creation of this report was commissioned by Kids’ Own as part of a project called Rannta na nDeise, which was funded by the Arts Council Touring Award. The research was initiated by meetings between Kids’ Own and the University of Ulster, and the independent report is the result of the planned programme of evaluation.

The project itself involved a tour of the Kids’ Own Travelling Library to four branch libraries in County Waterford, where a series of workshops were delivered to early years children and parents.

As a prelimary study, the research focused only on the final two workshops of the project, which took place at Tramore Library in April. Although the activity that took place during these two workshops is representative of what took place during the whole project, the findings in this report can only refer to the observations of the activity that took place during these two workshops.

Our aim in commissioning this research was to initiate a research process that would build an evidence base for arts engagement within an early years setting. Also within the broader context of all of Kids’ Own’s work, we wish to explore the benefits of our methodology and bring forward recommendations for further research and initiatives.

This report outlines preliminary findings from the observations of the researcher on these two days and gives an indication of the scope that exists for further investigation. We are grateful to Áine McKenna for the expertise that she has brought to this initial research process.

Orla Kenny Kids’ Own Publishing Partnership

Qualitative and Observational Evaluation of Kids’ Own Pre-School Workshops in County Waterford

Report submitted by Áine McKenna Independent Researcher

Contents Executive summary……………………………………………………………………..……….…...6 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………8 How do we define “quality” in early years education?..............................................................8 The role of the adults in early years education......................................................................10 Government policy and strategy............................................................................................11 Rationale................................................................................................................................13 Method...................................................................................................................................14 Observational evaluation.......................................................................................................14 Parent survey.........................................................................................................................15 Focus group ..........................................................................................................................16 Results...................................................................................................................................17 Observational evaluation........................................................................................................17 Table 1. Music, song, rhyme and story session.....................................................................17 Zone of proximal development...............................................................................................18 Table 2. Creative art session.................................................................................................19 Zone of proximal development...............................................................................................20 Modelling: what happens when the water for the pastels spills everywhere?........................20 General findings from the observational evaluation...............................................................20 Parent survey.........................................................................................................................21 1.How would you describe your child’s experience of Kids’ Own?........................................21 Fig.1 Pie chart showing whether play was child/adult directed..............................................21 2. Do you currently attend storytelling in the library and parent and toddler groups?............21 3. Has this session given you any ideas for “play” in the home?...........................................22 Thematic analysis of focus group...........................................................................................22 Table 3. Thematic analysis summary.....................................................................................23

Supporting parents as “primary educators”............................................................................24 How the facilitators view their role as supporters of “primary educators”...............................25 Overcoming the barriers that make it difficult for parents to participate in Kids’ Own workshops…………………………………………………………………………………..............26 Supporting children’s creativity and their acquisition of essential literary skills......................27 The need for interagency work to co-ordinate the “rearing to go” strategy............................29 Kids’ Own as an intervention..................................................................................................29 Empowerment.......................................................................................................................30 Empowerment to try this at home..........................................................................................30 Interculturalism.......................................................................................................................31 The finished product: “The Book”...........................................................................................31 Summary of findings..............................................................................................................32 Discussion..............................................................................................................................33 Do Kids’ Own workshops provide developmentally appropriate “influences”?......................33 Did the facilitators “guide the children’s responding”?...........................................................33 Have they accurately judged the children’s “zone of proximal development”?......................34 Were the parents also in a comfortable supported but challenging learning zone where they might learn from observing the facilitators “at play”?......................................................34 Examining the Kids’ Own intervention within a policy and strategy context...........................35 References.............................................................................................................................36

Executive Summary Áine McKenna, an independent researcher based at the University of Ulster, carried out an observational and qualitative evaluation of the Travelling Library workshops that were constructed as an Early Years intervention by Kids’ Own for Waterford Library Services working in conjunction with the County Childcare Committee and RESPOND (Community Playgroup). [Within the context of this evaluation] The Kids’ Own Travelling Library workshops were: • Comprised of 2 sessions that each ran for two and a half hours on 13th and 14th of April 2011 in Tramore Library in County Waterford. • Facilitated by Polly Minett, the artist, and Mary Branley who is both a writer and a musician. Methods of Evaluation: • An observational evaluation of the workshops using specific evaluation criteria was carried out by the researcher. • A parent survey was completed by nine parents. • The final part of the evaluation involved a focus group with representatives from all the agencies that were involved in this project namely the Library, Childcare Committee, RESPOND and Kids’ Own. The findings suggest that: • Kids’ Own delivers a quality intervention for parents and children that is congruent with the major theories of early learning as well as with

Government policy and strategy in relation to supporting parents as “primary educators”. • It was argued that Kids’ Own is a particularly relevant intervention for the delivery of three of the National Children’s Strategy outcomes namely: 1. Supported in active learning. 2. Part of positive networks of family, friends, neighbours and the community. 3. Included and participating in society. Conclusion It was concluded that the most unique and distinct aspect of this “process orientated” intervention is ironically the finished product aka “THE BOOK”, that was written and illustrated by the three year olds. This, it is argued, is a very real example of children being included in and participating in society by contributing meaningfully to the existing collection of the early years literature. Limitations of this evaluation It must also be acknowledged here, that no appraisal of the impact of this intervention on subsequent parenting practices or child development could be made as this would require a far more in depth evaluation including a pre and post intervention evaluation. However the evidence here suggests that this project should be considered for such an evaluation because it epitomises “best practice” in this area.

Introduction The aim of this short report is to offer a preliminary observational and qualitative evaluation of the work carried out by Kids’ Own, with the Kids’ Own Travelling Library in County Waterford, in collaboration with Waterford County Library Services (WLS), Waterford County Childcare Committee (WCCC). From the outset, it is important to be explicit about what this evaluation can and cannot claim to answer. This evaluation can examine whether the service delivery is congruent with the major psychological theories of early learning, as well as examining whether it creates a context for both child development and parent education. It also offers an opportunity to “re-think” the possibilities that such a project may offer in terms of early years intervention. A brief appraisal of its congruence with Government policy and strategy in this area will also be carried out. In this way a coherent evaluation of the delivery of the Kids’ Own workshops can be made. In order to preserve the integrity of this report and the work of Kids’ Own it is important to highlight that conclusions about the effectiveness of Kids’ Own on children’s subsequent development and their continued access to library services and changes in parents’ facilitation of play sessions in the home cannot be made. In order to make an empirical appraisal of these outcomes a far more in-depth evaluation would be required. How do we define “quality” in Early Years education? The purpose of all education is to “draw fourth” potential. Specifically in relation to the education of pre-school children an understanding of their developmental stage is crucial if a meaningful, relevant and stimulating play experience is to be offered. In addition to this when working with parents their knowledge of the qualitatively

different stages of development cannot be assumed and therefore the aim of any supportive intervention work with parents should aim to communicate this knowledge in a practical way because this knowledge alone may be key to improving adult child interactions during “playtime” in order to provide more intellectually nourishing experiences and increase the satisfaction levels for all involved. Research has consistently shown over the past thirty years that parental involvement in children’s education not only enhances the child’s intellectual development but also improves their social skills and reduces problem behaviour (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Fax & Chen, 2001; Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999).

The facilitation of “quality” play experiences provides a context for the deepening of young children’s representational thought, the developing of their vocabulary, the freedom to experiment with the metalinguistic features of speech as well as the enacting of story structure, setting and other literacy elements. From the theoretical perspectives that will briefly be outlined here it will be demonstrated that early literacy education should include providing time and opportunity for experimentation with a vast range of literacy materials during the first five years of life. Two questions for this evaluation emerge from these theoretical assertions, but only the first of these can be fully answered by this current evaluation: •

1. Do the Kids’ Own Workshops provide a “quality” play experience for children?

•

2. Do Kids’ Own workshops provide a context where parents can learn to effectively facilitate and engage in playtime with their young children.

The role of the adults in early years education Dewey (1897) asserted that the role of the adult does not involve imposing certain ideas or creating certain habits in the child rather it is to select influences which shall affect the child and to assist him/her in responding properly to these influences. Connected closely with this is Vygotsky’s concept of the “zone of proximal development”. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning takes place when children are challenged within close proximity to, but slightly beyond their current level of development. It is therefore suggested that the outcome of successfully completing a challenging task is that the learner gains confidence and motivation. Von Glasersfeld (1989) contends that sustaining motivation to learn is strongly dependent on the learner’s confidence in his or her potential for learning. These feelings of competence and belief in potential to solve new problems, are derived from firsthand experience of mastery of problems in the past and are much more powerful than any external acknowledgment and motivation (Prawat and Floden 1994). These theories and supporting evidence suggest that a knowledge of a child’s current level of ability provide the basis for the initial planning of the play session and the role of the adult is to “select influences”, “guide responding” and carefully “scaffold the challenge” to ensure the confidence and motivation of the child are nurtured. To return to the key questions:

•

1a. Do the Kids’ Own Workshops provide developmentally appropriate and meaningful “influences”?

•

1b. Do the facilitators “guide the children’s responding”?

•

1c. Have they accurately judged the children’s “zone of proximal development”?

•

2. Are the parents also in a comfortable supported but challenging learning zone where they might learn from observing the facilitators “at play”?

Government policy and strategy The primary question when evaluating any provision of services for pre-school children should relate to the “quality” of the service delivery. This “quality” encompasses: • Developmental appropriateness • Sensitivity of delivery • Congruence with best practice in early education policy and delivery, which includes the recognition of parents as the “primary educators” of their children. The “White Paper” on early childhood education states that the aim of policy in this area is to deliver on Article 29 1 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states •

“The education of the child shall be directed to (a) the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.”

Part of delivering on this policy involved the development of the Early Years Curriculum (Síolta) and the provision of free pre-school places. Another element of this White Paper articulates the need to support parents with their child rearing in the home. This of course is a far trickier area to deliver upon, and the question that needs to be asked here is:

•

Does the work of Kids’ Own concur and support the delivery of these policy aims?

In posing this question the intention is to probe the relevance that a children’s publishing company may play in the delivery of quality early years education to children, and to support parents in their role as primary educators. A key component of government strategy in this area as outlined in the Transformation Programme (2006) was the: •

Development of integrated services to deliver “optimal and effective results”;

•

Engagement of all staff in transforming health and social care outcomes for “all” children.

In order to further probe the current relevance of the Kids’ Own Travelling Library intervention a selection of relevant outcomes taken from the Children’s Strategy will be considered in relation to the role that Kids’ Own may potentially play in early years education provision. The outcomes that will be considered are: •

1. Supported in active learning.

•

2. Part of positive networks of family, friends, neighbours and the community.

•

3. Included and participating in society.

Rationale This evaluation therefore seeks to ascertain if the Kids’ Own Travelling Library and associated workshop programme provides a quality play based experience for children and their parents. This will be achieved: •

Firstly, by examining whether the delivery of the workshops is congruent with “best and developmentally appropriate practice” as outlined by the major theorists in this area.

•

Secondly, by considering the potential role that Kids’ Own could play in providing a context for the provision of integrated interagency services.

•

Thirdly, the potential role this intervention could play in relation to the delivery of the three mentioned strategy outcomes will be examined.

These workshops in Waterford were really a test of how three independent agencies co-operated to provide a service and engage parents and their children in an “early literacy experience” with a distinct difference. The fruit of these workshops will be published in a book, which was written and illustrated by none other than the children themselves in a carefully scaffolded, process-orientated, child-led play experience.

Method The Kids’ Own Travelling Library programme delivered four workshops for two separate groups of parents and their pre-school children in Tramore Library in April 2011. The sessions were facilitated by the artist Polly Minett and writer and musician Mary Branley. Each group attended two, two-hour sessions on 14th and 15th April 2011. One group attended a morning session on both dates while the second group attended in the afternoon. The sessions were organised by Kids’ Own in collaboration with the library service and coincided with the library service’s development of their four-year reading strategy. These workshops were part of an early years literary intervention with the aim of developing pre-reading skills, developing creativity and making library services accessible to “all” pre-school children. Recruiting parents for these workshops was a collaborative effort between the library staff, Waterford County Childcare Committee and RESPOND (a community preschool group). Observational Evaluation The researcher sat in on the workshops that took place on 14th and 15th April 2011 in Tramore Library in order to specifically evaluate the content, delivery, atmosphere, interactions, behaviour management and materials that were used during the workshops over the two days. The facilitators were at no stage made aware of the evaluation criteria that were being used by the researcher who just participated in songs and rhymes, to act like an “insider” rather than an “outsider” during the process. During the observation the focus was on evaluating the facilitators’ skills in relation to encouraging the participation of both parents and children in the session.

The facilitators’ delivery skills in relation to their ability to provide a stage-appropriate workshop that created a “zone of proximal development”, was also evaluated. Their choice and use of play materials was also under observation in order to draw conclusions about the availability of these in the home setting as well as their affordability. Behaviour management was judged in relation to strategies employed to deal with both withdrawn and challenging behaviour. Finally facilitators were evaluated in relation to their handling of spontaneous events such as “water spillages” in order to judge their power as “models” for parents in creating a warm, safe, play environment. Parent Survey Following the delivery of the afternoon workshop on the 14th April 2011, nine parents were surveyed and asked to answer the following open-ended questions: 1. How would you describe your child’s experience of Kids’ Own? 2. Do you currently attend storytelling in the library and parent and toddler groups? 3. Has this session given you any ideas for “play” in the home?

Focus group with representatives from Kids’ Own, Waterford County Childcare Committee, Waterford Library Services and RESPOND. After the completion of the final workshop a focus group was conducted with 10 representatives from the above named agencies who engaged in interagency collaboration to deliver the Kids’ Own programme in Waterford. The session began when the researcher introduced herself and explained the process to be followed. She then asked each group member to introduce themselves and say a little bit about why they were part of the group. Following this each member of the group was asked to talk about their strategy for supporting parents. As part of this a general discussion evolved around the group’s experience of the workshops. The group discussion was audio recorded and lasted approximately 45 minutes. Following the group the recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.

Results Observational Evaluation The first part of the workshop consisted of a music, songs, rhymes and stories session. The evaluation criteria were as follows: content, delivery, atmosphere, interactions, participation and behaviour management and use of materials and props. Table 1. Music, Song, Rhyme and Story Session

Delivery

Description

Child Participation

Adult Participation

A positive atmosphere of participation, fun and openness was encouraged.

All children joined in the singing, rhyming and stories.

There was full adult participation.

The material was age and stage appropriate. All children were allowed to participate at their own level of comfort. Guitar was played by Facilitator 1. Puppets were introduced to scaffold childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s integration into the group by Facilitator 2.

Zone of Proximal Development. Facilitators, parents and children sang songs, enacted rhymes and shared stories. At the outset traditional nursery rhymes such as “Incy Wincy”, “Polly put the kettle on”, “The Grand Old Duke of York” etc. were used to ease the children into the session. Once all children were settled and interacting and participating, they were encouraged by the facilitators to develop their own rhymes. One child would say a line and the facilitators would encourage the children to think of rhyming words to create the next line. This was a carefully “scaffolded process” where the children’s emerging metalinguistic abilities were carefully developed in an atmosphere where mistakes were no “big deal”, even funny at times, and success led to the addition of a new line for the emerging rhyme for their “book”.

Table 2. Creative Art Session

Description

Delivery

Facilitators laid paper, chalks, pastels, on the table.

Child

Adult

Participation

Full child participation

Full adult participation

Children requiring additional stimulation.

Parents of these children also took part.

Parents were encouraged to join their children in the activity. Facilitators modelled the asking of open questions about the children’s emerging works of art… ”What’s this”, “Tell me about that.” This activity was child-led. Children developed ideas about what they wanted to create. Facilitators modelled the scaffolding process for parents and then allowed parents to take over this “supportive guide role”. If boredom set in, facilitators extended play by gradually adding new materials: paper for tearing and gluing, glitter, lollipop sticks, water for the pastels to see what happens when... Printing session was set up and this offered a welcome opportunity for the children requiring an additional challenge to extend the journey of colour and texture exploration even further.

Zone of Proximal Development This session provided opportunity for individual parent–child involvement and engagement with the materials at a level and pace that they felt comfortable with. This session was carefully planned so that play was gradually supported or extended when frustration or boredom set in. Parents were shown how to follow the child’s lead, to ask appropriate open ended questions about the emerging symbolic representations and to act as a sensitive and supportive guide when required. Adults were encouraged to become process orientated in their attitude towards children’s creative play. In this way children were supported to bring the fruit of their representational thought out into the “real world”. Modelling What happens when the water for the pastels spills everywhere? Alarm signals go off. Children say “maybe we won’t be allowed to play anymore?”. Facilitator 1 says, “sure it’s only water, we will dry it up, get some more and carry on. It’s no big deal”. General Findings from the Observational Evaluation Kids’ Own provides a “quality” and enjoyable play experience for both children and adults. The workshop provided the necessary balance of blending the familiar with the novel, which created a fun and highly stimulating session for the child. The “influences” were carefully chosen. For example, the pastels offered an opportunity for extension when using them with water and the printing was new for all parents and children alike.

Parent Survey 1. How would you describe your childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of Kidsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Own? All nine parents reported that their child thoroughly enjoyed the session and had played with a range of materials. All reported interactive play with their child. Three parents indicated that play was generally lead by the child, one reported that play was lead by them, and five felt it was a mutual sharing of ideas. Fig.1 Pie Chart showing whether play was child/adult directed

2. Do you currently attend storytelling in the library and parent and toddler groups? Three parents indicated that they attended a parent toddler group, and only one of the nine had attended storytelling sessions in the library. Following the workshop all nine said they would attend parent toddler groups and storytelling sessions. All parents felt their children were comfortable interacting with other children and adults.

All parents reported that their attitudes to their child’s play had been positively influenced and all felt they would allow their child more free and creative playtime in the home. Again all nine parents said they felt more competent in encouraging their child to think creatively and felt they gained an awareness of how to support their child towards independently being able to carry out the cutting, taping and gluing themselves. 3. Has this session given you any ideas for “play” in the home? They all reported that they would introduce rhyme time and art time in the home. All nine parents felt they had learned a lot in terms of ideas about play and how creative play could be generated by using everyday items in the home. All reported that it was important to follow the child’s lead in play and felt that their child had enjoyed the workshop. Thematic analysis of focus group The main themes that emerged from the thematic analysis were 1.Supporting Parents as “Primary Educators”. 2. Supporting children’s creativity and their acquisition of essential literary skills. 3. Empowerment. Table 3 shows the themes as well as the sub-themes that emerged from thematic analysis of the focus group.

Table 3. Thematic analysis summary Main Theme

Brief Summary

1.Supporting parents as “primary educators”

Kids Own as an intervention for parents and children who are not currently accessing Library services.

Facilitators’ view of their “supportive role”

Mutual Respect, Open Communication and Modelling

Overcoming barriers Understanding barriers, flexiblity and open Communication

2. Supporting children’s creativity and their acquisition of essential literary skills Interagency co-ordination

Adding local children’s published work to their early years collection Kids’ Own as a catalyst for the creation of a network of early years interagency collaboration

Kids’ Own as an intervention

Early years intervention to explore the relationship between creativity and early acquisition of basic literary skills, starting with rhyme, expression and art.

3. Empowerment

Emphasis on process released the freedom of artistic expression in both children and adults.

To try it at home

Materials had to be accessible and readily available in the home.

Interculturalism

All children have the right to be celebrated. We have no barriers.

The finished product: The book Three-year olds immortalised in a quality published book.

1. Supporting parents as “primary educators” The library offers support to parents by providing a parent advisory service and by providing support services such as storytelling sessions. The offering of Kids’ Own is an extension of this and was constructed as an intervention for parents and children who might not currently be accessing library services. The County Childcare Committee co-ordinates all the county childcare in the county and would be the best placed to identify gaps in provision and to advertise such interventions as they would have been involved in establishing the 19 parents and toddler groups in the county and also be involved in supporting of all preschool and childminders in the county. RESPOND is a community playgroup that was established by the County Childcare Committee to address the developmental needs of children who may be deemed “at risk”. The Kids’ Own workshop was promoted to these parents and children during a parenting programme that was being offered to the parents because helping them establish links in the wider community was an important aim of this project. Three out of the five parents from this programme attended “There is a parenting programme that we helped to organise which is currently going on in that service and he [the co-ordinator] observed very closely the parents supporting each other during the rhyme and art workshops”. “They would not have got the chance to practice their skills outside the RESPOND service, but also the children were in tow, because the parenting group would be done with a group of parents only.”

It was suggested that Kids’ Own offered a context where parenting skills could be practiced and parents would have a very real opportunity to support each other in this. “You have an experience where you are a parent with your child. So it presented a perfect example of how parenting styles could be practiced.” How the facilitators view their role as supporters of “primary educators” The writer suggested that her method of working with parents has evolved as a result of reflective practice and avoids directing parents but is based on mutual respect and the creating of a relaxed open atmosphere where learning takes place through observation and open communication rather than direction. “...So when the parents are working on the printing and holding, I do not say this is what you should do...but just say this is the way that I work and I show them by modelling.” The artist also suggested that this is how she supports parent’s development. “You have to feed the information in without them feeling that you are telling them what to do.” It was also acknowledged that a possible barrier that parent’s faced was a lack of confidence in their own creative abilities and they might construe art as productdriven rather than an enjoyable explorative process. “I think it is very important to say that it’s very difficult to be creative if you don’t feel creative yourself and some parents feel quite worried about having to be creative to

start with and how that was modelled and how that was brought in was very important to both myself and the writer. There was no threatening and they weren’t threatened in any way, so they could just be creative alongside.” “And also parents who thought they couldn’t do it or who thought they wouldn’t be comfortable in such a situation, they were down on the ground with them and they were drawing as many pictures as them...” Both facilitators agreed that an essential component of their effectiveness in their role as supporters was having a small group, maximum of six parent-child couples. “The first thing is the number of participants within the workshop is very important in terms of the quality of engagement between the artists, the children and the parents”. Fathers are as welcome as mothers. “There seemed to be quite a lot of fathers as well and that was quite important”. “...The father and son worked together on a project...and the whole engineering of it and the two of them worked together and discussed their plans together, because they were both working from the same point.” Overcoming the barriers that make it difficult for parents to participate in Kids’ Own workshops. It was suggested that in providing such services for parents a good deal of flexibility is required, and it can be difficult to get parents to commit to something when they don’t know what they are committing to.

“...It was hard to get the parents to commit for two days because they may have a new born baby as well as a three year old.” “...We had to change the workshops slightly because of school times and that is very hard.” “When your children are young it can be very difficult to organise yourself for these things.” Kids’ Own also conducted two workshops in Dungarvan and Portlaw, the first on a Friday and the second on a Saturday. Many fathers attended on the Saturday morning only, so there was a situation where the fathers felt quite uncomfortable to begin with. “...This was an interesting dynamic because the child was much more settled and comfortable than the father. The child was leading the father.” “There was a particular father in Portlaw who looked so uncomfortable and worried but he and his son ended up making something fabulous together.” 2. Supporting children’s creativity and their acquisition of essential literary skills. By agreeing to partner with Kids’ Own on the project, the Library Service allowed this to feed into its four year reading strategy “Rearing to Go”. This policy is mainly implemented through their collections of early literacy material. The County Librarian explicitly wanted to extend this collection by adding the children’s own work to this collection.

“Children are not just little people....” “They are artists, they are writers, they are creators...” “The children own the work...” “They create the book...” “Their work was in no way template, it’s as far away from template as you can get” “The only way the creative process was controlled was in the way the materials were fed to the children” The facilitators actively encourage the children’s own individuality and creativity. For instance, one child chose for Humpty Dumpty to fall into a fire as opposed to falling off a wall. This variation then offered opportunities for the development of metalinguistic abilities in the form of words that rhyme with fire, but also opened the doors for the children to dive deep into their own representations and give birth to these in the real world. “...It has arisen a couple of times that a variation comes into the nursery rhyme, and so we kind of listen for variations and encourage them.” “We talk about the rhymes and songs beforehand…” This is done to encourage the children to develop their own variations and to get the children engaged with the possibilities that such opportunities offer. These variations then become extended into the drawings of the children

“The drawing that the little boy did is that he fell into the fire, and the puppet that he made, and it became a wonderful shared common song for the whole group.” The need for interagency work to co-ordinate the “Rearing to Go” strategy For library strategies to be effective a network of partnerships is needed. “We cannot implement any kind of a reading support strategy or education support strategy on our own” It was suggested that Kids Own could be like a catalyst that provided the context for such interagency work to take place in a meaningful way. “I think that Kids’ Own’s role is as a catalyst to support and complement the work that is happening on the ground.” “...Part of this project would be the creation of partnerships with other agencies because we realise that we cannot implement any kind of a reading support strategy or education support strategy on our own. We need a web of partnerships.” Kids’ Own as an intervention The County Librarian conceptualises Kids’ Own as an early years intervention that would act as an extension of their collection of early literacy materials and their reader advisory service for parents. “This is the first time that it’s not just a passive event where parents come and participate; this is actually constructed as an early years intervention.”

“...To explore the relationship between creativity and early acquisition of basic, or essential, literary skills. You know, starting really with rhyme, expression and art.” 3. Empowerment One of the representatives from Waterford County Childcare committee suggested that there was a sense of empowerment for both parents and children and alike that emanated from participation in the sessions. It was suggested that the emphasis on process released the freedom of artistic expression in both children and adults. “What everyone is describing here is empowerment.” “...Because there was no pressure put on parents to produce certain things.” “...Because there was no link to product, everything was do-able.” Empowerment to try this at home When planning the session, particular consideration was given to choosing the materials. “The materials that we used were very important.” “They had to be accessible, do you remember that we discussed that they had to be free or as near and as accessible, so they could be easily used in the home.” “The focus was not only on the process, but the materials that we were working with were as close to everyday...and therefore they were not frightening.” “They were things that they were used to working with.”

Interculturalism It was asserted that all children were equally respected and celebrated in Kids’ Own workshops. “Our intercultural ethos is totally across the board. It is about valuing three-year olds of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds. All children have the right to be celebrated. We have no barriers. Kids’ Own have no barriers.” There was an incident in Portlaw Library where a non-national parent bought in a little poem from her own culture that she had translated into English for the event. The mother was encouraged to recite it in Polish, although the child was initially uncomfortable about this. “...In the public setting to hear his mother speak the poem in Polish but yet in the supportive environment he did contribute. It was a really powerful moment in that parent-child connection.” The finished product: “The Book” The final element under the empowerment theme relates to the finished product. “The quality of the books that have already been published, the colour, the language, the physical size of them, everything about it – it’s a proper book...How wonderful that a three year old can be immortalised in a proper book.”

Summary of findings

Discussion The findings of this evaluation suggest that Kids’ Own workshops offer a “quality” early education experience and that their method of facilitation is congruent with the major psychological theories of early learning as outlined in the introduction (Dewey, Vygotsky & Piaget). A number of questions emanated from this outline and these will now be discussed within the context of the current findings in relation to the provision of “quality” early years education. 1a. Do Kids’ Own workshops provide developmentally appropriate and meaningful “influences”? The findings from the observation strongly suggest that both the song, story and creative materials were developmentally appropriate. All the materials that were used were items that would be available around the home and this is of particular importance within the current economic climate. Parents need to be educated in relation to being resourceful when providing play experiences for their children that are both valuable and affordable. 1b. Did the facilitators “guide the children’s responding”? The facilitators did guide responding in such a way that children were drawn into a zone of proximal development. This was detailed in the results section in relation to the encouraging of children to develop their own rhymes and to engage them in the process of “what would happen if” during the second part of the workshops when the children were developing their pictures.

1c. Have they accurately judged the children’s “zone of proximal development”? It was evident that these sessions were perfectly pitched both at the group and individual child level. 2. Were the parents also in a comfortable supported but challenging learning zone where they might learn from observing the facilitators “at play”? As already outlined it is impossible to appraise whether observing the facilitators “at play” brought about any subsequent changes in parent’s own facilitation of play outside of the workshop. It was suggested during the focus group that the Kids’ Own workshops offered the parenting programme participants a very real opportunity to practice their parenting skills in a supportive environment. The findings from the parent survey indicate that parents did learn something as all nine parents felt they had learned a lot in terms of ideas about play and how creative play could be generated by using everyday items in the home. All reported that it was important to follow the child’s lead in play. However no parent mentioned here the importance of gradually feeding materials to extend play when that was required. This is a vital ingredient in successful play experiences, so further investigations would be required in order to understand how these subsequently worked in the home.

Examining the Kids’ Own intervention within a policy and strategy context As previously mentioned, government policy and strategy in this area involves supporting parents as the “primary educators” of their children. Findings from this evaluation suggest that Kids’ Own could potentially provide a viable extension for existing parenting programmes by providing a context where parents could practice their parenting skills in a supportive environment, where they also are offered the opportunity to build supportive connections with other parents and other agencies within the community. A major focus of government strategy is for interagency cooperation in order to assure the achievement of positive outcomes for all children. The Kids’ Own intervention has a clear role to play in the delivery of three of these outcomes because it provides a place where children are supported in active learning. It also acts as a catalyst for involvement in a positive network of family and community. The creation and publication of a real book offers pre-school children a unique and real, as opposed to the often “tokenistic”, participation of children in our society. To conclude, although this evaluation cannot make claims in relation to the subsequent impact of these workshops on parents and children, it can make clear the case that this constitutes a quality “intervention” which is congruent with psychological theories of early education as well as government policy and strategy that aims to ensure the achievement of outcomes for “all” children.

References Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723–730. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich,M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817–839. Dewey, J. (1897). “My Pedagogic Creed” http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/My_Pedagogic_Creed Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, & Ellen Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140. Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist Views of Learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48. Ready to Learn. White Paper on Early Childhood Education http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/contents.htm Our Children Their Lives: The National Children’s Strategy http://www.dohc.ie/publications/national_childrens_strategy.html