national síolta aistear initiative: review of the current ... · as the aistear pilot has been...
TRANSCRIPT
1
National Síolta Aistear Initiative:
Review of the current NSAI
mentoring model
August 2018
Prepared by the Department of Education and Skills as part of the National
Síolta Aistear Initiative
2
Contents
Context for the development of the National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI) Síolta & Aistear implementation 2006-2016 Síolta & Aistear-the National Context The National Síolta Aistear Initiative The current NSAI mentoring model
3 3 4 4 5
The NSAI mentoring model review Overview of NSAI implementation to date Rationale for the NSAI mentoring model review Methodology for the review
8 8 8 9
Governance of the National Síolta Aistear Initiative NSAI Steering Committee National Coordinators Administration of the NSAI Quality Assurance NSAI Costs
10 10 10 11 12 14
National reach and implementation to date
16
Síolta Aistear Mentor CPD 24
Submissions from partner organisations
26
Síolta Aistear Mentor feedback on the NSAI
37
Feedback from Early Years Settings on NSAI supports
42
Effectiveness of the model
47
Review Summary and recommendations for future development and implementation of the NSAI
50
3
Context for the development of the NSAI
Síolta and Aistear implementation 2006-2016
Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education was developed by the
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE) and published in 2006. Its purpose is to
provide a national quality framework for all types of early childhood education settings. Aistear is the Early
Childhood Curriculum Framework, developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment
(NCCA) and published in 2009. It supports adults (parents and early childhood practitioners) to develop
and enrich learning experiences for all young children. Due to resource constraints implementation of
Síolta (including the QAP) & Aistear was limited during this time period.
Síolta implementation from 2006-2008 included provision of Síolta awareness raising workshops
on a limited basis. The Early Years Education Policy Unit (DES) took responsibility for Síolta from 2008.
Working collaboratively with the National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCOs) and some of the
Prevention and Early Intervention Programmes (now part of the Area Based Childhood [ABC] Poverty
Initiative), the EYEPU coordinated the pilot implementation of the Síolta QAP between 2009 and 2013 and
provided initial training and continuing professional development opportunities for Síolta Mentors who
supported settings through the QAP. Following an evaluation, a report on the development and
implementation of the Síolta QAP was published in December 2013
(https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/S%C3%ADolta-Final-Report.pdf). The Síolta
QAP Validation process was developed in 2012 and a number of validators were trained to conduct
external validation of settings who have completed the QAP. From 2013-2016 partner organisations
continued to support settings to engage in the QAP within the capacity of their own organisations, with
the EYEPU continuing to coordinate this work.
Since the publication of Aistear in 2009, two main developments have taken place. Aistear in
Action, a collaborative project between NCCA and Early Childhood Ireland took place between 2011 and
2013 and used on-site mentoring, cluster groups and workshops to support curriculum development in a
number of rural preschools. In 2015, the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide was made available to support
practitioners to use Aistear and Síolta together to develop the quality of their curriculum and in doing so
to better support children’s learning and development.
4
Síolta and Aistear- the National policy context
Síolta and Aistear have increasingly become the foundation for Early Education policy
developments. The ECCE (Early Childhood Care & Education) scheme was introduced in January 2010 to
support all children to access pre-school education prior to beginning formal Primary education. This
scheme is funded by DCYA and it is a contractual obligation for settings receiving funding for this scheme
to implement both Síolta and Aistear. Síolta and Aistear can support settings to meet and exceed
regulatory requirements set out in the 2016 Pre-School Regulations and are of particular relevance to
Section 19 ‘Health, welfare and development of the child’. The tool used by the Early Years Education
Inspectorate (DES) is strongly informed by Síolta and Aistear with these inspections having a particular
focus on the educational experiences of children attending settings operating the ECCE scheme. Finally,
both national frameworks underpin the work of the Better Start, National Quality Development Service
and other organisations offering training and mentoring supports. The prominence of Síolta and Aistear
in policy developments underpins the importance of both national frameworks and emphasises the need
for supports for the sector to implement these in practice.
The National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI)
A survey was conducted by DES in 2015 to seek the views of practitioners, employers and other
interested parties on the extent to which current early childhood care and education qualifications
provide early ears practitioners with the appropriate blend of knowledge and skills to support the
educational development of children in early years settings (https://www.education.ie/en/The-
Education-System/Early-Childhood/Early-Years-Practitioner-Survey-Findings-2016.pdf). This survey
indicated that the level of preparedness in implementing and delivering Síolta and Aistear was a concern
and was a very significant gap identified by practitioners in both further and higher education programs.
The findings of this survey alongside the developing national quality agenda led to the establishment of
the National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI) in 2016 to support the coordinated rollout of Síolta and Aistear.
5
Structure of the NSAI
The Early Years Education Policy Unit, DES has overall responsibility for the National Síolta Aistear
Initiative. The initiative is funded by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) and is being
developed in collaboration with the Department of Education and Skills (DES). The NSAI is overseen by a
steering committee, chaired by DES. Two national coordinators are in place to ensure the effective roll-
out of the NSAI: a Síolta Co-coordinator working within the EYEPU and an Aistear Co-coordinator based in
the NCCA. The coordinators have complementary but distinct roles.
Figure 1.1-Current structure of the NSAI (April 2018)
The current NSAI mentoring model
The NSAI mentoring model currently operates on a distributed basis, with Síolta Aistear Mentors
not directly employed by the initiative. In addition to the original cohort of Síolta mentors (trained in
2009/2010), a number of Síolta Aistear mentors, nominated by City and County Childcare Committees
(CCCs), NVCOs and ABC projects, have been working with the coordinators since 2016. This group received
mentoring training from the EYEPU in 2016, and participates in regular national and regional CPD, as well
as availing of informal supports from the national coordinators.
6
National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCO’s) support Síolta and Aistear implementation
within the NSAI as part of their core work. There is an arrangement in place with CCC’s to backfill Síolta
Aistear Mentors for their work within the initiative at a rate of €30 per hour. Approved and direct contact
only with settings is reimbursable and excludes travel, preparation, venues, subsistence etc. All Síolta
Aistear mentors are employed by and line managed by their individual organisations. National
coordinators provide support and guidance and coordinate the mentors work within the NSAI. Mentors
are only permitted to use their mentoring hours on ‘agreed activities’ which are explicitly focused on Síolta
and Aistear implementation and include introductory and awareness raising workshops, Síolta awareness
raising workshops, onsite mentoring, cluster groups and supporting settings to engage in the Síolta QAP.
Work plans are submitted by partner organisations and reviewed and an allocation of mentoring hours
approved by the National Síolta Coordinator. Partner organisations are required to submit a progress
report on a quarterly basis to EYEPU to ensure adherence with agreed activities, to track progress and
inform planning.
Breakdown of organisations involved in the initiative:
Number of partner organisations: 34
NVCO’s: 3
ABC’s: 2
Individual CCC’s: 29
Number of Mentors
NVCO’s 13
ABC’s 2
CCC’s 37
Total: 52*
*This number fluctuates as not all mentors are actively implementing. To date 67 individuals have been trained by
EYEPU as Síolta Aistear Mentors
Síolta Validators
A number of Síolta Aistear Mentors and Better Start Early Years Specialists have been trained as Síolta
validators and conduct external validations on behalf of DES of settings who have completed the formal
Síolta QAP. Dedicated CPD and training is in place for Síolta validators. Validation structures and processes
are coordinated and managed by the Síolta Coordinator. Revised Síolta validation resources were
7
provided in autumn 2017, in conjunction with training of additional validators and refresher training for
some of the existing validators.
8
The NSAI mentoring model review
Overview of NSAI implementation to date
The National Síolta Aistear Initiative was established in 2016 with national coordinators beginning
in post in autumn 2016. Training of additional Síolta Aistear Mentors (additional to the original cohort
trained in 2009) took place in 2016. The Aistear CPD pilot took place between February-June 2017 and
was reviewed in summer 2017 and a report published in February 2018
(http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Introduction/Latest-News/Siolta-Aistear-Initiative-Final-report.pdf) . In light of
the findings of this report a working group was established to review the Aistear CPD content and this
work will be completed in early Autumn 2018.
In relation to the allocation of hours for training and mentoring supports, backfilling arrangements
were agreed with Childcare Committees Ireland (CCI) in February 2017 with initial work plans submitted
by CCCs by March 2017. Revision and development of Síolta resources to support mentors in their
mentoring work were developed and made available from May 2017 when a small number of mentors
began implementation. The majority of mentors began implementing from September 2017. Each mentor
could apply to use a maximum of 10 hours per month from the period June 2017-January 2018. From
February-June 2018 the NSAI budget allowed for additional hours to be applied for by CCC’s (up to a
maximum of 20 hours, per mentor, per month) who had the capacity to use them and who have submitted
an acceptable work plan for this period.
Rationale for the NSAI mentoring model review
As the Aistear Pilot has been concluded and there is active implementation of the training and
mentoring hours since Q2 2017, it was deemed timely to consider the learning and experiences at this
point in time to inform future planning for the NSAI from Autumn 2018 and in the longer term. Specific
objectives of the review include:
To identify strengths and gaps in the current mentoring model
To gather the documented views of partner organisations and those in mentoring roles
To gather perspectives of early years settings who have participated in NSAI activities
To consider any challenges and plan strategies to address these
To consider quality assurance arrangements within the initiative
9
To consider cost effectiveness of the current model
To consider the NSAI within the context of other quality initiatives such as the Better Start
QDS/EYEI to ensure alignment with other initiatives
To inform ongoing planning for the NSAI from September 2018 and into the future
Methodology
A variety of approaches to data collection were utilised in order to gather rich and robust evidence
regarding implementation and experiences of implementation to date. Both quantitative and qualitative
methods of data collection and analysis were undertaken and included:
Analysis of written submissions from individual partner organisations delivering NSAI
supports
Telephone interviews with Early Years settings who had received training or mentoring
support as part of the NSAI
Telephone interviews with Síolta Aistear Mentors who deliver supports within the
initiative
Analysis of quarterly progress reports submitted by organisations for Q2-Q4 2017
Analysis of other NSAI data including coordinator records, CPD records and meeting
minutes.
Interviews of Early Years Settings and Síolta Aistear Mentors were conducted by an independent
facilitator, commissioned through an open tendering process and provided a report detailing the findings
of the interviews which alongside the data above have been presented thematically within the following
categories:
1. Governance of the NSAI
2. National reach and implementation to date
3. Overview of submissions from NSAI partner organisations
4. Overview of feedback from Early Years Settings
This report concludes with a summary of the main findings and an overview of the proposal for the future
development and implementation of the NSAI.
10
Governance of the NSAI
NSAI Steering Committee:
The National Síolta Aistear Initiative is overseen by a steering committee, chaired by the DES, with
members from the DCYA, DES (EYEI & EYEPU) and the NCCA. The role of the steering group is to oversee
the strategic development and implementation of the initiative. A representative from Better Start, the
National Quality Development Service joined the steering group in May 2018 to further enhance
integration between both initiatives. The role and remit of each of the organisations involved in the
steering group can be summarised as follows:
DCYA: are the funders of the NSAI. DCYA play a significant role in the regulation and funding of the early
years sector and contract a number of funding schemes for the Early Years sector including the ECCE and
CCS schemes. DCYA also fund Better Start and the Access and Inclusion Model to support children with
additional needs to access preschool. DCYA also have responsibility to support quality improvement
within the EY sector.
DES: initiated the development of both Síolta and Aistear frameworks and retain ownership and
responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of both frameworks.
NCCA: The NCCA has an advisory role on curriculum and assessment. In terms of the NSAI, NCCA were
tasked with developing 10 hours of CPD focused on Aistear and to work on the development of the
aistearsiolta practice guide.
Better Start: has three strands to its work-a quality development service providing mentoring to early
year’s settings, delivery of the access and inclusion model (AIM) which supports children with additional
needs to access pre-school and thirdly, a role in developing coordination and cohesion of quality supports.
National Coordinators:
There are two national coordinators in place to coordinate the work of the initiative-a Síolta
Coordinator based in EYEPU and an Aistear Coordinator based in NCCA. Both have individual
responsibilities and work in partnership on specific tasks also. Governance of the national coordinator
roles lies with the organisations within which they are employed but is also overseen by the steering
committee. The Síolta Coordinator is responsible for the development and implementation of the Síolta
11
strand of the initiative including provision of support and guidance to Síolta Aistear mentors, development
of Síolta resources and materials, coordination and development of the Siolta Quality Assurance
Programme (QAP) and associated validation processes and systems, development, coordination and
review of invoicing and reporting structures and maintenance of the central information database,
contribution to relevant work of DES and DCYA, training and supports for Síolta validators (not all within
cohort of NSAI mentors) and responding to queries from the general public and ECE sector. The role of
the Aistear Coordinator includes responsibility for the development of training and coaching CPD focused
on Aistear, development of the aistearsiolta practice guide, contribution to the work of NCCA, responding
to queries relevant to Aistear and providing training and support to the cohort of mentors delivering the
Aistear CPD and coaching model. Examples of joint coordinator activities include representing the
initiative at relevant events, promoting the initiative through publications such as the NSAI newsletter and
planning and delivery of CPD supports to Síolta Aistear Mentors. There is a strong emphasis on integration
of both strands of the initiative. The work of the National Coordinators is aligned, and they communicate
and meet regularly to ensure the smooth roll out of the initiative and the consistent delivery of key
messages.
Administration of the NSAI
Central Information Database: An information database was established by Q2 2017, when
implementation began in order to capture information on all activities carried out as part of the NSAI to
inform reporting and ongoing planning. A reporting structure was developed to provide the necessary
information required for the database (number of mentors active, types and frequency of NSAI activities,
number of settings and participants engaged, number of hours used). A structured reporting template is
provided which contains guidance for completion. Currently partner organisations submit progress
reports on a quarterly basis. 19 reports were received for Q2 2017 and 17 for Q3 2017. Not all
organisations were actively implementing at this point. There were some issues in terms of timeliness of
receiving reports and how they were completed (gaps in information, information in the wrong section
etc.). After piloting and reviewing information received and feedback from mentors some changes were
made to the template and updated versions distributed to organisations. In the majority of cases it
appears to be mentors rather than managers/coordinators who are completing these reports. Reports are
required by all organisations, regardless of whether there is a backfilling arrangement or not. In Q4 2017
100% of active organisations submitted a report. Reports from Q4 2017 and the initial ones submitted for
12
Q1 2018 appear to be of a higher quality than those submitted previously. Reports are submitted to EYEPU
and reviewed and information is inputted into the database by the Síolta Coordinator.
Invoicing processes: Structures and systems have been developed to support effective processing and
payment of invoices. Currently organisations eligible for backfilling (29) must provide an invoice, detailing
the work that is carried out and these are submitted on a quarterly basis alongside the progress reports.
A template has been developed for this purpose for each strand of the initiative and provided to
organisations. Invoices will not be processed unless the relevant quarterly report has been submitted.
Invoices are reviewed by the Síolta Coordinator and cross referenced with allocated hours, work plans
and information received in the progress report to ensure they are accurate and in line with agreed
backfilling amounts and activities. They are then submitted to DCYA for payment. Initially there were some
issues with invoices submitted (gaps in information, inaccurate claiming of hours, claiming for activities or
items not covered-travel, venues etc. and work by non NSAI mentors). Such invoices are rejected and
feedback given as to the reason why. Invoices in Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 indicate an improvement in quality
of invoices submitted which means they may be signed off after first review, although there are some
ongoing inaccuracies, leading to return of invoices.
Quality Assurance:
Quality assurance is an integral element of the initiative, however is challenged somewhat by the
distributed model. The work of the initiative is guided by DCYA/DES/NCCA protocols and in order to
address some of the anticipated challenges of a distributed model the following specific quality assurance
measures have been put in place by the initiative to date:
NSAI work is overseen by a steering group, chaired by DES and includes members from DCYA,
NCCA, and EYEI.
National coordination is in place with specific coordinator roles
Síolta Aistear Mentors met minimum qualification and experience requirements to be accepted
on mentor training
4 day initial Síolta Aistear mentor training provided by EYEPU
Provision of CPD –National (x2 annually), Regional CPD in 3 locations (x2 annually)
13
Ongoing informal support, guidance from coordinators (NING1, phone, email, face to face
meetings etc.)
Submission of work plans from CCC’s indicating work within the NSAI which must adhere to
current NSAI ‘agreed activities’
Provision of consistent materials and resources (workshops, QAP resources, templates, forms,
certificates etc.)
Further training for cohort of mentors who delivered Aistear CPD coordinated by NCCA to equip
mentors to deliver the Aistear CPD pilot
Organisations are required to submit quarterly progress reports to track progress and inform
planning-common template developed and in use and inputted into central information database
System and process in place for processing funding-invoice templates provided, review process in
place.
Síolta validation quality assurance processes (consistent materials, validator manual, CPD x2
annually, training from EYEPU, shadowing process for new validators, minimum criteria to attend
validator training)
Some of the potential challenges related to quality assurance of the initiative include:
National Coordinators are employed by separate organisations
Mentors not being directly employed or line managed by the initiative
Numerous organisations are involved with individual agendas/ethos
Diversity within the Síolta Aistear mentor cohort (for example experience, knowledge, skills,
qualifications)
Fixed term/short term funding of the NSAI and coordinator roles
Established practices of organisations
1 Private Social Media platform provided for mentors engaged in the Aistear Pilot. Currently shutdown as Aistear strand is being reviewed.
14
No pre/post or formal evaluation structures built into the original model
There is a limited focus on mentoring role for the majority of mentors who carry out NSAI work
as one element of their role
Limited impact/reach within hours available
Knowledge and understanding of the NSAI for some managers/coordinators of mentors
No direct observation or feedback structures with mentors limiting supervision and mentorship
of mentoring practice and delivery
Absence of ‘clearing house’ or structure to quality assure wider work related to Síolta and Aistear
(both within the NSAI mentor cohort and externally)
Cost effectiveness of elements of the model
NSAI Costs:
The NSAI currently has an annual budget of €500k which includes the cost of national coordination
and costs related to the implementation of the initiative
The NVCO’s carry out NSAI activity as part of their core work (which mainly relates to the Síolta QAP) since
2009 when they were invited by EYEPU to be part of the pilot implementation of the QAP. Whilst newer
resources supporting Síolta and Aistear awareness raising and implementation have been provided, the
NVCO’s overall appear to have a preference to focus on the QAP element of the NSAI.
Current agreed backfilling rates with CCC’s are €30 per hour for use of mentoring hours and €15
per hour for the Aistear CPD strand. The Síolta Aistear mentoring hours only provide for direct contact
with settings and not travel, venues, subsistence, preparation etc. Hours have fluctuated (see section on
implementation to date) and there is currently an agreement of a maximum of 20 hours per mentor, per
month available for the period February-December 2018. Initial hours allocated were 10 hours, per
mentor per month from May 2017-January 2018. . There was a significant underspend in 2017 due to only
two thirds of allocated hours being used.
15
CCCs indicate that the €15 per hour’s rate agreed for the Aistear Pilot was agreed as a gesture of goodwill
and it is likely that if they are engaged in any further implementation of Aistear CPD they would seek
parity with the Síolta mentoring hour’s rate of €30 per hour.
Organisations were allocated 109 hours for delivery of the Aistear CPD pilot which included preparation,
delivery of 5x2 hour workshops and 4 hours coaching per participant, travel and post workshop tasks.
There was also grant of €55 per mentor for printing costs and in addition venue and subsistence costs for
workshops were provided, although weren’t identified in the original costings. The cost of the Aistear
Strand pilot was €45, 630 (27 mentors @ €1690 per set of workshops). This figure excludes venue,
subsistence and travel costs. Aistear CPD was delivered to 401 participants from 162 settings.
16
National Reach & Implementation to date
Figure 1.2-Síolta Aistear Mentors trained by DES
67 Síolta Aistear Mentors have been trained by DES (2009, 2016)
Of this group 52 mentors are currently active (April 18). 7 have left their organisations since being
trained. 6 are not actively implementing within their current roles. 2 have moved into management
positions and therefore do not have the capacity to provide mentoring.
27 of the cohort of 67 mentors were trained to deliver the Aistear CPD strand.
Síolta Aistear Mentors: National Coverage
Whilst the majority of counties have at least 1 mentor, this may not be adequate depending on the
size/number of settings in a particular county, for example Cork City and Donegal have just 1 mentor
trained to cover a large area and Cork County have 3 trained but indicate a lack of capacity to deliver.
NVCO’s tend to cover regions but also primarily focus on supporting engagement with the QAP.
Counties without a mentor are Laois and Longford. Until recently Westmeath had no mentor but have
recently recruited one on a part time basis. Fingal CCC also do not have an active mentor. Whilst
geographical coverage is much improved since the establishment of the initiative, accessibility for
settings remains an issue in some areas.
78%
10%
9%3%
Total Mentors Trained by DES
Active
Left Organisation
Inactive
Moved post
17
Implementation to date:
As implementation for the majority of mentors began from September 17, the main analysis for this report
was conducted on implementation for the period September-December 2017 (Q4). Limited information
is available on Q2 & Q3 and information we have gathered for these periods is outlined below and
incorporated into the final figures and information provided.
Quarter 2 (April-June 2017)
19 organisations submitted reports
Limited implementation of mentoring hours this quarter for most organisations as Síolta
resources only made available from May
162 settings engaged in Aistear CPD during this period
3 Síolta, Aistear & the practice guide introductory workshops were delivered in Limerick, Longford
& Mayo
8 practice guide introductory workshops were delivered in Sligo & Tipperary
30 mentoring visits took place in Cork City, Cork County, Limerick, Mayo & Waterford
Over 100 settings were reported to be engaged in the Síolta QAP but figures provided are
inaccurate based on other information available
Quarter 3 (July-September 2017):
17 organisations submitted reports in Q4
Limited implementation as many settings closed for the Summer period during this quarter
Aistear CPD strand is on hold whilst an evaluation of the pilot is completed
11 Síolta, Aistear and the practice guide introductory workshops were delivered to 131 settings
in Border Counties, Dublin City, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, Kildare, Kilkenny, Louth, Wicklow &
Wexford
18 Síolta Awareness raising workshops were delivered to 110 settings
21 mentoring visits took place
18
NSAI Implementation Quarter 4 2017 (October-December):
Figure 1.4-Q4 2017 Organisational Implementation Levels
In Q4 87% of organisations (29) had active Síolta Aistear mentors. Of these 29 organisations we received
100% response rate for reports submitted for this period.
Of the 52 mentors across the 29 organisations 13% of mentors (4) were inactive (maternity leave x2, no
capacity x2). An additional 13% of mentors from 3 organisations did not implement in Q4 (changes in staff
etc.) and these 3 organisations did not use any of their allocated hours
The 24 organisations (CCC’s) entitled to an allocation of hours used 617 hours of a possible 1052 hours
(58.6%)- this figure includes organisations who were allocated hours but not actively implementing during
this period. Of the 26 organisations (CCC’s, NVCO’s, ABC’s) who actively implemented this quarter, 21 of
these were entitled to be backfilled for their hours. These 21 organisations used 617 of a possible
87%
13%
Organisational Implementation Levels
Active
Inactive
19
932.2hours (66.2%). The information overleaf details the types of activities supported in Q4 and is based
on 26 organisations actively implementing this quarter.
20
Introductory Workshops:
Síolta, Aistear & the PG-an introduction An introduction to the practice guide
Organisation No of workshops
No of settings No of participants No of workshops No of settings No of participants
Clare CCC* 5 26 58 3 23 44
DLR CCC 1 6 8
Dublin City CCC 3 23 54 3 26 54
Galway CCC 1 7 16
Kerry CCC 1 14 22
Kildare CCC 6 36 71
Limerick CCC 1 2 11
Leitrim CCC 2 10 12
Louth CCC 1 5 12 2 11 19
Mayo CCC 2 2 19 1 1 7
Roscommon CCC
1 3 7
Sligo CCC 7 13 61
Waterford 4 10 29
Wexford CCC 1 3 16 2 22 35
Total Q4: 33 138 355 14 105 200
Q2 Q3
3 11
12 131
32 246
8 0
59 137
TOTAL TO DATE:
47 281 633 22 164 337
21
Figure 1.5-Q4 2017 Síolta Awareness Workshops
Síolta Awareness raising workshops were developed in collaboration with the Síolta resource working group and made available to mentors from
May 2017. Their purpose is to increase awareness and understanding of individual Síolta standards, to identify how they connect with Aistear and
to begin to reflect on and develop action plans to enhance quality. There are four SAW workshops which can be delivered individually or a as a set
of 4 depending on need.
17 Síolta Awareness workshops were delivered in Q3 2017 to 109 settings. In Q4 69 Síolta Awareness Workshops were delivered to 526 settings,
comprising of 942 participants. This is a total of 86 workshops to 635 settings between Q3 and Q4 2017. (Please note this figure may not be 635
individual settings as settings may have attended more than one workshop. The reporting template for Q1 2018 has since been revised to capture
this information.)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Síolta Awareness Raising Workshops Q4 2017
No of workshops No of Settings No of Participants
22
Figure 1.6-Q4 2017 Onsite Mentoring supports
Mentoring visits began in Q2 with 30 visits occurring in Q2 and 20 in Q3. In Q4 126 mentoring visits took place with 345 participants. These may
have consisted of repeat visits to the same settings.
Reported focus of on-site mentoring supports included overview of the PG, overview of Aistear, ASPG pillars (Transitions, Partnership with
parents, planning & assessment, environments), curriculum foundations, Aistear guidelines for good practice, Síolta standards 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 13, 15, 16, outdoor environment, documentation and curriculum development, Síolta user manual, follow up from Síolta awareness
raising workshops, planning and documenting, information on the Síolta QAP.
In addition to on-site mentoring supports 6 Síolta Aistear Mentors provided cluster group supports to settings focusing on areas such as ASPG-
planning & assessing, ASPG & Síolta standard 13-transitions, Síolta standard 16-community involvement, policy development (39 settings & 100
participants in total). Figures for QAP related mentoring visits are not captured here and are in addition to this.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
NCN Carlow Clare* Dublin City Kildare* Kilkenny Limerick Leitrim* Longford Louth Mayo Sligo Tipperary Wicklow*
On-site Mentoring supports
No of visits No of participants
23
Síolta Quality Assurance Programme (QAP)
Figure 1.7-Síolta Validated Settings 2011-2018
The Síolta Quality Assurance Programme has been supported by mentors from NVCO’s & ABC organisations since 2009. The QAP is designed to
provide structured engagement for early childhood settings who wish to seek external assessment of their setting’s practice against the Síolta
Standards of quality. Settings are supported by a Síolta Aistear mentor to work through a ten-step process to enhance quality and to create a
portfolio of evidence which is externally validated by Síolta validators. The first four settings were validated in 2011. It is expected that by end of
June 2018, 139 settings will have been Síolta validated since 2011. Information on validation levels suggests that not all settings who are eligible
for revalidation have applied for this process. Currently there are reported to be approximately 160 settings engaging with the QAP (not all may
proceed to validation, some of these may include settings who will be validated in June and may be incorporated into figures above.)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Síolta Validations 2011-2018
Number of settings validated Column1 Column2
24
Síolta Aistear Mentor CPD
CPD for Síolta mentors was an integral part of the original Síolta QAP model and part of the
associated supports provided for mentors from 2009 following initial mentor training. Initially these
events were coordinated by EYEPU, with NVCO’s taking on the coordination, planning and delivery of
these in the years prior to the establishment of the NSAI. These events were viewed by mentors as an
important and valuable space for mentors from a range of organisations to support collaborative working.
CPD events were scheduled 2-3 times per year and were known as ‘Síolta Coordinator CPD’. Better Start
Early Years Specialists were invited to attend the national CPD from 2015.
Following the establishment of the NSAI in 2016, the National Síolta Coordinator had a number of
meetings with the NVCO’s and given the now central coordination of Síolta and the new role of national
coordinator it was agreed that DES would take on this role. The establishment of the NSAI as a centrally
coordinated model and in order to develop further integration between both strands of the initiative, it
was agreed that these events be renamed Síolta Aistear Mentor National CPD and focus on supporting
mentors to work in an integrated way with both frameworks within their mentoring roles.
As the National CPD sessions consisted of a large number of mentors it was difficult to focus on some of
the more practical elements of implementation, of particular importance for newer mentors. A plan for
Síolta Aistear mentor CPD was developed and consisted of 2 national events per year for mentors within
the NSAI and Better Start QDS Early Years Specialists with a focus on interagency working, information
sharing, policy updates and input on a particular area or focus related to mentoring work. Regional based
supports also take place twice a year, in three regional locations comprised of NSAI mentors only and
facilitate smaller groups to allow for more practical activity and increased interaction between mentors
and national coordinators
This CPD plan was piloted from September 2017-June 2018, with a schedule for the academic year drawn
up and provided to mentors in advance to facilitate planning and scheduling. Agendas are developed
based on feedback from mentors and information from national coordinators and these are provided in
advance. Evaluation and feedback is gathered as part of each session. Feedback on both national and
regional supports have been very positive and are viewed as an integral element of supporting capacity
building of mentors and enhancing quality assurance within the initiative.
Both national and regional supports have been very well attended with numbers of 50-90 attending the
national events and an average attendance of between 80-90% at regional CPD events. It is important to
25
note that mentors are not backfilled or reimbursed to attend CPD events. Feedback from mentors indicate
a desire for longer regional sessions and for additional CPD to also be provided. Mentor CPD is planned
and delivered by National Coordinators to support consistency.
In addition, dedicated CPD for Síolta validators has been developed and is delivered twice per year to
support validators in their role and to support a consistent approach amongst validators. These are open
to all Síolta validators who are drawn from NVCO’s, Better Start, CCC’s and ABC programmes.
26
Submissions from partner organisations
As part of the NSAI review, partner organisations were invited to provide written submissions on
an organisational basis to share their feedback on strengths and gaps of the current model. Organisations
were asked to describe which elements of the initiative they had been involved in to date i.e. Síolta
mentoring hours, Aistear CPD, Síolta Validator training, national and regional CPD. A number of headings
were suggested to structure feedback but also allowing for flexibility and more open ended responses, as
relevant to particular organisations individual experiences to date.
These headings included national coordination of the initiative, roles of the national coordinators,
communication, reporting and invoicing structures, backfilling arrangements, experiences of initial
mentor training and national and regional CPD, elements of the programme such as Síolta mentoring
hours and the Aistear CPD strand, validator processes and systems, quality assurance and finally
suggestions for future planning and alignment of the NSAI within the context of other quality initiatives.
Organisations could provide feedback on other areas also that may not have been covered within the
suggested headings.
The response to the request for written submissions was very positive with an overall response rate of
93.7% (2 organisations did not submit). 30 submissions were received including some from organisations
who are not currently active but wished to provide feedback.
The majority of respondents noted strong support for the development of the NSAI, indicated a
commitment to the NSAI, that a larger cohort of mentors was needed and has strengthened the capacity
to deliver, are pleased to be involved and feel that their organisations are particularly well placed to
support settings due to existing relationships and familiarity with settings. A number of organisations
stated there are still not enough mentors and/or hours to meet demand and they would welcome the
opportunity for training of additional mentors within their organisations (some of who are reported to
have undertaken further education and now meet application criteria).
Respondents report a high demand, appetite and need from providers for NSAI supports. They view the
renewed focus on Síolta and Aistear as very positive, central coordination as crucial and feel there is
increased engagement with the frameworks as a result of the NSAI. They report that feedback from
participants who have engaged in the initiative is very positive.
27
The following section provides a more detailed overview of the information provided in these written
submissions and is presented thematically in line with the headings used for written submissions, which
have been grouped together in connected themes and highlighting key points, strengths, gaps and any
specific recommendations put forward by respondents.
Due to the extent of the information provided in these submissions, identified strengths and gaps are
grouped together in order to make an effort to capture all feedback provided. Some suggestions and
recommendations were made by organisations within the various headings and these have been
incorporated into the section on alignment with other initiatives and future planning. The NSAI steering
group was cognisant of the strengths and gaps identified by organisations under different headings when
considering future planning as specific recommendations were not necessarily made in relation to these
but they were pertinent when reviewing and planning.
Other recommendations and suggestions were made regarding specific workshops or the ASPG or
elements of the initiative-as these are not relevant to the model review, they will be forwarded to the
appropriate person/forum for further consideration and action as appropriate.
28
National Coordination, Roles of National Coordinators & Communication:
Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the establishment of a national coordination structure
and the roles of national coordinators.
Strengths identified Gaps identified
National Coordination:
National coordination supports national,
and consistent messaging, provides a
focused, cohesive, interagency approach,
the initiative is more streamlined, has
increased consistency and provided a
standardised and planned approach
National coordination strengthens the
model and capacity to deliver key
objectives, keeping all up to date, has
increased the visibility of quality
improvement work and provides
statistical information
Has given Síolta and Aistear new impetus
which was missing in the past, focus on
both frameworks
National Coordinator roles:
National Coordinators were
approachable, accessible, supportive and
provided guidance and advice, dedicated
link person
Credibility of coordinators-relevant,
practical experience and in depth
understanding of Síolta and/or Aistear,
skill base-influences delivery on the
ground
Provision of CPD beneficial especially for
new mentors and for peer support,
sharing ideas and consistency
Communication:
Positive impact on communication
prompt, consistent, relevant, open,
transparent, supportive, useful managers
are included, NING useful, newsletter
helpful
National Coordination & coordinator roles:
Mentors work for CCC’s and sometimes
this must take priority, balancing NSAI
work and DCYA requirements
A more consistent approach between the
Aistear and Síolta strands of the NSAI may
also be beneficial e.g. content and
delivery of training materials, evaluation
of training programmes etc.
Gap and lead in time for replacement of
Aistear coordinator a challenge.
Somewhat ameliorated by consistency of
Síolta Coordinator. Momentum that had
built up stopped and disappointment for
settings who were eager to proceed.
Communication:
Managers/Coordinators not always
included in communication or not always
clear/more interaction with managers
would be beneficial including in relation to
the funding model and overall strategic
vision
29
Administration (quarterly progress reports, invoicing, backfilling arrangements):
Strengths identified Gaps identified
Progress Reports
Reports welcome to provide robust
information and evaluation of NSAI
Collation of data nationally could provide
rich reporting from a national perspective
Agreed understanding on expectations
System is manageable, effective in terms
of content, layout and frequency, less
cumbersome than previous system
Invoicing
Currently agreed understanding on
expectations
Progress Reports
Reporting should be in line with CCC
national reporting (mid and end of year),
challenging to complete within two weeks
Need to be reviewed in order to fully
capture the work
Level of detail required not obvious, large
blank boxes daunting
Invoicing
Clarity early on would have been useful-in
place now
Somewhat unwieldy and does not link into
the core CCC budget and financial
reporting templates
Lengthy time to receive payments
Expectations agreed but could be further
rationalised
Backfilling arrangements
Rate does not adequately resource to
cover all costs incurred with a salary,
hours and cost does not include
preparation, CPD, booking venues,
refreshments, advertising, photocopying,
travel, reporting, venues, refreshments,
printing, advertising, invoicing, report
writing.
Retrospective invoicing is a barrier to
planning work for example training or
mentoring may not go ahead, cannot
backfill in advance as other priorities may
arise, difficulty hiring someone on
backfilling basis
Review flexibility of hours between
quarters-Q3 particularly difficult
30
Initial Síolta Aistear Mentor Training and ongoing CPD
Strengths identified Gaps identified
Initial Training
Initial training was excellent, very positive
Well delivered with balance of activities
and active listening, facilitator well
prepared and knowledgeable
Coordinated effectively with a
standardised approach, providing clear
communication and training in terms of
mentoring and delivery
CPD:
CPD helpful, invaluable, vital for
consistency, practical activities helpful,
structured well, coordination and annual
scheduling helpful, opportunity to reflect,
professional dialogue, challenges
assumptions, enhance skills and
understanding, network, share
information, collate ideas, discuss
challenges, guest speakers inspiring and
effective, DES updates positive,
opportunities to discuss concerns
Investment in CPD welcome, regional CPD
welcomes, sessions with experienced
mentors really beneficial
NING was very helpful-similar should be
made available to all with TOR for use
Initial training
Premature as updated resources not
available-length of time between training
and delivery reduced enthusiasm and
some learning was lost , a lot of
information which was difficult to
comprehend until delivery commenced
Two day refresher may be useful, more
practical work would be helpful, more info
on the QAP
CPD:
Access to postgrad mentoring to support
consistency with BS mentors
Regional CPD days should be extended for
more in depth discussion, more time for
practical activities
Mentors should be asked for input,
staggered CPD might make it easier to
release staff
Use of external expertise may be helpful
at regional session as well as national
More in depth information on standards
and manuals to be equipped for broader
discussions and queries that arise
Gap between validator and regional CPD
Should be shared with managers
Enhanced with relevant and up to date
research/best practice examples for
weaving in and out of supports
National CPD could address updates from
regional sessions in morning and validator
CPD the same day
31
Síolta Aistear Mentoring hours and agreed activities
Strengths identified Gaps identified
Significant demand from settings for
workshops and onsite supports
Word of mouth and increased awareness
has led to less experienced practitioners
beginning to engage with Síolta-reach has
been widened because of content and
availability of mentors
Increased allocation of hours is welcome
to meet demand
Whilst maintaining fidelity, resources can
be tailored to directly address where
practitioners are
Offers flexibility and tailoring of support
depending on need and offers progression
routes-scope to mentors to adjust
delivery of supports in line with local and
individual needs important in ensuring
sufficient scope, pitch and support
methodology for each service, allows for
more meaningful support
Well balanced and combination of
workshop based learning and onsite
mentoring effective and reinforces
learning
Síolta Awareness raising Workshops
connect very well to Aistear
ASPG offers comprehensive support
material to support mentoring
Need for additional resources to support
deeper engagement around particular
standards, additional resources and
materials to support progression for those
not ready for the QAP-should be provided
to all to contribute to a consistent
approach to development work (for
cluster and mentoring)
More structure could be provided to
agreed activities
Lack of resources for under 3’s (applies to
Aistear strand also)
Not enough hours to fulfil needs within
current workloads
Challenges for settings releasing staff to
participate
As increased hours are only temporarily
available it is a challenge to engage
services in longer term QAP and is a
disincentive
QAP beneficial but time intensive-needs
to be reviewed-supporting settings
beyond validation
32
Aistear CPD:
Strengths identified Gaps identified
Opportunity to provide national led
guidance to settings
Was well received, high demand, services
interested in attending the next round
Coaching element & practice tasks
worked well, designated course tasks
doable within work
Mentoring element vital
Full staff participation including managers
and pedagogical leaders more likely for
changes to be sustainable
Training of mentors was well organised,
resources provided and an opportunity to
form support networks, felt equipped to
deliver the programme
Formula for the delivery of the pilot with
timescales
Focused and targeted, saw a flourishing of
participants and able to bring experience
of previous related work in
Settings who completed have gone onto
the Síolta mentoring programme
This strand is on hold at present, unclear
as to what the plan is
Amount of funding inadequate
Short timeframe for rollout was a
challenge-should be delivered over a
longer period, time between coaching
also tight
Varying qualification levels was a
challenge for pitch
2hours not adequate for content, did not
allow for reflection, change expected
before time for major philosophical
changes required-reference to Aistear in
Action
Desire to ‘teach’ the framework rather
than understand the framework means
most important elements of practice may
be omitted
Additional areas of knowledge may be
needed to fully engage in the programme
e.g. learning dispositions, deeper
understanding of play and environments
Many participants do not have access to
or have heard of ASPG-more opportunity
for this in CPD would be useful
Current move towards assessment,
documenting and planning and content is
not reflective of an emergent curriculum
or image of the child as indicated in
Aistear
Better links needed between this
programme and the Síolta strand-more
links to Síolta needed in content
PP presentation constraining-more
experienced mentors found need to
deviate in interest of group, very tight
control on training-while necessary in
some instances may have been too
33
controlled-capacity of mentors for
training needs to be supported
Some material could be provided further
in advance
Follow up visit needed after the CPD to
support implementation
Considerable time on evaluations
providing relevant information,
disappointing some of this feedback was
not used for the final report
All mentors should be trained in Aistear
CPD
Lack of Irish materials and 0-3
Supports and processes for validators including validator training and CPD
Strengths identified Gaps identified
Initial training and supports positive
CPD welcome and that this is with
experienced validators is beneficial
Interagency validations for robust
validation process
Supports for new validators very positive
including shadowing
Positive that experienced mentors were
asked to contribute to training and CPD
More structure and transparency in how
validators are selected.
More CPD and practice based training
sessions would be helpful, e.g. focus on
portfolio building aspect
Shadowing opportunities would be
helpful, we have not been approached for
shadowing or validation
Validation work not currently funded
through NSAI
A bank of independent validators may be
more effective
Revalidation conversations need to
continue
Review of the QAP needed
34
Other challenges and gaps in the model were identified by respondents and related to:
Short term funding of the initiative and limited duration of national coordinator roles (makes it
difficult to contribute to longer term strategic planning
Delivery mechanisms (co-delivery provides for richer experience, organisations have interpreted
Síolta and Aistear in different ways, particularly the QAP, needs to be recognition of adult learner
theory and practice)
Accessibility issues (agreed mentoring hours not sufficient for demand or particular aspects e.g.
QAP, inconsistencies in what is offered depending on capacity locally, geographical coverage of
organisations, number of settings, fluctuations in staff, no non-contact time for settings might
impact commitment of settings, should be paid CPD)
Perceived focus of the work (needs around structural elements of quality may be raised in NSAI
support activities and impact on process quality elements, but highlights a need to address)
Quality Assurance
The majority of respondents interpreted this heading in terms of assessment of quality and referred to
ECERS/ITERS or in terms of the Síolta QAP. Some key points raised on quality assurance included the
following:
Positive that mentors were selected on the basis of relevant experience and qualifications
Reflective questionnaires and evaluations provide opportunities for constructive feedback
Regular CPD is an important element of quality assurance
Existing QA mechanisms could be built on, ongoing evaluation processes for mentors will support
consistency and clarity of key messaging
There is currently no monitoring of workshop delivery and should be a process of QA for training
and support delivery for ongoing learning and development and for national consistency.
Some method to assess the impact on quality would be beneficial e.g. baseline assessment using
ECERS/ITERS
References to other related programmes delivered by both NSAI mentors and colleagues
35
A number of recommendations were made by respondents regarding the NSAI in the context of other
initiatives, supporting alignment and planning for future implementation. These are summarised as
follows:
Context of the NSAI & alignment with other initiatives:
Alignment & integration
Many respondents reported a need for a clear ‘roadmap of quality’, ‘quality journey’, ‘quality
spiral’ for the sector outlining who to go to for different quality services. This should be
documented and mapped to a system of supports
Clarification needed on where NSAI fits with other initiatives in particular BS and NVCO
mentors-somewhat unclear where NSAI fits with other quality initiatives in particular BS and
mentors from NVCO’s –more clarity around how these initiatives can work more collaboratively
with clear roles and direction where there is duplication/crossover of work-would assist in
better planning
Currently NSAI tends to be viewed as separate and in addition to other quality initiatives e.g.
funding streams, reporting templates-can make NSAI appear to be add on or enrichment
instead of being embedded in core quality actions-should be reflected in LIP’s as one of 6 core
priorities and core budgets
An integrated approach locally and nationally to ensure alignment and a shared understanding
of quality (NSAI, Better Start, AIM, LINC, Tusla, DES EYEI)
A more coherent outline of the national coordinators roles and where they fit in terms of the
overall structure of the sector in relation to other support organisations may be helpful
Feedback from EYEI, DES inspectors would be useful to support settings pre and post these
inspections. Alignment of the QAP and EYEI needs to be considered. NSAI quality assurance
must be consistent with quality standards and measures of Tusla and DES inspections
Links with Better Start: BS EYS should be aware of NSAI and CCC role-at present this is
disjointed, NSAI could be a follow on support for settings who have worked with QDS
Síolta and Aistear should be incorporated into all training, including induction and CPD, DES
and Tusla inspections
Communication
A nationally agreed communication plan to ensure consistent messaging to all services and key
stakeholders would be helpful
Communication pathways led by DCYA to ensure effective and efficient communication with
the sector and supported by both national coordinators
Biannual formal meetings with participation of both CCC mentor and manager would help
strengthen communication, plan and review, monitor progress and inform policy change and
development.
36
Planning for future implementation:
Coordination
The CCC’s feel they are the first port of call for practitioners and therefore best placed to
coordinate the delivery of quality initiatives on a local level. Another respondent called for the
development of a regional support system which would link local and national, include
development of regional roles from NVCO’s
CCI could engage in a process of consultation to develop a MoU to formalise a national
commitment around the expectations and national guidelines regarding the NSAI
More pathways are required to support communities of practice and mechanisms for ongoing
informal communication (discussion forum) among the mentors and CCC’s which would
provide enhanced integrated networks of support and embed an ongoing process of quality
assurance across the initiative
Development of an agreed mentoring framework, including service level agreements, core
principles to underpin (as individual organisational ethos can dominate)
Clear pathways and protocols for settings where concerns exist
Funding arrangements:
Include NSAI in core funding as is done with NVCOs’
The funding agreement requires strategic revision to incorporate a more robust model which
would allow CCC’s to commit to long term sustainable support for all early years services. A
system which allows for payments to be processed for the year in advance would better
support the backfill process and management of associated HR implications
NSAI CPD should be resourced, nationally recognized and certified
Quality Assurance:
Development of a service delivery management and monitoring system is necessary
CPD and collation of NSAI data should continue
There should be a suggested route through NSAI supports
Other:
There should be a 3-5 year strategy in place
Should be a requirement for services to take part and facilitate a flexible multi layered model
so participants can start where they are.
Aims of NSAI should address more achievable, realistic and meaningful aims-3 basic
requirements for successful day to day curriculum and quality provision-environment,
educators (2 aspects to this)
There should be quality baselines carried out at area and county level
37
Mentor feedback on the current NSAI mentor model
Although mentors may have contributed to written submissions of their parent organisations, it was
agreed that additional feedback from mentors, focused on their roles and experiences may be useful in
informing the review. An external consultant was employed to carry out short telephone interviews with
mentors over a two week period. 23 of a possible 52 mentors took part in the phone interviews which is
44% of the potential cohort of currently active mentors. Not all mentors responded to all questions. The
following section outlines the main findings of these interviews:
Role of the Mentor
13 mentors were in a mentoring role between 1-3 years, 1 between 3-5years, 6 between 5-10 years and
3 in a mentoring role for more than 10 years
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Length of time in a mentoring role
1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years
38
Of 23 respondents interviewed 20 were carrying out mentoring as part of their role and 3 as their full time
role. 14 respondents reported that their role was not being backfilled in order to carry out NSAI mentoring
work and 9 reported it was being backfilled
Part Time Full Time
Mentors views on how well they are equipped to carry out their mentoring role
Very well equipped Well equipped Not at all Not very well
39
Respondents were asked how equipped they felt to carry out their mentoring role effectively. The majority
of mentors interviewed felt they were very well equipped (15) and 8 mentors felt they were well equipped
for their role. Not at all and not very well was not chosen by any respondent.
Respondents described the most important characteristics of an effective Síolta Aistear mentor as
appropriate knowledge, previous experience, communication skills, empathy, responsiveness to
individual needs and contexts, ability to build relations, training qualification an advantage, willing to
learn, approachability and management experience
Experiences of the NSAI
21 respondents felt that there was consistency in the quality of mentors working within the NSAI
and 2 mentors felt there was not consistency. In terms of those who felt there was consistency
there were references to national coordination, CPD and peer networking, consistency of
workshops and similar levels of training and experience. Those who felt there was not consistency
indicated that there may be inconsistency in implementation and the second person said they
hadn’t had an opportunity to engage with other mentors
40
Respondents were asked to rate the helpfulness of national coordinators on a scale of 1-5 (1 not helpful
and 5 very helpful). 1 respondent rated a 3, 6 respondents a 4 and 16 respondents a 5. Examples given
suggested coordinators were approachable, contactable, quick to respond, gave clarity, had
understanding, were supporting, communication was good, were clear and organised and were
experienced. Some respondents indicated more contact with previous Aistear coordinator.
Strengths of the current NSAI mentoring model echoed the themes that emerged from the written
submissions and included the establishment of a national initiative to focus on Síolta and Aistear, national
coordination, national and clear messaging, well developed relationships with settings, consistency of
information and resources, more accessibility for settings, same training from the same national
coordinator, flexibility and the Aistear resources. Challenges identified also were consistent with those
raised in the written submissions and included funding for direct contact only, no non-contact time for
settings. These respondents also identified a challenge in supporting settings with low levels, supports
may be new in some counties, the Síolta resources not as developed as the Aistear ones and should be
level and the fact some mentors haven’t worked through the QAP.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 6 16
Helpfulness of National Coordinators
Number of Mentors Column1 Column2
41
Needs of settings
9 respondents reported the needs of the majority of settings they were working with as high and
9 as medium, A low level of need was not reported by any mentors who responded to this
question
Respondents identified some typical areas requiring training and mentoring support included
engaging with both frameworks, curriculum, observation, planning and assessment,
documenting, environments, interactions, partnership with parents, policies and procedures and
transitions
All 23 respondents agreed that the NSAI has impacted positively on practitioners understanding
and implementation of Síolta and Aistear. This was demonstrated through positive feedback,
reigniting of interest and motivation particularly related to Síolta, training being linked with
practice, new resources and making the frameworks more accessible
42
Feedback from Early Years Settings on experience of NSAI supports
It was particularly important that experiences of practitioners who participated in NSAI activities
were captured as part of this review. Whilst the content of particular workshops and mentoring supports
were not the specific focus of this review, information on experiences of workshops and mentoring were
relevant. On this basis, short telephone interviews were conducted by an external consultant with a range
of settings who had experienced introductory workshop supports (1. Síolta, Aistear and the Practice
Guide-an introduction, 2. An introduction to the practice guide and 3. Síolta awareness raising workshops)
or onsite mentoring supports. The external consultant was requested to gather feedback from 15 settings
who had received training supports and 15 settings who had received mentoring supports (30 in total).
Mentors were asked to provide details of all settings who had received support and consented to
participate in the review and the consultant decided who to contact. The target of 30 settings was
achieved and the following section outlines the findings from these interviews and is summarised below
and divided into two headings-those receiving training supports and those who received mentoring
supports:
Training Supports:
Profile of settings interviewed
Respondents interviewed were chosen randomly by an external consultant and represented 3
counties-Cork (7), Monaghan (5), Galway (3) and included 9 sessional settings and 6 Full-Day Care
Type of settings interviewed
Sessional Full Time
43
Respondents were asked to identify their role in the early years setting. 9 responses across 15
people were identified including manager, playgroup leader, childcare assistant etc.
Respondents were asked to describe the curriculum in place. Of the 15 respondents, 10
descriptions of curriculum were provided and included ‘Aistear and Play based’, ‘Aistear with
influences from Montessori,’ ‘influences from Montessori’, ‘Following Síolta and Aistear’ and ‘Play
based, child lead’
Experiences with the NSAI
Of the 15 respondents 9 had attended the Síolta Aistear and the Practice Guide workshop, 9 the
Introduction to the practice guide workshop and 15 had attended the Síolta awareness raising
workshops (some respondents attended more than one workshop)
8 respondents indicated they had attended previous training in relation to Síolta and Aistear and
7 had not. The type of or extent of this training was not detailed.
All respondents rated the workshop attended as very helpful (highest rating available)
Previous Training in Síolta and Aistear
Yes No
44
When asked if respondents had a better understanding of Síolta and Aistear after the workshop
12 felt they understood it really well (highest rating) and 3 understood it fairly well (second
highest rating)
14 respondents indicated that the content of the workshop was relevant to their setting and 1
felt it was not relevant.
All respondents indicated that the workshop helped them to make changes in their setting and
those who expanded listed areas such as ‘going through templates more’, ‘confidence linking
Síolta and Aistear to the curriculum’, ‘refreshed curriculum’, ‘started Aistear observation sheets
following the workshop’. ‘planning’, ‘taking children’s lead’.
14 respondents would recommend the workshop(s) they attended to colleagues, 1 would not
The majority of respondents (12) indicated an interest in attending further workshops on topics
such as refresher courses, Pobal workshops, documenting, observations, Aistear, Síolta.
Mentoring Supports:
Respondents were based in Wexford, Westmeath, Waterford, Meath, Sligo, Louth, Dublin and
Cork
Respondents were working in sessional settings (8) and Full day care (7)
11 descriptions of curriculum were given across 15 respondents and included ‘child focused’, ‘play
based’ and ‘Síolta and Aistear’
45
11 respondents had received previous training in Síolta and Aistear, 4 had not. The extent of this training
was not detailed. Those who indicated yes, stated ‘went to different centres and completed Síolta’, ‘Only
Aistear’, ‘online Aistear’, ‘Better Start’
When asked to describe the focus on mentoring received respondents stated ‘standards of Síolta,
quality of provision, different standards and dissected it to improve and implement, transitions,
practice guide, ways to improve, more play oriented.
Respondents were asked to describe the knowledge of the mentor and all responded positively
and identified elements such as knowledgeable, approachable, relevant, tips and being supportive
All respondents felt that the amount and timing of mentoring sessions was very good and worked
well for them
Respondents rated the mentoring received as very helpful (11) and helpful (4) which were the
highest and second highest ratings available
14 respondents felt that the content of mentoring was relevant, 1 felt that it was not.
All 15 respondents said the mentoring received helped them to make changes in their setting and
all agreed it made a difference to children and staff. Examples of this provided included ‘took on
board tips’, ‘better understanding of Aistear and Síolta’, ‘constantly reflecting and changing’,
Previous training in Síolta and Aistear
Yes No
46
‘outdoor improvements’. ‘added names to pics’, developed visual aids’, ‘expanded cosy areas’,
‘layout of rooms’.
All 15 respondents would recommend mentoring support to colleagues
A slight majority of respondents (8) were either not interested in further mentoring or not at the
moment.
47
Effectiveness of the model
This section will focus on the original objectives of the NSAI and comment on the effectiveness of the
initiative in meeting these objectives.
Key Objectives of the NSAI:
1. To coordinate at a national level the development and quality assurance of resources and
materials related to Síolta and Aistear and provide greater coherency
National coordination has been implemented with the introduction of key national coordinator
roles. The NSAI has made good progress in developing a number of quality assurance measures
related to the development and use of Síolta and Aistear resources and materials. This included
the revision and development of a number of Síolta resources such as the user manual, QAP
Implementation toolkit and associated resources such as consistent templates for mentors,
development of Síolta awareness raising workshops and revised and newly developed resources
and materials for Síolta validators and settings going through this process. Ten hours of CPD
related to Aistear has been developed and piloted, within a model that included a coaching
element, providing for the first time nationally led and developed Aistear training and consistent
resources and materials for mentors delivering the training. A new introductory workshop has
been developed to integrate both frameworks from initial stages of engagement of practitioners.
The previous section on quality assurance has indicated other quality assurance measured put in
place by the initiative to date and also highlights areas of vulnerability in terms of quality
assurance of the initiative and which need to be addressed and further developed. Greater
coherency has been given to development and use of Síolta and Aistear materials particularly
within the initiative but some issues remain in terms of beginning a quality assurance structure
for work and materials related to Síolta and Aistear which is outside the direct NSAI activities. This
48
initiative has impacted on cohesion between a number of key organizations involved in delivery
of supports related to quality improvement such as CCC’s, NVCO’s, ABC’s and Better Start.
2. To expand access to Early Years Settings for supports to engage with and implement Síolta and
Aistear
The national initiative has increased the number of mentors nationally from 12-67 with between
50-55 of these actively implementing the majority of the time. Figures and statistics presented in
the earlier section on implementation to date indicate that there has been much wider access to
supports related to Síolta and Aistear as a result of the national initiative. However, it is clear that
some issues remain in relation to accessibility with not all counties having a number of mentors
to meet the needs of settings in the area.
3. To provide dedicated funding to support the implementation of both Síolta and Aistear, the
national quality and curricular frameworks
The funding allocation from DCYA is a significant development which underpins the value and
strength of Síolta and Aistear as the national frameworks and investment in the NSAI signifies the
commitment of government to support implementation for settings. This is further supported by
the contractual requirements for Síolta and Aistear implementation as an element of DCYA
funding schemes. Dedicated funding for the initiative has facilitated the development of a
national coordination and management structure with a strong focus on implementation of Síolta
and Aistear at the heart of quality improvement work. As the national frameworks it is important
that a strategic and focused implementation plan is enabled which is supported by specific
funding. Whilst the initial implementation of the initiative has been developed on a short term
basis, strategic planning for the longer term is in progress to align the initiative with other quality
49
initiatives in order for maximum effectiveness to be achieved. It is important that a longer term
plan is developed and committed to in order to continue the view of the frameworks as central
to all early years work. This will require a more joined up and streamlined model which will
increase accessibility, availability and consistency of delivery
50
Review of the NSAI model – Conclusions and recommendations for the future NSAI model
Introduction
The NSAI initiative was developed in response to the findings of a national survey of
practitioners (2015) which sought to address the concerns raised that practitioners were poorly
prepared to implement the national quality and curricular frameworks-Síolta and Aistear . Whilst
a number of the key objectives of the initiative have been met, a review of the current mentoring
model in 2018 has identified both the strengths and gaps in the implementation of the NSAI
initiative to date. Analysis of the emerging themes provided a timely opportunity for the NSAI
steering committee to consider and address both the on-going and future development of the
current model. The emerging themes identified in the review include:
1. Governance
2. Administration and cost effectiveness
3. National coverage and wider Implementation.
4. Quality assurance of training and mentoring delivery and CPD and resource content and
development
5. Ongoing and future developments and alignment across all national initiatives.
Key Findings
Governance of the NSAI.
There is an overwhelming consensus from respondents across organisations (mentors and
coordinators) and practitioners on the value of the establishment of a national coordination
structure and the roles of dedicated national coordinators. The findings strongly indicate that the
national coordination supports provide consistency of messaging, a more cohesive and
interagency approach, an increased focus on Síolta and Aistear and enables the initiative to be
more streamlined.
51
Other key findings of the review highlight the benefits of the coordinators’ roles in providing
guidance and advice given their in-depth understanding of Síolta and Aistear to support delivery
on the ground. The provision of CPD was cited as beneficial particularly for new mentors and as
a means of peer support. The review also identified the positive impact and the transparent
nature of the communication processes employed including the NSAI newsletter and
establishment of the NING platform.
However, at present the Síolta coordinator’s role is not as effective as possible, as the mentors
report into their individual organisational management structures and although activities and
plans are reported to the Síolta coordinator, there is a lack of a clear mechanism for the
coordinator to have a more directive role in monitoring and overseeing the quality assurance
aspects of the model. There is also a need to further delineate between what constitutes
activities under the national initiative versus ad hoc activities being delivered and branded under
Síolta and Aistear, which have not been developed and quality assured under the NSAI initiative
The review highlights key challenges in relation to governance such as adequately balancing the
mentors existing work priorities for the CCC’s with NSAI and DCYA requirements. A more
consistent approach between the Aistear and Síolta strands of the NSAI coupled with the gap and
lead in time for replacement of the Aistear coordinator also presented a significant challenge.
Additional issues regarding the lack of inclusion of managers in the communication of both the
funding and overall strategic vision was identified by some respondents as a barrier to broader
implementation.
Administration and cost effectiveness
The review of the current model identifies a number of systems and structures that have been
developed to support effective administration and increase quality assurance of the NSAI. These
include establishment of a central information database which includes a quarterly reporting
structure for partner organisations to report on NSAI activity. The purpose of the reports and
database is to gather data on NSAI implementation nationally and to inform planning for the
52
initiative. Invoicing systems have also been developed and a process for payment agreed with
NSAI organisations and DCYA.
The review strongly suggests that challenges remain with the reporting and invoicing structures
including quality of completion, although there have been improvements for more recent
submissions. These structures also create a high level of work for the national Síolta coordinator
who is responsible for their review and sign off. Submissions from partner organisations suggest
that reporting structures should be aligned with those already in place with DCYA & Pobal.
A key finding for consideration with the current administrative process is the fact that it is a very
expensive and potentially unsustainable model. The backfilling system has been heavily criticised
by partner organisations who indicate that this poses challenges in terms of being able to recruit
appropriate staff and to plan accordingly.
National coverage and wider implementation
The review looked at the organisational implementation levels of the current model as well as at
the geographical coverage and access to CPD/mentoring for providers nationwide.
In terms of organizational implementation levels, in Q4 2017, only 87% of the organisations with
trained Síolta Aistear mentors (29 organisations) had active mentors implementing the initiative.
3 of the organisations did not implement any activity in Q4 or use any of their allocated hours
due to staff changes despite having 4 trained mentors. Another 2 mentors were inactive due to
maternity leave and 2 others were inactive due to lack of capacity/time to use their hours. There
was significant under-utilisation of the hours allocated right across the 24 CCCs with trained
mentors, with less than 60% of those hours used.
In terms of national coverage of mentors, the majority of counties have at least 1 mentor,
however these may not all be active (see above) and in some large areas, 1 mentor delivering
part-time is inadequate for the number of settings (e.g. Cork City and Donegal). Laois and
Longford have no access to mentors and Fingal CCC also do not have an active mentor.
53
Quality Assurance
The review outlines a number of quality assurance measures that have been developed as part
of the initiative. These include formal and informal support, guidance and coordination from
national coordinators on materials, resources and implementation relevant to both strands of
work and systems and structures to support effective governance of the initiative (steering group,
reporting and invoicing structures, and submission of plans).
Conversely potential challenges to quality assurance are highlighted which expose potential
vulnerability such as the location of the national coordinators in separate organisations, the lack
of direct line management and monitoring of mentors to ensure consistency of approach,
absence of supervision and support to evaluate mentor capacity , knowledge , and skills . This
impacts directly on planning for the next steps in the training and coaching supports, presents a
significant gap in the theory to practice loop and capacity building needs for both the mentors
and practitioners.
Other issues include a diverse array of mentors and organisations involved in the initiative for
varying periods of time, the absence of a formal clearing house structure to quality assure the
CPD content and mentoring resources and materials, development of the frameworks and the
impact of the short term nature of the NSAI and cost effectiveness of elements of the model
within the budget available. A number of concerns were raised in submissions from partner
organisations regarding alignment of the NSAI with other initiatives, particularly Better Start.
Issues around the short term funding of the initiative were also noted as a challenge to longer
term planning including recruitment of staff.
Conclusions
Future governance of the NSAI
In considering a number of the findings and questions posed in the review with regard to
governance and the effectiveness of the current national coordination structure that has been
established, there is still a continued need to retain the dedicated steering group to oversee and
54
provide strategic direction on the development and implementation of the initiative. The specific
roles and functions of all the key stakeholders within the NSAI have been clearly articulated in
the review. As the funders of the NSAI, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs play a key
regulatory role in terms of funding schemes for the sector including the ECCE scheme where a
contractual obligation is the implementation of both Síolta and Aistear. DCYA also have a remit
in policy development around quality systems and infrastructure.
The Department of Education and Skills initiated the development of both Síolta and Aistear
frameworks and retain ownership and responsibility for coordinating the development and
implementation of both frameworks. The national Síolta Coordinator is employed by DES within
a co-located arrangement with DCYA and reports back into DES. There is a clear rationale to retain
this reporting structure relationship due to the requirement of DES to support the continued
development of the frameworks and provide cohesion and integration of both the policy unit and
the EYEI inspectorate.
The NCCA hold an advisory role on curriculum and assessment. There is a continued need for the
NCCA to engage in the research and development of the curriculum framework, the aistear-siolta
practice guide and early childhood developments in general. The National Aistear Coordinator is
employed by and based in the NCCA and reports directly to the organisation.
The addition of representation of Better Start on the national steering committee will provide
added value to the dimensions of quality assurance and the centrality of messaging under the
organisations current remit to deliver mentoring support to the sector through it’s Quality
Development Service. Better Start’s remit is to be extended into delivering training, initially to
support the implementation of AIM (Level 3) and they are in the process of establishing a new
learning and development unit. The issue of quality assurance of delivery under the current
model requires further examination to ensure consistency and scope for wider implementation.
55
Quality, consistency and quality assurance
Taking a broader perspective rather than focusing on developing the NSAI in isolation,
consideration needs to be given to the recognition of Síolta and Aistear as the national quality
and curriculum frameworks and the need for them to be embedded in all other quality initiatives
and developments within the sector. First and foremost, Síolta and Aistear underpin the
Education focused inspections (EYEI). Better Start, Quality Development Service (QDS) mentoring
supports are based on both frameworks and the Aistear Síolta practice guide, and the work of
the NCCA involves the ongoing development of the practice guide.
Despite the centrality of both frameworks in informing the work of all key stakeholders, there is
a high level of fragmentation and inconsistency within the current distributed model being
pursued which impacts directly on the delivery of a coherent and consistent message to the
sector.
This has to be addressed in a coherent way to eliminate confusion and overload in relation to key
educational messages being delivered across quality initiatives in the sector. Key to this is
ensuring that the development of all Síolta and Aistear CPD content, resources and materials is
overseen and quality assured at a national level by a working group with clearly defined roles and
responsibilities and including representatives from the national steering committee
organisations.
The delivery of the materials developed in this way also needs to be quality assured with pre and
post evaluation of the effectiveness of training as well as oversight of mentors delivering CPD in
the two frameworks.
Cost-effectiveness and coverage
The findings also indicate a number of problematic issues in relation to the cost effectiveness of
the existing model, which is currently highly resource intensive for all parties. A considerable
amount of the Síolta coordinator’s time is spent on resolving and managing the system, instead
56
of focusing on and optimising her expertise on the quality assurance agenda and supporting of
the mentors.
In terms of access, geographical access for services to Síolta Aistear mentoring has improved
since the introduction of the NSAI. However, there is still not consistent access for services to
support in implementing the frameworks. Even where mentors have been trained, their activity
and the level of use of the hours allocated is dependent on their individual management and the
capacity of the organisation to use those hours. With the rollout of the national Early Years
Education Inspections, it is becoming ever more imperative that there is equity of access for
services wishing to improve and enhance their implementation of the two frameworks, given
that the understanding and use of the two frameworks is being evaluated and reported on a
national basis.
Ongoing and future development and delivery of the frameworks
The findings support the need for central management of full time, fully active mentors to deliver
the initiative with full geographical coverage nationally and it is clear that the current distributed
model of delivery inhibits these aims. While elements of the issues that have been outlined in
the review could be addressed by the appointment of full time mentors within the city and county
childcare committees, the issues arising from trying to co-ordinate staff within 29 separate
organisations would remain. Full-time mentors within a single operating structure overseen by
a national Síolta Aistear implementation office would be a more effective means of addressing
cost issues and coverage issues.
In addition, a single management structure would further maximize existing expertise and ensure
consistency of messaging to the sector. The rationale for having one national organisation with
the relevant systems, structures, coordination capacity and national reach, in addition to a remit
to deliver supports related to Síolta and Aistear as part of their core work is clearly evident from
the current analysis and findings. Better Start fits this profile, although the current structures
within Better Start would need to be supplemented to allow for this extension of their remit.
57
A central quality assurance model needs to be developed to ensure that all CPD training,
mentoring, coaching, materials and resources delivered to the sector is centrally overseen and
approved. This is not to infer that all materials need to be developed in-house although there is
a strong argument for Aistear CPD to be developed in- house, but that all material is vetted. It is
easier to quality assure content and delivery under one organisation rather than across multiple
organisations. The obvious home for this activity is within the Early Years Specialist Service which
is evolving to become the quality support hub across the early year’s sector.
One of the current priorities for the DES is the development of the Aistear CPD by a working
group (Clearing House) with representation from the key stakeholders including NCCA, Better
Start, EYEI, and both Coordinators. At present the working group acts as a clearing house for the
development of specific Aistear CPD and this model of quality assurance could be developed for
future development, proofing and alignment of all content and resources of both Aistear and
Síolta CPD and mentoring supports. A standing structure with a remit to develop and approve
CPD materials and resources for the frameworks should be put in place with final decision on
content of materials/resources resting with that group. Clear terms of reference should be
agreed at National Steering Group level when Group is formally established.
The establishment of a National Síolta-Aistear Implementation Office within Better Start would
address the perceived fragmentation of the two frameworks. Within such an office the current
National Síolta Co-coordinator role would be re-focused and co-located with a key role in the
quality assurance and oversight of delivery of Síolta Aistear Initiative activity as well as in
organizing CPD and other supports for the QDS Early Years Specialists. This new National Síolta
Development Officer role will continue to report into DES and will play a key role in the future
evolution of the Síolta framework to a whole setting self-evaluation model similar to that used in
the schools, in conjunction with the DES Early Year Inspectorate and with Tusla. This will provide
a means for the QAP and EYEI processes to be integrated into a self-evaluation and external
evaluation framework.
58
Given the statutory role of the NCCA in curriculum development, the National Aistear coordinator
role would become more research and development focused to inform the development and
upgrading of the Aistear Síolta practice guide and to work on curriculum development and
alignment of the Aistear framework with the current reviews and development of the primary
curriculum within the NCCA. In that context, the post of a National Aistear development officer
should remain within the NCCA and will feed updated Aistear developments into the NSA
Resource Development Group. Existing aspects of the role relating to the operation and delivery
of the Aistear CPD would transfer into the NSA Implementation office.
However, it is important that formal contact between the two national posts and the team lead
in Better Start is embedded into the new model. It is proposed that a Project Group will meet
regularly to ensure an integrated approach to both frameworks’ development as the initiative
rolls out.
It is envisaged that the NSA Implementation Office would also have a role in commissioning
activity where required and as budgetary constraints allow in the two frameworks so long as the
content had been quality assured and approved by the NSA Resource Development Group. It is
acknowledged that there is a wealth of early year’s expertise and mentor knowledge and skills
accrued within the existing cohort of Síolta Aistear Mentors in the CCCs and NVOs. The NSA
Implementation office will continue to oversee and supervise those mentors (including through
NVOs) who are supporting settings through a QAP process and a number of hours will be
allocated to allow CCCs to continue with introductory awareness raising activity for the
frameworks out in the sector for the present. In light of the overall findings from the review, the
following plan for a restructuring of the current model is outlined in the diagram below:
59