Building Urban Communities: Parents and Schools in an English Initiative

Building Urban Communities: Parents and Schools in an English Initiative ECER, Berlin, Wednesday 14th September, 2011. Dr Stephen M. Cullen Mrs Mairi-Ann Cullen The Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal & Research (CEDAR), The University of Warwick, England.

Overview • Review of Labour government policy (1997-2010) • Continuities in current UK policy • The Parenting Early Intervention Programme (PEIP), and the national (English) evaluation of PEIP • Families and Schools Together (FAST) • FAST in the PEIP • The experience of undertaking FAST and the process of community building

Labour governments & family policy • 1997-2010 UK Labour governments saw parenting policy as having an important role to play in improving children’s educational & life outcomes, supporting schools, reducing anti-social behaviour & strengthening families • Labour Party 1997 manifesto statement: ‘Labour does not see families and the state as rival providers for the needs of our citizens […] but families cannot flourish unless government plays its distinctive role […] society, through government, must assist families to achieve collectively what no family can achieve alone’.

Labour governments & family policy (ii) • Government reports included: The Impact of Parental Involvement on Children’s Education (2003) DfES Involving Parents, Raising Achievement (2003) DfES Support for Parents: the Best Start for Children (2005) DCSF • Legislation included: Every Child Matters (2003) The Children Act (2004) The Children’s Plan (2007) • All of which assigned roles to state support for/intervention in, families.

Current approaches • May 2010, a new UK government – a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition; the government for England too • Parenting & family policy still being developed, but strong continuities, particularly in respect of ‘Early Intervention’ – e.g. David Cameron’s statement of 2nd September 2011 • There have been a number of high profile reports and reviews to government that stress Early Intervention, including parenting support…..

Current approaches (ii) • Field (2010) The Foundation Years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults • C4EO (2010) Grasping the Nettle; early intervention for children, families and communities • Allen (2011a & 2011b) Early Intervention: the next steps, and Early Intervention: smart investment, massive savings • Tickell (2011) The Early Years: foundations for life, health and learning • Munro (2011) The Munro Review of child protection

Parenting Early Intervention Programme (PEIP) • Pathfinder ran from September 2006-March 2008. Government provided £7.6million of funding to 18 Local Authorities (LAs) to implement one of three evidence-based parenting programmes for children aged 8-13 • The Pathfinder was followed, 2008-2011, by the Parenting Early Intervention Programme (PEIP) for all English LAs. Roll out accomplished in two stages, Wave 2 (from 2008) & Wave 3 (from 2009), with a further two evidence based programmes being added to the original three • The programmes: Triple P; Incredible Years (school age); Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities; FAST; Strengthening Families 10-14.

The evaluation of PEIP • The evaluation of the three stages of the PEIP roll out carried out by CEDAR, the University of Warwick • The evaluation of the first stage – Wave 1 – was reported on in 2008 • The evaluations of Wave 2 (2008-11), and Wave 3 (2009-11) reported on in May 2011 (Lindsay et al, 2011) • The evaluation adopted a mixed methods approach, using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Families & Schools Together (FAST) • FAST was one of the PEIP programmes • It has a strong evidence base, with numerous RCTs, and is one of the recommended United Nations parenting programmes: • ‘FAST is an after-school multi-family group programme offered for 8 weeks to all children within the same grade & their families. The multisystemic intervention brings together family, home, school & community to increase child well-being by strengthening relationships & factors that protect against stress’ (UNODC, 2010)

FAST, component elements • Age range: 3-18 years • Programme: 8 weekly, 2.5 hour evening sessions, school-based. Followed by 2 years of parent-led, school supported, monthly booster sessions - FASTWORKS • Session structure: family tables, including meal, peer activity (parent group, child group), parent-child activity, closing tradition • Participants: families with children in year group, 10 families per hub, school running 4-6 hubs at a time • Facilitators: 5 per hub, professionals from multiple agencies, parents, young people in secondary school • Aim: to increase protective factors for children.

FAST in the PEIP evaluation • The evaluation gathered data using pre & post course questionnaires (consisting of 3 standardised measures) from 6,143 parents in W2 (4,223) & W3 (1920) • 75 parents were interviewed, post-course • Of the PEIP programmes, FAST was the least used programme among the local authorities (LAs) & those LAs which adopted FAST took longer to roll out the programme than other programmes • In consequence, only 104 FAST parents completed pre & post course questionnaires • 15 FAST parents & 10 FAST facilitators were interviewed, post-course

FAST in the PEIP • Despite the comparatively small sample, FAST is of interest in that it had uncommon features in terms of the PEIP programmes: • It involves a number of key influences on a child’s life: family, school & community • Parents & children take part together • It is offered to whole year groups in schools – an open offer, not targeted • It involves parents, children & community in running FAST groups

The experience of FAST • The focus here is on 8 mothers, a father & an elder brother’s experiences of undertaking a FAST course, with particular reference to urban community building in one major English city • In addition to the views of the 10 FAST family members, the views of 4 Fast workers from the same city will also be examined in relation to FAST and community building.

FAST & building communities • The interview data is examined under the following headings: • Making links with other parents & families • Building links with schools • Strengthening local communities

Making links with other parents & families • Parents described situations of social isolation that were broken by undertaking a FAST course: ‘I was quite a loner, so it was hard to mix. I just used to tend to come to school and then drop the kids off and then go home’ (M2) • This was a common theme, with one group of four mothers who had lived in the same area all their lives noting that although they knew each by sight, they had not made contacts until taking a FAST course: ‘I would have just walked past these and all the other parents, and didn’t know them. Now, we all know each other, and we’ve arranged that in the 6 weeks’ holiday we’ll all meet up with the kids and go to the park, or go for days out, where we wouldn’t have done that before’ (M1)

Making links with other parents & families (ii) • The results were new links for adults & children: ‘We didn’t know each other, and I’ve met loads of new parents now, and the kids have got new friends’ (M1) • Parents also spoke about their course providing a new social meeting space: ‘the social interaction as well […] the ability of parents … they wanted to go out, but not everybody necessarily wants to go to the pub to find a social life. It’s [FAST and after] a means of being together with other families. We talk together, we interact together, we discuss together, all that sort of thing’ (F1)

Making links with other parents & families (iii) • The parents planned to build upon their new social & friendship networks, for example: • Planning to use local church to make meals for all the families & carry on meeting • Hoping to get the school to let them use a room for coffee & meetings • These were initiatives planned outside the FAST follow-up, & were dependent upon parents finding space & support for these plans – which, in the case of one school, was not forthcoming • The role of eating together & cooking together was seen to be of great importance:….

Making links with other parents & families (iv) • ‘When you are cooking with somebody, you’re talking to them, you’re getting to know them’ (M3) • ‘we’ve been doing the cooking on the [school] premises, & they’ve been coming in & doing it […]& they absolutely love it, and the sense of pride on their faces…’ (school teacher & FAST worker)

Building links with schools • The school location & school staff participation in the FAST courses drew adults into schools & enabled them to see staff & the schools in a new light: ‘when we all came together during this FAST project, we can see how easy it was to interact with the teacher, or the rest of them, that they were all very open people and they were there to assist, to help’ (F1)

Building links with schools (ii) • This building of new links between families & their schools was highly valued by the schools themselves: ‘the families that attended feel more comfortable in schools following the programme […] I feel that the relationship with the school is that they find it more easy to talk to the staff because they know them better’ (head teacher from a FAST school) • ‘because they’re in school more, we can do it [contact parents] in a more informal manner’ (same head teacher)

Building links with schools (iii) • One teacher with 35 years teaching experience & long involvement in community projects, argued: ‘I just feel that there’s very little we can actually do in terms of changing people’s lives but empowering them to change it themselves is such an easy thing to do, it’s a really good vehicle, by opening up the school and opening up what we’ve got to offer’ (teacher & FAST facilitator)

Strengthening local communities • The FAST courses involved other groups and people from the local community, e.g., churches, voluntary groups, police. This involvement strengthened school-community links & made new local contacts for families: ‘They had police officers there, so we had a chance as well to speak to the police officers if we were concerned about anything, and the children as well had that anchor’ (M4) ‘a spin-off from the school’s point of view is that the two community partners – we didn’t know them before the first [FAST] cohort – we’ve got to know them, and they are almost like extended friends, which has been brilliant from our point of view’ (school head teacher)

Conclusions: elements in community building • The FAST interview evidence provided, among other matters, details of successful personal, social, school, and community linkages through the operation of the programme • The key elements: • The school connection & school involvement – a local focus • Family based, with, typically, 8-10 families on each course • Socialising as part of the course – particularly eating together & cooking for each other • Community involvement – other groups from the community helping to build networks for families

Building Urban Communities: Parents and Schools in an English Initiative