Busy Bees Ban mobile Ideas for Final part Children and bosses buy phones at exploring of serieson Family Centre backshares nursery? joles safeguarding Manager Page3 Pages 15 Pages 19-22 Pages 20-29 Page 34 | For everyone in the early years community www.nurseryworld.co.uk NurseryWorl 25 June 2009, £1.60 | Playtime Why the key person needs to go beyond routines Pages 16-17——| POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS KEY PERSON APPROACH Pressure points ' Some difficulties in implementing the key person approach | are pinpointed by Julian Grenier as he listens to nursery staff ih the recent death } Jof Elinor Gold- | chmiednowis per | haps a good time to focus again on one of er key achieve- | ments. in 1993, working with he o- | author Sonia Jackson, she outlined a | emo provide ere eae rabies and todalers in nurseries, which they tiled the ky person approach | They defined this as ‘promoting a | special lationship between the child, his family anda particular caregiv | er through specifie work practices, including the key person undertaking | sthome visit before the child begins, | working closely with the child and | arent to sete the child into the nars- | erjattending to intimate care routines Te nappy changing and toileting, and ongansing a regular small gathering | ofthe key group which they called the ‘sland of intimacy’. Tike most attempts to advance practice and policy, the key person | approach has generated a good deal of controversy: Perhaps the strong- | est recent critics of the approach are ) Gunilla Dahlberg, Peter Moss and ‘Alan Pence, who have urged the aban- | donmentof'deas of intimacy, lose nea and cosines in nurseries, and | propose instead a ‘complex and dense tweb or network connecting people, environments and activities. ‘Some research also appears tojndi- | cate that despite increasing emphasis: | om the hey peron appro, which is now alegal requirement with he EYFS, babies and tddlers frequently do not getthe sor of loving ply and in | mate care thatthe approach envisages. | "For example, Peter Bier, whois one of the leading exponents ofthe ey person approach, concuded ina recent ate co-authored with Kay | Dearne, consultant child and ado lesen peychotheapis that ‘even in sareris nominally commited tthe ey penon apeoac, terete a aa of mplsmentation. Itisalso interesting to note that the | secearch nto Neighbourhood Nurse ies ould ntidenify any approaches that appeared to have anything more than amodest impact on children! foci and emotional development Strangely enough, those Neighbour hood Wireeries that achieved the highest ratings in thee personal care routines hed the children who were found to be the least co-operative, Teast sociable, and least confident eae eee oes | eee nee cess eee Se eae | key person very much as Elinor | Practitioners Goldschmied and Sonia Jackson orig- | are made Pore epeerned foe Sees eas | FEE ie ermaraiecramea” | forachile's For example, Marcia and julie(not | CMOtlonal therreal names) talked bouta toddler | Well-being, they were working with who settled | In nursery | happily when she arrived, butas theday went on became tied and distressed. As Marcia pit, One day Tsetup2 bed ‘with her own pillow from home. [said “sleep here she suid “OK” bur dit | Around 3pm she started to ery. I said “are you tired?” She said “no” but she fell asleep on my lap, though not for Jong? Julie added that ‘itis hard forher. ‘They were aware that they could not | reaiy‘mect the nee’ ofthe chil. ‘While che EYFS is full of videos and examples of practitioners making everything allright, real practice in nurseresis often about trying to offer | ‘good enough’ care and aceepting that sometimes a cild’s unhappiness can berecognised and responded to, butit cannot necessarily be solved. T noticed the members ofthe group | rarely tale about pay a8 pat ofthe role of the key person. Their emphasis ‘was almast always on care rorines, and ‘managing difficult and upsetting inci- dents ~ which they did with great kil Since conducting the group discus sions, [have wondered whether this ‘way of looking atthe key person role | might place a great deal of stress on the individual practitioner, making her ‘or him feel largely responsible forthe hil'semocional well-being in nursery Play can be a tremendously pow- erful medium in which children ean work through emotional difficul ties, confliets, anger and disappoint- | ment. Yet there was no discussion of | practitioners may feel that the role TGNURSERY WORLD25,UNE2009how; for example, an observation of@ When things gotdfficltin this wax, chil’s difficulties might prompt the they appeared to respond by becoming staff team to plan or resource playin abitdistanced and withdrawing fom. particular way, an aspect of the key their closeness to the ehildren, For person role whieh is considered in example, discussion stare up about Julia Manning-Morton and Maggie parents who stayed to lng wen they “Thorp’s Key Times for Pay. Gropped their chilren off One nurs- ry nurse commented, ‘Sometimes I HARSHER TONE feel ke there's parents who want their ‘The group generally talked abou: children to ery before they leave the the children in their cave with grea> nursery, and then some parents get ‘understanding and sympathy. Butjus: upset when they see they've got their oceasionallijaratherharshtonewould ite baby who runs to theirkey person take aver, When [looked closely atmy and docsnt say goodbye? ‘wanccriptofthediscussions,Ithought Here, the parentisonly talked about [could identify a pattern: when the asa disruption tothe smooth running tone became a bit harsh itwas almos: ofthe da. Later the nursery nurse said always when practitioners were take chat nursery is ‘kind ofa big step for ing about events in the nursery tha: the parents ike your child is growing ‘wererunning outofheircontol. up, you'renotthe main person in their of the key personis focusedon careroutinesrather than play ie REFERENCES: ‘eReport on neighbourhood surestart.govuk/_ doc/PO002388.pot ‘eGoldechmied, Eand Jackson, 5 (2005) People Under Three: ‘young children nday care. Routiedge ‘eElfer,P andDearniay, (2007) Nurseries ‘and emotional wel being: Evaluating anemotionally containing model of continuing professional development, ‘nearly Years: An Intemational oust ofResearchand Development, 2713). ‘@Dehiberg.G,Moss,P ‘and Pence, A(2007) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Equcationand Care:Lanauages of Evaluation. Routledge ‘eManning-Morton.J ‘and Thorp, M (2003) ‘Key Times for Play: the fst three years (Open University Press life any more’ which suggests rivalry besween the two. PICKING UP THEPIECES Te may seem hyper-ritical for me to take the words spoken ard analyse ‘hem ike his Tht snot mote, Iwas struckby the great professional {sm and sensitivity of the members of the group. And it is undoubtedly very ificultwhen events happea ike par- ent seeming to linge in theroom until, child gees upset. Iris nursery nurses ‘who have to pick up the pieces and manage diicultsituations ike tis, Itis inevitable that workin murser- {sw sometimes rn outaf the con- ‘rol of staff, but there didnot seem to be opportunities for staf to talk over ‘things like difficulties with parents. Ie seemed as if staff were often left with distressing and complex problems to solve on their own, They responded by distancing themselves comewha, by taking on harsh attitudes: inthis instance, there is no consideration of the mixed feelings a parent may have about leaving a baby in nursery, ‘SUPPORT ‘This leads me to suggest that one of the reasons for difficulties in imple- ‘menting the key person approach is that individual members of staf - the people who must, afer all, implement the system ~ feel that they have a great responsibility for theemotional ‘well-being of each child. Bu they do not seem to fel, ether, hot there are ‘other ways top children’ emotion= al development (for exanple, play) ‘which do noe fall so squarely on them, ‘Attimes what the pracitoners said suggested that they felt that when events run out of dir contol there is no-one to liste to them, support ther and help to think through problems, ‘When staff feel under presure, they ‘may respond by withdrawing some of their care and taking on hersher ati- tudes. Thisunderminesthe whole point ofthe key person approach nthe frst place. It may explain in pan, why itis stil proving so dificult to implement the key person approach more than a decade afer twas frst outined, (On the other hand, the careful lov- ing descriptions that memoers ofthe group gave ofthe intimate care they offered the children illusirated just how powerful and effective the key ‘person approach can be. Julian Grenier is head of Kare ‘Greenaway Nursery School und (Children's Centrein Islington, London WWVWNURSERYWORLD.COUK 25JUNE2009 NURSERY WORLDY?