The University of Strathclyde was commissioned by the Scottish Government to evaluate a pilot programme of extended pre-school provision for vulnerable two year olds. The team gathered both quantitative and qualitative data across the three pilot areas of Glasgow, Dundee, and North Ayrshire. Data were collected from multiple stakeholders- children, parents, preschool centre staff, heads of centres and local authority childcare strategy managers. The overall aim was to build up a coherent picture of the programme's impact by triangulating findings from different methodologies and different informants

King, Julia

Woolfson, Lisa

English

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Strathprints Institutional RepositoryWoolfson, Lisa and King, Julia (2008) Education and lifelong learning research findings No.42/2008:Evaluation of the extended pre-school provision for vulnerable two year olds pilot programme.[Report]Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde.Copyright c© and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authorsand/or other copyright owners. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for anyprofitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or study, educational, ornot-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to Strathprints administrator:mailto:strathprints@strath.ac.ukhttp://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/Main Findings Parents in the programme showed improved parenting capacity compared to parents in the comparison group Children in the pilot showed improved developmental outcomes but comparison group children not in the pilot also showedimproved outcomes Staff gained new learning that would inform future practice with preschoolers Extending a programme to two year olds requires a bedding – in period for effective planning, preparation and staff trainingbefore programme start.Evaluation of the extended pre-school provision forvulnerable two year olds pilot programmeDr Lisa Woolfson and Dr Julia KingDepartment of Psychology, University of StrathclydeEducation and Lifelong LearningResearch FindingsNo.42/2008The University of Strathclyde was commissioned by the Scottish Government to evaluate a pilot programme of extendedpre-school provision for vulnerable two year olds. The team gathered both quantitative and qualitative data across the threepilot areas of Glasgow, Dundee, and North Ayrshire. Data were collected from multiple stakeholders- children, parents,preschool centre staff, heads of centres and local authority childcare strategy managers.The overall aim was to build up a coherent picture of the programme’s impact by triangulating findings from differentmethodologies and different informants.BackgroundIn August 2006 the Scottish Government invited Glasgow,Dundee and North Ayrshire local authorities to take part in a£2 million Extended Pre-School Provision for Vulnerable twoYear Olds Pilot Programme.The pilot programme was to run for a two year period withthe key aim of providing positive pre-school experiences oneyear early for vulnerable children and to support theirparents. Local authorities were encouraged to develop theirown models of delivery within the broad aims of the project.A research team from the Department of Psychology,University of Strathclyde, headed by Dr Lisa Woolfson wascontracted to carry out an evaluation of the programme inthe second year of the pilot. The research study ran fromApril 2007 to September 2008 and evaluated children whoparticipated in the pilot programme between August 2007and June 2008, the second year of the pilot programme.AimsWe aimed to explore the impact of the extended pilotprogramme on cognitive, social, emotional and behaviouraldevelopmental child outcomes, as well as the impact onparticipating parents.In addition we aimed to identify recruitment criteria andadmission procedures used by the participating localauthorities as well as staffing, numbers of children,attendance rates and practical issues around programmeset-up and delivery.MethodsWe used mixed quantitative and qualitative methods.Quantitative tools used to measure child outcomes were:1. Bayley-III Scales of Infant and Toddler Development2. Goal Attainment Scaling3. The Adaptive Social Behaviour InventoryQuantitative tools we used to measure parent outcomeswere:1. Parenting Daily Hassles Scales2. Ryff Psychological Well-being ScalesWe collected complete sets of pre- and post- interventiondata from: 108 children who attended pilot programmes and 66comparison group children on child cognitive andlanguage outcomes 89 intervention group parents and 61 comparison groupparents on their children’s social-emotional outcomes andadaptive behaviourCentre staff in the three authorities completed pre- and post-intervention evaluations of: adaptive social behaviour of 70 children developmental progress of 79 children measured usinggoal attainment scaling methodologyWe compared quantitative child and parent outcomes with acomparison group who did not receive the pilot programmeintervention.Qualitative data collection involved: 30 face-to face parent interviews 20 face-to-face interviews with heads of centres 20 telephone parent interviews 15 staff focus groups with centre staff, heads of centresand childcare strategy managersFindings: programme set-upProgrammes were set up in nursery schools, in nurseryclasses attached to primary schools and in family learningcentres. Some were entirely new provisions while others hadpreviously offered places to 2 year olds and the pilotprogramme allowed an increase in the number of placesavailable.Programme staff overcame any early teething problems andviewed the pilot as making a valuable contribution to the livesof participating children and families.Staff appointed to work together on this new initiative as ateam needed more time to develop a shared vision, aims andvalues to inform their day-to-day practice before the two yearolds came into their centres.2Staffing this new provision meant extending the experienceof most staff to a new area of child development as mostwere used to working with 3-5 year olds. Staff developmentand training in working with two year olds before theprogramme started admitting children was viewed as usefulin helping staff plan how best to tailor curriculum content andcurriculum delivery to this younger age group.Some staff felt that they would have benefited from trainingin working with parents to help them understand the range ofneeds and experiences of these families and how best tosupport them in a non-judgmental way.Findings: programme deliveryStaff preferred where they were timetabled for regular teamplanning meetings and for carrying out any necessaryadministration. Staff felt that the allocated staff: child ratiosand staff hours of work did not always recognise sufficientlythat part of their duties were away from the children and thatthey needed time for this.Experience of delivering the programme taught staff just howmuch staff attention vulnerable two year olds needed in orderto learn to cope with the demands of a preschoolprogramme. Some staff felt that the pace of admitting newchildren to the programme needed to be slowed down toallow staff to settle them properly before the next new intakegroup arrived with similar demands on staff time.Staff valued training and support as helpful not only prior tothe set-up but also throughout the delivery of the pilotprogrammes. They felt their practice had benefited from theexperience of extending their skills to this new age group andthat their new learning would also benefit their work witholder preschoolers as new skills could be generalised.Findings: programme outcomesChildrenStaff focus groups, scales completed by staff, parentinterviews and standardised assessments all triangulated toprovide evidence that children in the pilot programmes hadlearned a range of new skills throughout the period of theirattendance at the intervention, particularly in the areas oflanguage and social skills.Standardised Bayley-III child outcome measures over a sevenmonth period showed significant intervention group progresson cognitive, receptive language, expressive language andsocial-emotional outcomes with medium to large effect sizes.These standardised findings triangulated well with goalattainment scaling, adaptive social behaviour scales andparent and staff interview data. Together these findings fromdifferent sources and gathered by different methods bothqualitative and quantitative, provide convincing evidence thatthe intervention group made good progress over theevaluation period.When we compared these results with a group of two yearolds matched in terms of age, gender and living in similarareas of disadvantage, but who did not have places on theextended pilot intervention programme, we did not howeverfind evidence that intervention group progress on childoutcome measures was significantly different from that seenin the comparison group.This was possibly due to the short intervention period andalso the presence of confounding variables that we wereunable to control for. In particular the highly effectivebanding systems used by the local authorities ensured thatpriority places in the pilot programmes were allocated tothose in their communities who were most in need.If we consider the likely extent of ongoing risk factors for theintervention group (child protection, maternal depression,drug abuse, developmental disability), it may indeed beviewed as a highly positive result that the intervention groupmade such good progress.ParentsAs well as positive child outcomes, there were also positiveoutcomes for parents. Results showed improved parentingcapacity in parents whose children participated in the pilotintervention programme. Indeed, intervention group parents’adjustment to the daily hassles of parenting was significantlybetter than that of comparison group parents.We asked parents to rate items such as ‘continually cleaningup messes of toys or food’ and ‘the kids are hard to managein public’ to tell us how often they experienced daily parentingsituations as a hassle, and how much of a hassle they were.Comparison group parents experienced an increase in theirexperience of daily parenting hassle, most probably relatedto their children going through the developmental periodmany parents think of as the ‘terrible twos’. Interventiongroup parents did not experience this increase.3Parents also gained valuable new insights and understandinginto their children’s behaviour which led to changes in theway they thought about their role as parents and theirbehavioural and developmental expectations of theirchildren.‘I’ve just learned to talk to himdifferently. Rather than just shouting athim, and moaning, and just like gettingso frustrated I’ve learned to sit and talkto him….. I think well if they can do it,then I can do it.’‘I’m expecting a lot more from [child’sname]. I don’t know if that’s a bad thingfor a parent to expect more butbecause he’s picked up certain thingsvery, very quickly, I think to myself he’sgoing to be quite smart.’In addition, parents felt that they responded better to theirchildren having had some time away from them when thechildren attended the pilot programme. Participation in theprogramme reduced social isolation for some parents.Parents learned from a range of experiences including formaland informal observation of their children in the programme,activities brought home by their children, talking to otherparents, direct advice from staff in meetings with the keyworker and parent support programmes.When we triangulate the findings about coping with the dailyhassles of parenting with findings from parent interviews itsuggests that: the new skills that intervention group parents learned formanaging their children’s behaviour the new expectations and understanding they had of theirchildren’s behaviour having some time to themselves,all contributed to the better adjustment of intervention groupparents than comparison group parents to the daily hasslesof parenting during the ‘terrible twos ’.Changing parents’ behaviour towards their childrenand enhancing parenting capacity is likely to be ahighly important outcome for impacting on children’sdevelopment in the longer term4RR Donnelley B58776 12/085This document (and other Research Findings and Reports) and information about social research in the ScottishGovernment may be viewed on the Internet at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearchThe site carries up-to-date information about social and policy research commissioned and published on behalf ofthe Scottish Government. Subjects covered include transport, housing, social inclusion, rural affairs, children andyoung people, education, social work, community care, local government, civil justice, crime and criminal justice,regeneration, planning and women’s issues. The site also allows access to information about the ScottishHousehold Survey.If you have any enquiries about social research,please contact us at:Dissemination OfficerThe Scottish GovernmentEducation Analytical Services1 B South, Victoria QuayEdinburgh EH6 6QQEmail: recs.admin@scotland.gsi.gov.ukWebsite: www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearchOnline copiesThe research findings is web only and can bedownloaded from the publications section of TheScottish Government website:http://www.scotland.gov.uk

Education and lifelong learning research findings No.42/2008: Evaluation of the extended pre-school provision for vulnerable two year olds pilot programme

Name not available

http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/25809/1/SG_Research_findings_2008.pdf

Education and lifelong learning research findings No.42/2008: Evaluation of the extended pre-school provision for vulnerable two year olds pilot programme

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Name not available