Newspapers and television routinely pick up on newly published research - and not always in an accurate way. The response to the Families, Children and Childcare study delivered to the National Childminding Association by Penelope Leach this month was a typical example of widespread and varying media interpretations of a study concerned with childcare. The good news for nannies this time was that the study seemed to rate nannies as the next-best carers after mothers for children under two.
Parents may well read a brief report of some expert opinion or research finding, and raise the issue with you. As a nanny, being aware of such stories will demonstrate your professionalism, and parents will value your opinion when you show that you know how to find out more information.
There are applications for some research in a nanny's professional role.
But first, please recall that care is needed when you consider the interpretation of any research.
For a start, responsible studies contain a lot more 'maybe' and 'it depends' than fit neatly into a brief media report, let alone an eye-catching headline. Some quoted 'better-worse' numerical results are statistically significant, but some are trends in the data that could have arisen from sheer chance.
Some research takes the descriptive route and never aims to collect numerical measurements. This source of information draws on detailed observations of children and presents them as examples or a narrative.
These studies are far less likely to be reported in the general media.
Most research about childcare and early education focuses on group settings such as nurseries. There is far less research about the home-based option of childminding. There is next to no research about nannies. The very few projects I have encountered have been anecdotal.
How do children flourish?
The EPPE study (Effective Provision of Pre-School Education) has been quoted as proof that nurseries always benefit children. However, this very detailed study acknowledges that nurseries vary and some do not offer the rich, child-friendly experiences found in the best settings. The main findings of the EPPE study and the detailed follow-on of the REPEY (Researching Effective Pedagogy in Early Years) study have plenty of application to nannies, who are responsible for children in the family home.
Look at these brief highlights of the study and consider what you already do.
* The best settings, for the outcomes measured, brought 'care' and 'early education' together seamlessly. Good settings created a home-like feel. It does not help children if their important adults see 'early education' as something that is delivered in a separate package from the rest of their daily experiences.
* The better settings put play at the centre of children's day and encouraged learning through play. These groups did not operate like a primary school classroom. So there is no evidence that you should up-end the children's home in order to support their learning.
* Practitioners offered some adult-initiated experiences to children, but did not impose them. The study suggests that 50:50 adult-initiated and child-initiated opportunities is ideal for children of three to five years of age.
So, from the perspective of nannies, you should not be tempted to plan a child's day down to every last detail. Have some good ideas up your sleeve, and children will enjoy joining in an experience that you offer. But ensure that, in a way suitable for a family home, the children in your care can make plenty of relaxed, genuine choices from easily available play resources and potential experiences.
Personal relationships
Not all group settings (nor every family home, for that matter) benefit children as much as possible. Some cause actual harm to children's development. Jay Belsky raised concerns that very young children could be emotionally at risk from spending long hours in poor-quality group daycare.
His careful interpretations have sometimes been dismissed out of hand. The most recent report from the long-term study by Kathy Sylva, Penelope Leach and Alan Stein has also raised concerns about the emotional wellbeing of very young children (under-twos especially) in group care. Unless group care is very good indeed, with a proper key-person system, young children can feel emotionally adrift over the crucial years when they cannot flourish without a trustworthy, personal relationship.
But it would be unprofessional for nannies to condemn group care out of hand. The key point is that young children need the affectionate base of having a personal relationship. So, the child-focused, family orientation, which should develop naturally for nannies, is highly suitable for young children. Of course, children need enough time with their own parents too.
The practical message of the most reliable research that's been done is that one-to-one relationships matter for emotionally and intellectually healthy early childhood.
Communication skills
In recent years there has been a lot of concern expressed (often by head teachers and speech and language therapists) that many children seem to be unable to hold a conversation, listen or express their thoughts through spoken language. These concerns are anecdotal, but research illuminates what matters most for children.
In the EPPE research, the most helpful communication with practitioners was described as supporting children in 'sustained shared thinking'. Examples in the research reports show practitioners who listen to what children want to say, and then add comments or ask open-ended questions sparingly. They do not take over conversations to drive adult plans for pre-determined learning outcomes. This description is very similar to the 'passage of intellectual search' described by Barbara Tizard and Martin Hughes in their study in the early 1980s. They warned against an unhelpful adult approach of over-questioning and under-listening.
Jacqui Cousins has gathered a rich source of observational material that confirms how very young children today, if they have enjoyable play resources and are free of time pressures, are capable of holding complex conversations and thinking out loud, using their language skills. This richness of learning was being curtailed in group settings where adults were forever rushing on to the next pre-planned activity. Small-scale intervention projects, like that of Ann Locke and Jane Ginsborg, have also shown that some early years practitioners have lost an understanding of how important it is to have relaxed, ordinary conversations. There is an over-reliance in some settings on communication undertaken in groups, combined with adult panic about getting children on to written language, without the crucial building block of developing good oral communication skills.
The EPPE research highlighted the importance of home learning and parents spending time with their children. The study picked up on the impact of what parents were doing of their own accord, not activities requested by the nursery. Tizard and Hughes showed that the four-year-old girls in their study were involved in more complex and intellectually challenging conversations with their own mothers than those that emerged in their nursery class. The children in a nanny's care, hopefully, will also have stimulating verbal exchanges with their parents when they're home. But you, as a nanny, also need to value the importance of 'a good chat' during your days with the children.
Active play
The large-scale research studies tend not to measure physical skills or dexterity and concentrate more on intellectual and some socio-emotional measures. Fortunately, observational research and small-scale studies have documented further practical pointers to what matters for young learning.
Sally Goddard Blythe has highlighted how much young children need time to practise their physical skills and sense of balance. She was aware of problems in later childhood that could sometimes be traced back to under-active experiences and restrictions on active play in early childhood. Observation by Helen Bilton or Marjorie Ouvry has shown how limited outdoor play time and space creates self-fulfilling prophecies about 'limited play' and what adults then see as behaviour 'problems' in children.
Likewise, a supportive nanny does not have to march children around lots of special organised activity sessions, although one or two may be enjoyable.
Just open the door to the garden, or head off to the nearest public open space, and play with the children.
Adults' resistance to giving children more generous outdoor time is sometimes linked with a negative attitude towards any play that is considered to be 'rough' or that involves play themes which the adults find unacceptable, such as using pretend weapons. Penny Holland undertook an action research study in which a nursery team addressed the notion that you have to stop children, especially boys, who are excited by toy guns or pretend weapons and superhero play. Lifting the usual uncompromising ban on these activities did not lead to mayhem. On the contrary, as Penny Holland explains, there was a great deal of rich communication, imagination and thinking within this pretend play.
Of course, responsible nannies keep a careful eye and ear ready to intervene if children's livelier play really does lead to physical or emotional distress. Otherwise, the message from this research is to accept their invitations to join in pretend play and pay attention to what is actually happening, rather than to stop it with your own presumptions.
Finding out more
For summaries of useful research projects and further references to the studies mentioned here, see:
* Jennie Lindon, Understanding children's play (2001, Nelson Thornes)
* Jennie Lindon, Understanding child development: linking theory and practice (2005, Hodder Arnold)
