supporting early childhood preservice teachers in their work with children and families with complex...

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 06 November 2014, At: 07:27Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Supporting Early Childhood PreserviceTeachers in Their Work With Childrenand Families With Complex Needs: AStrengths ApproachAngela Fenton a & Laura McFarland-Piazza aa Faculty of Education , Charles Sturt University , Albury , NewSouth Wales , AustraliaPublished online: 12 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Angela Fenton & Laura McFarland-Piazza (2014) Supporting EarlyChildhood Preservice Teachers in Their Work With Children and Families With Complex Needs:A Strengths Approach, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:1, 22-38, DOI:10.1080/10901027.2013.874384

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.874384

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10901027.2013.874384

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.874384

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:22–38, 2014Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2013.874384

Supporting Early Childhood Preservice Teachers inTheir Work With Children and Families With

Complex Needs: A Strengths Approach

ANGELA FENTON AND LAURA McFARLAND-PIAZZA

Faculty of Education, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales,Australia

This article explores the potential of tailoring the inherent principles of the StrengthsApproach (McCashen, 2005) for preparing early childhood educators to work with chil-dren and families with complex needs. The term Strengths Approach (capitalized) ispresented in the article as the name of a specific approach developed by St. Lukes(McCashen, 2005) while the term strengths approaches (lower case) is included forbroader references to strengths-based organizational practices. The Strengths Approachis a solutions-focused way of openly addressing issues that occur in human servicesby identifying and using the strengths and resources of all stakeholders. Althoughcommonly used in social service organizations, the Strengths Approach has not beenwidely adopted in early childhood education and care contexts or in teacher edu-cation courses. Drawing on our previous Australian and American interdisciplinaryresearch in psychology, child development, and early childhood preservice teachertraining for child protection, we examine the possibility of teacher educators also intro-ducing the Strengths Approach in preservice teacher training as a framework to enhancefuture parent–educator communication across a range of children’s early development,protection, attachment, and learning needs.

Introduction

The authors draw on their previous interdisciplinary research in psychology, child protec-tion, child development, teacher training, and parent–child and teacher–child relationshipsin the U.S. and Australia and apply this knowledge using the Strengths Approach(McCashen, 2005) to qualitative data from preservice teachers working with complex sit-uations involving children and families. The overall aims of this article are to examinethe possibility of teacher educators using the principles of the Strengths Approach whenteaching preservice teachers to enrich the preservice teachers understanding and skills inparent–educator communication across a range of children’s early development, protection,attachment, and learning needs.

Literature Review

Strengths approaches are a relatively recent development in organizational practice,largely emanating from social-service research in the United States (Saleebey, 1996,

Received 3 December 2012; accepted 1 August 2013.Address correspondence to Angela Fenton, Faculty of Education, Charles Sturt University, P. O.

Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Children and Families With Complex Needs 23

2009). Strengths approaches are described as methods based on an ecologically based,solution-focused philosophy for supporting individuals, families, groups, organizations,and communities (O’Neil, 2005). In general, strengths approaches avoid a focus on deficitsand recognize the importance of the multiple contexts that influence peoples’ lives, as wellas the resilience, potentials, strengths, interests, abilities, knowledge, and capacities of indi-viduals (Grant & Cadell, 2009; Saint-Jacques, Turcotte, & Pouliot, 2009). In Australia,the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) has been used increasingly within the socialservices field for the last 15 years (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Although the successfulapplication of this approach to the work with children and families within communitiesin the social services field is evident (St. Lukes Anglicare, 2010), the approach has notbeen widely articulated or understood in early childhood education and care (ECEC) con-texts and is not a common focus in Australian early childhood teacher education courses(Education Services Australia, 2011).

Although all initial teacher education programs in Australia must include contentrelated to engaging “parents/carers in the educative process” (Australian Institute forTeaching and School Leadership, 2011, p. 7), this is not uniformly applied as a separate sub-ject within every course or required to be taught using strengths approaches. In the UnitedStates, social-work approaches are expanding in the area of early childhood special educa-tion theory and practice (Azzi-Lessing, 2010) and the draft standards for the Council for theAccreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) outlined the broad expectation that teach-ers will “build strong relationships with students, families, colleagues, other professionals,and community members, so that all are communicating effectively and collaborating forstudent growth, development, and well-being” (CAEP, 2013).

Given the multiple roles that early childhood educators must adopt in their professionalwork and the diversity of families they are likely to encounter, the authors propose thatthe Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) is a useful cross-cultural framework for assist-ing early childhood educators attempting to actualize policy expectations when workingchildren and families, particularly those with complex needs. We argue that the StrengthsApproach aligns with established ECEC developmental, social justice, and resilienceprinciples outlined in the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (Department ofEducation Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009) and the ethical respon-sibilities stated in the National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC],Code of Ethical Conduct, for early childhood adult educators (NAEYC, 2004). TheNAEYC (2004) emphasizes the need to “provide safe and nurturing care and educationfor young children and be supportive of their families” and to “strengthen and expand theknowledge base of early childhood” (p. 5) and stresses that early childhood teachers needto be able to communicate “the strengths of children” (p. 6).

The Emergence of Strengths Approaches

The term Strengths Approach is commonly used both as the name of the approach as devel-oped by St. Lukes (McCashen, 2005) and as a descriptive term for related practices. In thispaper, capitals are used to differentiate the specific, “Strengths Approach” (McCashen,2005) version, while lower case “strengths approaches” are used for broader, referencesto strengths-based organizational practice from which McCashen’s Strengths Approachemerges. Professionals in early childhood education and care settings are encouraged touse strengths approaches to support the access and participation of all children and families.In Australia, current early years curriculum and policy documents, such as the Early YearsLearning Framework (DEEWR, 2009) and the National Quality Framework (DEEWR,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

24 A. Fenton and L. McFarland-Piazza

2011), advise that strengths approaches should be used in early childhood settings. In theUnited States, High Scope Educational Research Foundation (2012) states that determiningthe strengths of infants and toddlers plays a large part in evaluating their learning (para. 5).However, what is meant by using strengths approaches, and how to actualize these in earlychildhood settings, has not been well articulated, understood, or interrogated.

Strengths approaches emanated from civil and human rights movements in the UnitedStates in the late 1960s and 1970s (Saleebey, 1996, 2009). References to strengthsapproaches within the field of social work and psychology have emerged in literature sincethe late 1990s (Beilharz, 2002; Hodges & Clifton, 2004). The approach arose primarilyin response to dominating deficits-based models of social service and psychology thatlargely focus on promoting the role of the practitioner as that of fixer or rescuer (Scott& O’Neil, 2003). In contrast, strengths approaches concentrate on collaboratively utilizingthe strengths of stakeholders in the form of individual skills, knowledge, and resources todetermine solutions to issues requiring change.

Social justice principles of self-determination, empowerment, and transparency under-lay the approach and strengths practitioners aim to facilitate change by “power with”stakeholders rather than “power over” them. Saleebey (1996) wrote that a strengths per-spective demanded “a different way of looking at individuals, families, and communities”(p. 297), whilst Weick, Rapp, Sullivan, and Kisthardt (1989) explained that this involvedpractitioners in assisting people to identify and appreciate their own strengths and resourcesas a basis for change.

In Australia, the social service organization of St. Lukes, based in Bendigo, Victoria,pioneered and adapted strengths perspectives to their work and developed their own version,entitled the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005; St. Lukes Anglicare, 2010). McCashen(2005) explains that the Strengths Approach encourages the identification of resources andthe use of challenges, as they occur, to create resilience and aptitude when working withissues. A guide for implementing the Strengths Approach is the six key stages for reflection,planning, and action:

1. Listening to peoples’ stories . . . exploring the core issues;2. Developing a picture of the future [visioning] and setting goals;3. Identifying and highlighting strengths and exceptions to problems;4. Identifying additional resources needed to move towards a picture of the future;5. Mobilizing strengths and resources through a plan of action; and6. Reviewing and evaluating progress and change. (McCashen, 2005, pp. 47–48)

The first five stages are usually presented in a five-column table format to guide practition-ers applying the Strengths Approach and this is termed The Column Approach as shown inTable 1.

Although there is a small (but significant and increasing) network of strengths practi-tioners, the approach has not been without critics. Arguments are expressed that strengthsapproaches are time-consuming (Glicken, 2004) or merely evangelistic or positive thinking(Epstein, 2008), and inconsistently defined or applied (Epley, Summers, & Turnbull, 2010).Others suggest that strengths approaches negate the reality of complex issues, and are there-fore simplistic and inappropriate (Taylor, 2006), and deny the existence and severity ofserious problems in peoples’ lives (Schott & Critchley, 2004; Taylor, 2006). Both advo-cates and critics acknowledge that anecdotal reports of success using strengths approaches,rather than formal research studies, are also barriers to the scholarly recognition of theeffectiveness of the approach (McCashen 2005; McMillen, Morris, & Sherraden, 2004;Proctor 2003; Saleebey, 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Tabl

e1

The

Col

umn

App

roac

h

Stor

ies

and

issu

esT

hepi

ctur

eof

the

futu

reSt

reng

ths

and

exce

ptio

nsO

ther

reso

urce

sPl

ans

and

step

s

Ask

ques

tions

that

invi

tepe

ople

tosh

are

thei

rst

orie

san

den

able

them

tocl

arif

yth

eis

sues

.

Ask

ques

tions

that

help

peop

leex

plor

eth

eir

aspi

ratio

ns,d

ream

s,in

tere

sts

and

goal

s.

Ask

ques

tions

that

help

peop

leex

plor

eth

eir

stre

ngth

san

dth

eex

cept

ions

toth

eis

sues

.

Ask

ques

tions

that

help

iden

tify

reso

urce

sth

atm

ight

help

them

reac

hth

eir

goal

s.

Ask

ques

tions

that

enab

lepe

ople

tosp

ecif

yco

ncre

test

eps

tow

ards

thei

rgo

als.

Wha

t’s

happ

enin

g?H

owdo

you

feel

abou

tthi

s?H

owlo

ngha

sth

isbe

ena

prob

lem

?H

owis

itaf

fect

ing

you

and

othe

rs?

Wha

tdo

you

wan

tto

beha

ppen

ing

inst

ead?

Wha

twill

bedi

ffer

ent

whe

nth

eis

sues

are

addr

esse

d?

Wha

tstr

engt

hsdo

you

have

that

mig

htbe

help

ful?

Wha

tdo

you

dow

ell?

Wha

t’s

happ

enin

gw

hen

the

issu

esar

en’t

arou

nd?

Who

else

mig

htbe

able

tohe

lp?

Wha

toth

ersk

ills

orre

sour

ces

mig

htbe

usef

ul?

Wha

tste

psca

nbe

take

n,gi

ven

your

pict

ure

ofth

efu

ture

,str

engt

hsan

dre

sour

ces?

Who

will

dow

hat?

Whe

n?H

ow?

By

whe

n?

Not

e.Fr

omT

heSt

reng

ths

App

roac

h(M

cCas

hen,

2005

,p.4

8).©

2005

byth

eSt

.Luk

esIn

nova

tive

Res

ourc

es.R

epri

nted

with

perm

issi

on.

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Working With Families in Early Childhood Education Settings

Children’s learning, development and well-being are situated within the context of family,culture, and community (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Early childhood educators mustbe aware of these contexts and work respectfully with families in their unique commu-nities (Dockett & Perry, 2008). Quality early childhood services emphasize collaborativepartnerships between early childhood educators and families. Indeed, the importance ofrelationships between early childhood educators and families is recognized in Australia byits inclusion as an essential component in the national Early Years Learning Framework(DEEWR, 2009). Forming “collaborative partnerships with families and communities” isone of the compulsory seven key Quality Areas in the early childhood National QualityStandards (DEEWR, 2011).

Despite being important, family–educator partnerships are often neglected inpreservice teacher education (Nieto, 2004). Besides short blocks of professional experienceplacements, preservice teachers are not typically provided ongoing, scaffolded experiencesfocused on building parent–educator relationships (Christian, 2006). Research confirmsthat early childhood educators often feel inadequately prepared for their work with familiesand desire more practical experience and specific content for understanding family dynam-ics and interacting with families (Bennet, Katz, & Beneke, 2006; McFarland & Lord, 2008).

Using the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) to working with families in earlyeducation and care settings can encourage these collaborative partnerships, whereas deficitapproaches, which focus on families’ and children’s weaknesses, can often result in astigma (Dockett et al., 2011). However, the practical use of the Strengths Approach toworking with families is rarely given much attention in early childhood teacher educationcourses. Thus, preservice early childhood educators may have few opportunities to learnabout and implement such an approach (Bennet et al., 2006; Christian, 2006). The StrengthsApproach may be particularly useful for working with families with complex needs.

Families with complex support needs are those experiencing various challenges includ-ing poverty, physical and mental health issues, substance abuse, behavioral problems,violence and trauma or some combination of these (Katz, Spooner, & Valentine, 2007).Families with complex support needs are less likely than other families to be engaged inthe educational setting and have positive relationships with educators (Miedle & Reynolds,1999; Smart, Sanson, Baxter, Edwards, & Hayes, 2008). Reasons for this may includelow parental education, parental mental health issues, poverty, unemployment, cultural andlanguage differences, which can all impact the confidence of a family (Dockett et al., 2011).

Low levels of parent education (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000), and low socioeco-nomic status (SES) (Boethal, 2003), have been documented to be a barrier to collaborativeeducator–family relationships and family involvement. Berthelson and Walker (2008)found family income to be positively associated with family involvement with schools,as reported by both teachers and mothers. Low SES or family income in itself does notnecessarily equate to lower levels of parental involvement, rather, the associated familyprocesses, such as fewer resources, more rigid job schedules, less support and morestress, may make it more difficult for parents to be involved and form collaborativerelationships with educators (Lindon & Rouse, 2012). Language barriers can also makeit challenging for families to become involved and engaged with teachers (Dyson, 2001).Additionally, evidence shows that teachers report that families with backgrounds culturallydifferent to their own are less interested in their children’s education and less involvedin the school (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). In the Australian context, Indigenous statusoften acts as a barrier to parent involvement and parent–educator communication, asthe early education or school environment can be seen as being very different from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


home environment, thus, making some Indigenous families uncomfortable in these formaleducational environments (Dockett, Mason, & Perry, 2006). In addition, there can be aperceived power imbalance between teachers and families, preventing some Indigenousfamilies from participating in planned involvement activities or communicating regularlywith educators (Dockett et al., 2006).

Indeed, families with complex support needs may face numerous barriers that impedethe formation of collaborative partnerships with educators. However, these families oftenhold high educational expectations for their children (Dockett et al., 2011). In order tofacilitate more collaborative partnerships with all families, particularly those with complexsupport needs, early childhood educators should consider using the Strengths Approach(McCashen, 2005). Research has found that strengths approaches are useful when support-ing children in families with complex needs through the transition to school (Dockett et al.,2011). Dockett et al. (2011) emphasize that programs that have been effective in support-ing families with complex needs build on the existing strengths of the family, avoid makingjudgments of families, view families as the experts on their own needs and experiences,and promote effective parenting through positive relationships. Other aspects of successfulprograms include a focus on both the child and the family (Homel et al., 2006), contin-uous support (Brooks-Gunn, 2003), and a focus on parenting (Davis, Day, & Bidmead,2002; Homel et al., 2006), with particular emphasis on responding to children’s challengingbehavior (Ghate & Hazel, 2002; Sektnan, McCleland, Acock, & Morrison, 2010). Althoughresearch outlines a number of factors associated with successful strengths approaches tosupport families with complex needs through the transition to school, there is little empiri-cal research focused on the use of the Strengths Approach to support children and familieswith complex needs in prior-to-school educational settings.

Methodology

The qualitative data presented in this article were drawn from a larger Australian doc-toral research project (Fenton, 2012), which examined the potential of using the StrengthsApproach (McCashen, 2005) to prepare early childhood teachers for child protection issues.Details of the original research project, which gathered three phases of qualitative data from19 preservice early childhood teachers who studied a newly designed Strengths Approachchild protection module, are described and tabulated below (see Table 2).

The original research findings confirmed the significant practical and moral demandsof child protection for teachers. The participants expressed that the 13-week integratedmodule, placed in the teacher education course prior to practicum placement and priorto graduating as a qualified teacher, helped them to enhance their understandings ofchild protection. Overall, the participants’ responses appeared to also support claims thatthe Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) has a wider potential for assisting not onlypreservice teachers but also practicing teachers, children, and families, with a range ofcomplex needs (including, but not limited to child protection).

Although extended exploration of the data on issues outside of the child protection areawas beyond the scope of the original 18-month research project, the authors informallyreflected upon the opportunity presented to further examine the data as an amalgama-tion of their previous early childhood research and Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005)interests. The idea of reexamining responses that were gleaned from the data with a newand specific purpose, i.e., identifying cases of using strengths approaches with complexchild and family needs not necessarily limited to child protection concerns, led us to Yin’s(2009) case study method.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 2Overview of the Key Methodological Features of the Research Project From Which the

Responses Were Drawn

Item Description

Project purpose/aim Examining the potential of using a Strengths Approach(SA) to enhance preservice teacher preparation for childprotection

Research setting location Preservice early childhood (EC) teacher education programat a regional university in Queensland, Australia

Participants 19 early childhood preservice teachers—18 female, 1 male(5 identified as mature-aged 21+ yrs). Participantscommenced the project as 3rd-year students of a 4-yeardegree program and completed the research project asgraduated and/or employed EC teachers

Duration 18 monthsProject Doctoral research project (Author 1, 2012)Description Phase 1—Participants experienced and responded to a

13-week Strengths Approach (SA) child protectionmodule that was integrated into a core degree subject

Phase 2—Participants used a SA approach to childprotection on a practicum placement at various child carecenters and early years of schools; practicums occurred ina mixture of small, large, urban, rural, remote,Indigenous, and non-Indigenous settings

Phase 3—Participants explored understandings of a SA tochild protection 12 months+ after module completion

Researcher role Dual role of researcher/teacher educatorData collection methods Qualitative data was gathered through individual

interviews, focus groups, and electronic means (electronicdiscussion boards and email prompting responses)

The responses were chosen by the researchers for their ability to illuminate discus-sion (Yin, 2009) of the potential of the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) to be usedwith children and families with complex needs. The authors acknowledge, however, thesubjectivity of response choice and the difficulties inherent with reconstructing and reinter-preting cases from previous research endeavors (Burns, 2000). The responses are presentedin three clusters from each phase of the original research: during the Strengths Approachmodule, after practicum placements, and 12 months after the module completion. They areprefaced by contextual information and are clustered to reflect key issues arising from thecontext of each phase. Each cluster follows a similar “compositional structure” (Yin, 2009,p. 175) to enable analysis across groupings. This is used as a technique to identify syn-ergies and challenges that arose across the data and to aid in establishing confirming anddisconfirming links between the data and literature studied.

An inductive approach was used for analysis, which relied on the authors’ independentreading and, first, clustering of common and unique themes from the responses. Analysiswas an iterative process, which then involved the conscious restructuring and reordering of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


the placement of excerpts. A chronological, phase-by-phase clustering was decided uponto enable a sharper focus on concepts that the authors considered as key to the discussion.

Importantly, the authors acknowledge their respective roles in this process; Author1 as participant-observer with “insider knowledge” (Mac Naughton & Hughes, 2008) andAuthor 2 as a retrospective observer and ‘outsider’ to the data. Retrospective recall andreflection on the original research from Author 1 also serves as the source of responsecontextual data and informs the analysis of the responses. Participant observation has thebenefit of providing insights into the intricacies of organizations’ functioning. Its weaknesslies in the risk of bias due to participant-observers’ perceptions of circumstances and events(Yin, 2009). The additional layer of an “outsider” perspective from Author 2 assisted insomewhat negating this disadvantage. The retrospective observer was able to ask additionalquestions, offer different ideas and provide extra interrogation of the data. This supports thenotion that using the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) to research would inherentlydemand that the researchers apply and value multiple perspectives (p. 29).

Results

Phase 1 Responses

Context. The first five responses chosen from Phase 1 data were gathered from theparticipants at the beginning of undertaking the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005)module and the last two responses were drawn from those collected near the end of the mod-ule. In the module, using the Column Approach (McCashen, 2005), the preservice teacherswere first encouraged to explore and critically reflect on issues of child abuse, neglect, andwell-being, and their prospective roles as early childhood educators. They learned of theirlegal responsibilities, reporting procedures, and support organizations for responding tosuspected child abuse alongside trialing practical strengths approach strategies for workingwith children and families with complex needs. Legislative arrangements vary in differentstates and territories in Australia. In Queensland, early childhood teachers need to complywith the Child Protection Act 1999 (2011) and are mandated to report physical, sexual, andemotional abuse as well as neglect. Despite this mandate, Arnold and Maio-Taddeo (2007)found that of 33 Australian universities sampled, 76.6% of teacher education programs inthe sample did not include any discrete child protection related content. Although the focusof the doctoral research was child protection, the data collected also included responses thatexamined other issues and skills required from educators using strengths approaches withchildren and families and this extended data is the focus of this paper. The preservice teach-ers reflected on multiple issues they may encounter as early childhood educators workingwith children and families.

Responses: Module beginning. Participants described:

Teachers are at the forefront of recognition and notification of suspected childabuse. What does this mean to us, both personally and professionally? It wasinteresting reading the disclosure of a suspected father’s abuse. I too wouldfeel uncomfortable in that situation. How can we as teachers seek to be non-judgemental and keep an open mind in relation to parents or others withoutcompromising our professional duty? Teachers’ responsibilities have grownto take on counsellor and social worker, as well as managing a classroomand then, hopefully, teaching. As teachers, we need to know our children,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


understand their backgrounds, and provide a safe and supported classroom.This I agree with, however, as a teacher where do we get the time to do all ofthis? (Participant 17)

I wondered if a child I worked with [previously] had problems at home. He hadno manners, he misbehaved and he sometimes had bruises on him. I met hismother a few times and she seemed lovely so it was hard to presume anything.However, sometimes parents can put on a brave face in public and then becompletely different at home. (Participant 3)

Where can we go from here; there are so many issues for teachers that theseproblems slip between the cracks. (Participant 17)

I’ve probably just been quite sheltered. I haven’t really heard of any stories ofabuse or things like that, I haven’t really had any first-hand experiences withit, like no-one that I really know, or that I know of, have had experiences oranything like that, so it’s really hard to try and get your head around it whenyou haven’t even seen people. (Participant 6)

Module conclusion. Participants described:

This subject has been a real eye opener. I enjoyed learning about the history ofECE and also really enjoyed reading, researching, listening to and telling sto-ries about issues that surround our contemporary society. I am grateful that wehad an opportunity to share our issues with one another. I definitely feel moreequipped and confident as a teacher to deal with any of these issues addressedin this subject. (Participant 13)

I think the interesting thing from a student perspective is that in discussingissues, we as student[s] are clarifying our own thinking all the time and devel-oping it [understanding of the Strengths Approach] and taking it further, so Iwouldn’t like to see [children and families viewed] as in a client sort of role,I see both [teacher and families] as on the journey, and that we’re developingour thinking together. (Participant 17)

Discussion

The responses by the participants at the beginning of the strengths module expressed hesita-tion, anxiousness, a lack of confidence and in some cases, discomfort with their prospectiveroles as early childhood educators involved with the multiple and complex issues affectingchildren and families. The responses from the 3rd-year degree students support findings byLindon and Rouse (2012) that early childhood practitioners require more support for thiscrucial area of their practice and claims by McFarland and Lord (2008) that there is inad-equate preparation for working with families, including practical experiences, in teacherpreparation programs.

At the onset of the module, some participants appeared overwhelmed by the num-ber of issues affecting children and families (including but not limited to child protection)and noted concerns with the time that may be needed to form collaborative partner-ships with children and families. While this may suggest support for arguments thatstrengths approaches are time-consuming (Glicken, 2004), it should be noted that partici-pants were yet to learn the Column Approach (McCashen, 2005) in the module, which isdesigned using strengths principles to scaffold practitioners to enact solutions to a variety

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


of issues. The authors posit that the use of the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005), onceunderstood and practiced, can assist with subsequent issues encountered and thus can be,conversely, timesaving.

Regardless of the expressions of uncertainty, most early responses also demonstratedan interest and engagement to learn about issues involving children and families and toexplore their roles as early childhood educators. It could be interpreted that the partici-pants had misconceptions about the extension of their roles to being that of “counsellor andsocial worker” (Participant 17) and perhaps suggest that family issues were viewed as anextra burden. From a strengths approach, however, such comments can also be viewed asan opportunity for exploring with preservice teachers the inseparable elements of care andeducation in early years teaching and to encourage them to clearly define for themselveswhat they understood to be the boundaries of their roles as early childhood practition-ers. The Australian Early Years Workforce Strategy (DEEWR, 2012) states that there isa need to “support ECEC staff to work in a more integrated way with the broader earlychildhood development workforce including the range of professionals that work with chil-dren and their families across health and family services” (p. 1). The authors proffer thatin preparation for such calls for interdisciplinary practice in early childhood, knowledge ofadditional resources and organizations that support children and families and clear guidanceon referral roles are crucial.

Phase 2 Responses

Context. The Phase 2 responses were gathered from the participants after the mod-ule completion and after they had undertaken a practicum placement in a Queensland,Australia, early childhood context. The students reflected on their practicum experiencesin various centers and early years of school settings and, similarly to Phase 1, this oftenincluded discussing a multitude of child and family issues that moved beyond the childprotection parameters of the original research.

Responses. Responses include:

Well we’ve got one boy [4 years], and he took off on day one and it’s a regularthing he does every week [centre-based setting] . . . he’ll cry, he would cry allthe time, he will just cry, “Oh, now I’m going to get another flogging,” . . . butI know he’s [from a] broken family, he doesn’t live with his Dad, he goes, “nowI don’t get to go and visit him and when I do it’s going to be a flogging, I’ll getin trouble.” (Participant 8)

Well I had one of my children who was generally really confident in class [earlyyears school setting], really happy and then the second Monday that I had him,he was just completely changed, he was almost in tears for the first bit of themorning, he was quiet, he wasn’t doing anything. . . . I had a chat with himand he said it was because Dad went away and Dad works for the mines andso talking to the teacher later, apparently that happens every two weeks, like hegets that upset that Dad goes away. (Participant 19)

A lot of the children didn’t come to school to start off with, of the Year1 class and only 14 students were in the class, less than half would be thereand the teacher just said this was very normal [Indigenous, rural and remotecommunity]. Children wouldn’t come to school with shoes on, you could justsee that they were being neglected, things like personal hygiene, not having

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


enough food, not having any sleep and not having their messes [toileting]looked after. Unfortunately, a student going to school with no lunch wascommon. (Participant 14)

I’ve been on prac [urban long day care setting] and children have worn thesame clothes four/five days in a row. (Participant 16)

A little girl came up to me, and just looked me in the eyes and said “I don’thave any food today because my Mum doesn’t have enough money to buy meany.” (Participant 14)

I did have one child in my class who I suspected may be neglected. The studenthad so many lice they were falling onto her uniform and when the motherwas rung to come and pick her up, she refused. The teacher aide took her andwashed her hair. My SBTE (School Based Teacher Educator) was aware ofthe mother acting this way on numerous accounts. She rang the mother thatafternoon. (Participant 2)

I have been able to use the Strengths Approach in my own study [duringpracticum in an Indigenous early childhood centre]. I have just completed anassignment for ESL children and had to choose a strengths-based case studychild and developed 3 learning experiences to aid her language development.I chose an Indigenous girl and the study referred to her interests, which I believewere her strengths in her ways of knowing. She had shown interest in animals.So I looked at that as her strengths and built the whole experiences around herknowledge of animals. (Participant 1)

Discussion

Based on the numbers of children identified in the Australian Early Development Index(AEDI, 2010), it is likely that early childhood educators will encounter children and fami-lies with complex needs and need to be prepared to work with them. The AEDI reports forexample, that from information collected on 261,147 children in Australia in 2009–2010,over 23% of children were deemed as developmentally vulnerable in at least one area ofdevelopment, i.e., physical, social, emotional, language, and cognitive development areasand that 4.4% had chronic special needs (AEDI, 2010), The responses from Phase 2 indicatethat participants can see how children’s learning and well-being is not distinct to the educa-tion context but is firmly situated, connected and inseparable from the cultural and familycontexts (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). It is imperative that teacher education coursesacknowledge this and foster skills to build educators’ capacities to work with families.

The responses demonstrated multiple issues, some of which are identified in theAustralian Early Development Index (AEDI, 2010), and were typical of those identifiedin this small group from one practicum. Issues of poverty, disadvantaged Indigenouscommunities, possible physical abuse, culturally diverse backgrounds and languagesspoken, separation from parents by divorce or working away from home, neglect, poorhygiene, and inadequate nutrition were all articulated. The responses indicate that manyof the children that the participants worked with on practicums were observed as not beingprepared for the service or school day, particularly those in Indigenous communities.Author 1 reports that extended responses in the original research identified programsoperating within some services to assist with these issues, such as breakfast programs,school/service bus transport to bring children to the service, clothing provision, and healthworkers available to assist with children’s health needs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Participants’ responses in Phase 2 suggest that they are more fully exploring thecomplexity of issues arising (Column 1 of the Strengths Approach) (McCashen, 2005)and are not rushing to solutions or judgmental commentary as quickly as they did at thebeginning of the module. They appear to listen more carefully, seek additional input (eitherfrom child, teacher aide or supervising practicum teacher), which indicates a potential toidentify and explore strengths and resources.

Other research highlights limitations of teacher education preparation for working withfamilies and a lack of scaffolding in such situations (Christian, 2006; Nieto, 2004). Thefinal response highlights a participant’s work with a child from a non-English-speakingbackground. The participant built on the culture and language of the family as strengths forearly childhood practice, instead of focusing on them as barriers. Although the responseexplicitly expresses a focus on the strengths identification element of strengths approaches(Saleebey, 2009), the focus implicitly builds on an acknowledgement of personal, cultural,and family strengths. This example and others recorded in the original research, however,suggest that a fuller actualization of the application of the Strengths Approach (McCashen,2005) requires moving beyond identifying and using the strengths of children in theearly childhood service and must include the principles of collaboration, social justice,empowerment and transparency to involve families and communities in the change process.

Phase 3 Responses

Context. Responses were gathered from the participants at least 12 months afterthe module completion when most had graduated as early childhood teachers and wereemployed in a variety of early childhood settings. The students reflected on their cur-rent work and reflected on their understandings and use of the Strengths Approach(McCashen, 2005). They also retrospectively evaluated the Strengths Approach preparationthey received.

Responses. Responses include:

I think that building on the pedagogy of teaching, by developing a strengthsapproach, when you do actually come to talk about issues that are confronting,I think that once you’ve developed a relationship and trust and you’ve takensteps to bridge gaps that you can be more effective when you do touch ontoissues. (Participant 17)

I think that the Strengths Approach offers a way of thinking about how wereact to certain situations and how these situations make us feel. . . . Victimsare disempowered and survivors are enduring. This idea changes negatives intopositives and helps us to look at our lives from another perspective. SometimesI believe that we get locked into a particular way of thinking, doing andbeing without conscious thought. Through changing the frame, it gives us awhole different way of thinking about who we are and what is possible for us.(Participant 19)

I think that the Strengths Approach is very important in early-childhood edu-cation. Teachers in ECE are often the first interaction that a child has with ateacher. In these first interactions, the teacher can use the Strengths Approachto encourage and assist in the development of the child so that they develop totheir full potential, in addition to developing their physical and mental selves.Thus, I think the Strengths Approach can really assist teachers to develop all ofthe child’s selves. (Participant 2)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Teachers need to know the students in their classrooms and the families thatthey come from in order to attend to children’s needs. By developing rela-tionships with both families and students, teachers can gain insights intobackgrounds of the families to find out what they value and the way the familyworks. If children’s needs in the home are not being met, the teacher needs toknow this to ensure that the students time in school is one that is safe, supportiveand protected. (Participant 7)

Discussion

The responses in Phase 3 indicate a significant shift in some of the participants’ think-ing about working with families and complex issues, and recognition of the value of theStrengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) as an aid for practice in their work in helpingchildren and families develop to their full potential. Participants confirm the importanceof relationships and that all families are different and have different values. Participantsalso show recognition that parents and educators can be partners on a journey together,rather than educators being the “saviour” (Scott & O’Neil, 2003). Strengths principlesof trust, collaboration and empowerment emerge from the responses (McCashen, 2005)in this phase. Participants indicate an understanding that there can be numerous causesof children’s and families’ behaviors, and that talking to them in order to find out moreabout the situation, rather than labeling or judging, is important. Some participants indi-cated an increase in confidence and preparedness in working with children and familieswith complex needs.

Although responses in Phase 3 highlight new and more complex thinking about work-ing with families and children using the Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005), thereremain some simplistic “glass half full” interpretations of this approach (Taylor, 2006). Oneparticipant expresses that turning the negative to a positive is a useful strategy. However,this was a singular response that was not interpreted as representing the whole group orsupporting the criticism that the Strengths Approach can be viewed as merely simplis-tic positive thinking (Epstein, 2008). The responses indicate support for the inclusion inteacher education courses of strengths approaches combined with preparation for workingwith complex issues affecting children and families.

Limitations and Implications

There are some limitations of the current study. Although the qualitative methodologyallows for the collection of rich data, the small sample size limits the generalizability ofthe results. Additionally, the sample was drawn from one regional area of Queensland,Australia. Thus, the study is highly contextualized, which further limits generalizability.It is not known whether or not similar results would be found in other communities inAustralia, the U.S., or internationally. Further studies using larger, more diverse samplesare needed.

Despite these limitations, this study adds to the body of knowledge regarding the actu-alization of strengths approaches and the potential to improve early childhood practice.This study also highlights a potentially useful framework which can assist early childhoodeducators and other stakeholders to work with children and families, particularly thosewith complex needs. Given that research indicates that working with families is an oftenneglected area of teacher education courses and an area where educators often feel ill-prepared (McFarland & Lord, 2008; McFarland-Piazza & Saunders, 2012), the Strengths

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Approach (McCashen, 2005) framework outlined in this study could be a useful focus ofsuch courses. Further research is needed to determine if the Strengths Approach is effective,in practice, as a method for enhancing family–educator partnerships.

Conclusions

The current study highlights the potential challenges early childhood educators can meetwhen working with children and families with complex needs. We suggest that althoughthe Strengths Approach (McCashen, 2005) emerged from social service origins it may alsobe useful for educational contexts. In early childhood education, the Strengths Approachaligns strongly with the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009) and the Code ofEthical Conduct (NAEYC, 2004). Teacher educators preparing early childhood educatorsfor their work with all children, including those with complex needs, may adapt, use, andexplain the principles of the Strengths Approach to demonstrate how parent–educator com-munication can be enriched. The preservice teacher responses used for this study indicatethat before learning about and practicing the Strengths Approach, the participants initiallystruggled in their approach to working through complex issues with families and children.However, after participating in the Strength Approach module, the participants indicatedchanges in their perspectives and approaches to these complex issues, coming to the pointof seeing families as partners, communicating with children and families, valuing the dif-ferences in families, and avoiding judgments. The potential of the Strengths Approach to beused outside of its social service origins to enhance teacher education and early childhoodpractice when working with children and families with complex needs is an opportunityworthy of further research.

Funding

The writing of this article was made possible by The Excellence in Early Years EducationCollaborative Research Network funded by the Australian Department of Innovation,Industry, Science and Research Collaborative Research Networks Program.

References

Australian Early Development Index (AEDI). (2010). AEDI: Australian Early Development Index.Retrieved from http://www.rch.org.au/aedi/index.cfm?doc_id=13051

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). National professional stan-dards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/vervel_resources/AITSL_National_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers.pdf

Arnold, L., & Maio-Taddeo, C. (2007). Professionals protecting children: Child protection andteacher education in Australia [Monograph]. Adelaide, SA, Australia: Australian Centre for ChildProtection.

Azzi-Lessing, L. (2010). Growing together: Expanding roles for social work practice in earlychildhood settings. Social Work, 55, 225–263.

Beilharz, L. (2002). Building community: The shared action experience. Bendigo, VIC, Australia:Solutions Press.

Bennett, T., Katz, L., & Beneke, S. (2006). Teachers evaluate their training retrospectively.Unpublished manuscript.

Berthelson, D., & Walker, S. (2008). Parents’ involvement in their children’s education. FamilyMatters, 79, 34–41.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Boethel, M. (2003). Diversity-school, family & community connections: Annual synthesis. NationalCenter for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/readiness-synthesis.pdf

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emergingtheoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115–125.

Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood interven-tion programs? Social Policy Report, 17(1), 3–14. Retrieved from http://ww.srcd.org/Documents/Publications/SPR/Spr17-1.pdf

Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Longman.Child Protection Act 1999. (2011). Child Protection Act 1999. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.

qld.gov.au /legisltn/current/c/childprotecta99.pdfChristian, L. (2006). Understanding families: Applying family systems theory to early childhood

practice. Young Children, 61(1), 12–20.Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2013). CAEP Commission on

Standards and Performance Reporting. Retrieved from http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/draft_standards3.pdf

Davis, H., Day, C. & Bidmead, C. (2002). Working in partnership with parents: The parent advisermodel. London, England: Harcourt Assessment.

Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging,being & becoming. The early years learning framework for Australia. Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-07-02/docs/early_years_learning_framework.pdf

Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2011). National qual-ity framework for early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/earlychildhood/policy_agenda/quality/pages/home.aspx

Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2012) Early yearsworkforce strategy: The early childhood education and care workforce strategy for Australia2012–2016. Retrieved from http://www.cccav.org.au/component/docman/doc_download/121-early-years-workforce-strategy-2012-2016

Dockett, S., Mason, T., & Perry, B. (2006). Successful transition to school for Australian Aboriginalchildren. Childhood Education, 82, 139–144.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2008). Starting school: A community endeavour. Childhood Education, 84,274–280.

Dockett, S., Perry, B., Kearney, E., Hampshire, A., Mason, J., & Schmied, V. (2011). Facilitating chil-dren’s transition to school from families with complex support needs. Albury, Australia: ResearchInstitute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University. Retrievedfrom http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/publications/index.htm.

Dyson, L. L. (2001). Home-school communication and expectations of recent Chinese immigrants.Canadian Journal of Education, 26, 455–476.

Education Services Australia. (2011). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs inAustralia: Standards and procedures. Carlton, VIC, Australia: Ministerial Council for Education,Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.

Epley, P., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A. (2010). Characteristics and trends in family- centeredconceptualizations. Journal of Family Social Work, 13, 269–285.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvementin inner-city elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 91, 289– 305.

Epstein, W. M. (2008, July 9). The true hypocrites [Review of the book, Social work dialogues,by S. L. Witkin & D. Saleebey (Eds.)]. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(1), 82–84.doi:10.1177/1049731507304361

Fantuzzo, J. F., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivari-ate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 92, 367–376.

Fenton, A. (2012). A strengths approach to child protection education (Doctoral dissertation). JamesCook University, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/24044/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Ghate, D., & Hazel, N. (2002). Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping. London,England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Glicken, M. D. (2004). Using the strengths perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.Grant, J. G., & Cadell, S. (2009). Power, pathological worldviews, and the strengths perspective in

social work. Families in Society, 90, 425–430.High Scope Educational Research Foundation. (2012). Infants and toddlers: How we evaluate.

Retrieved from http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=372Hodges, T., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In P. Linley &

S. Joseph (Eds.), International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From research toapplication (pp. 256–269). Hoboken, NY: Wiley.

Homel, R., Freiberg, K., Lamb, C., Leech, M., Hampshire, A., Hay, I., . . . Batchelor, S. J.(2006). The Pathways to Prevention project: The first five years, 1999–2004. Sydney, Australia:Griffith University and Mission Australia. Retrieved from http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/13382/pathwaysfinal.pdf

Katz, I., Spooner, C., & Valentine, K. (2007). What interventions are effective in improving out-comes for children of families with multiple and complex problems? Perth, Australia: AustralianResearch Alliance for Children and Youth. Retrieved from http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/Report_ARACY_ComplexProblems.pdf

Lindon, J., & Rouse, L. (2012). Positive relationships in the early years: Parents as partners. AlbertPark, VIC, Australia: Teaching Solutions.

Mac Naughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2008). Doing action research in early childhood studies.Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

McCashen, W. (2005). The strengths approach. Bendigo, VIC, Australia: St. Luke’s InnovativeResources.

McFarland, L. & Lord, A. (2008). Bringing professional experience to the rural university classroom:Learning and engagement with communities. Education in Rural Australia, 18(1), 23–42.

McFarland-Piazza, L., & Saunders, R. (2012). Hands-on parent support in positive guidance: Earlychildhood professionals as mentors. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 65–73.

McMillen, J. C., Morris, L., & Sherraden, M. (2004). Ending social work’s grudge match: Problemsversus strengths. Families in Society, 85, 317–325. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.1492

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantagedchildren: Does it matter? Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 379– 402.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2004). Code of ethical con-duct: Supplement for early childhood adult educators. Retrieved from http://www.naecte.org/docs/ethics.pdf

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical content of multicultural education. Boston,MA: Pearson.

O’Neil, D. (2005). How can a strengths approach increase safety in a child protection context?Children Australia, 30(4), 28–32.

Proctor, E. K. (2003). Research to inform the development of social work interventions. Social WorkResearch, 27(1), 3–5.

Saint-Jacques, M., Turcotte, D., & Pouliot, E. (2009). Adopting a strengths perspective in social workpractice with families in difficulty: From theory to practice. Families in Society, 90, 454–461.

Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions.Social Work, 41, 296–305.

Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2009). The strengths perspective in social work practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson.

Schott, P., & Critchley, A. (2004). Spiral of strength: Strengthening children and families throughgroupwork. Broadmeadow, NSW, Australia: The Samaritans Foundation.

Scott, D. A., & O’Neil, D. (2003). Beyond child rescue developing family-centred practice at St.Luke’s. Bendigo, VIC, Australia: Solutions Press.

Sektnan, M., McClelland, M., Acock, A., & Morrison, F. (2010). Relations between early familyrisk, children’s behavioural regulation, and academic achievement. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 25, 464–479. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.005

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Smart, D., Sanson, A., Baxter, J., Edwards, B., & Hayes, A. (2008). Home-to school forfinancially disadvantaged children: Final report. Sydney, Australia: The Smith Family andAustralian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/webdata/resources/files/HometoSchool_FullRepor t_WEB.pdf

St. Lukes Anglicare. (2010). St Lukes. Retrieved from St. Lukes: http://www.stlukes.org.au/Taylor, E. H. (2006). The weaknesses of the strengths model: Mental illness as a case in point. Best

Practices in Mental Health, 2(1), 1–30.Weick, A., Rapp, C., Sullivan, W. P., & Kisthardt, W. (1989). A strengths perspective for social work

practice. Social Work, 34, 350–354.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

28 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014