Key Person Approach - A different key

On my walk to work over a decade ago, I passed a notice saying, ‘Parking is permitted in the marked area for five minutes to drop off or collect your child. After that a fine will be incurred.’

I sensed heartlessness emanating from the nursery. Though I knew nothing about the provision or who had erected the notice, it was enough for me to think they had got the fundamentals wrong.

The key person approach is required by law in both the existing and revised 2021 EYFS statutory framework. One of the principal features of this approach is the ‘settling-in’ period based on attachment theory. During this time the practitioner works closely with the child and parent. A five-minute stay in the car park would not make this possible.

During the past year, new practices have evolved due to the social-distancing imperatives of the pandemic. One of these has been the ‘kiss and drop’, where the child is left at the nursery entrance, carers not being allowed to accompany them in. This too would not comply with key person guidelines. It is interesting, however, to see that some practitioners have reported unexpected benefits, such as an end to ‘anxious’ and ‘lingering’ parents at nursery drop-off, or promoting children getting their things ready for home time themselves.

Sarah Hennessy, a nursery teacher at St Thomas More’s Catholic Primary School & Nursery in Bedhampton, Hampshire, told TES that initially there were tears when children were dropped off at the gate and had to come into the class without their parents.

‘We knew that this would be particularly hard for the unsettled children,’ she said, but added that staff were at the gate to take the children inside ‘where we have our staff reading stories, interacting and on hand ready to distract upset children from that early morning detachment from their parents’. She said, ‘This has had a positive impact in the long term. Many parents commented that children have also gained lots of independence by carrying their own bags, lunch boxes, coats and finding their own pegs. This is certainly something we will consider keeping next year.’

The ‘kiss and drop’ has clearly been welcomed by many and seen as a positive change. So is the key person approach being called into question by this new practice?

ORIGINS

The term ‘key person’ was created in 1994 by Elinor Goldschmied and Sonia Jackson in their seminal text People Under Three: Young Children in Day Care. Here they introduced the notion of a practitioner ‘to whom the child can relate in a special way’. Attachment between the young child and the practitioner is at the core of this approach.

This is restated in Key Persons in the Early Years (Elfer P, Goldschmied E, Selleck D, 2012, 2nd edition). Each child has one or two adults who are special to them, ‘helping them manage throughout the day, thinking about them’. A second person is needed as a ‘back-up’ in case the key person is not available.

The EYFS states, ‘Each child must be assigned a key person. Their role is to help ensure that every child’s care is tailored to meet their individual needs … to help the child become familiar with the setting, offer a settled relationship for the child and build a relationship with their parents.’ This practitioner has particular responsibilities for the child, so that they feel safe and cared for. The role starts during home visits (if offered) and settling-in period.

PRIORITISING EMOTIONS

‘Let me say straight away, I do not think the role itself needs a rethink,’ says Peter Elfer, principal lecturer in Early Childhood at Roehampton University. His research has advocated for the relationship between the practitioner and child being at the centre of early years practice. He says, ‘The evidence is overwhelming about the value of the child feeling “held in mind” (Winnicott) and “contained” (Bion) by an attentive member of staff.’

David Wright, co-owner of Paint Pots Nurseries in Southampton, states that children’s welfare always takes precedence. ‘Paint Pots’ values are enshrined in our motto, “Love, Laughter and Learning”. We visualise this as a pyramid with love as the base and largest layer. We use the word “love” unashamedly. It defines the necessary physical and emotional attachment that is so vital for children’s well-being.’

Mr Wright points out the dialogical nature of the key person approach. ‘A key person focusing on warm relationships with each child is central to the EYFS for a very good reason. Each child’s ability to develop and grow within group settings is dependent on their experiences and temperament. At Paint Pots we always focus on the needs of the individual when considering how to organise our environments. Flexibility is essential to this. When matching a child with a key person, for example, we wait to see who the child has a natural affinity with. This may change over time and as relationships develop.’

Becky Cozens, Early Years Teacher, says the special relationship helps the child to feel safe and secure, forming a basis from which they can explore and gain independence.

She says, ‘It is really important for practitioners to be able to acknowledge children emotionally. Since Covid-19, the notion of children’s well-being has been prominent. Being able to focus on the child and attempt to understand their behaviour is key to this’.

Transition from home to the world of the nursery can be an emotionally intense time, she adds. ‘Children may feel worried, anxious or upset without crying or showing it overtly. It is these more subtle expressions of emotion that practitioners need to become attuned to.’

She worries that ‘distracting’ children from their emotions does not help them make sense of what is going on. ‘Instead of supporting them with processing their emotions, we are encouraging them to ignore them. This is not going to support their mental well-being.’

INTERACTIONS WITH PARENTS

The partnership between the parents, the key person and the child is integral to the key person approach. Goldschmied and Selleck (1966) described this as the ‘triangle of trust’. Ms Cozens ratifies the importance of parental relationships. ‘I find that parents often seek out their child’s key person at drop-off. These day-to-day interactions may include the sharing of important information. I worry that a kiss and drop approach doesn’t recognise the significance of these times.’

Jools Page, from the School of Education at the University of Brighton, focuses much of her work on the issues of love and care in the EYFS. Dr Page argues that ‘the key person plays a vital role in cementing the triangular relationship between themselves, the children and the parent.’ Far from being troublesome, then, parental involvement is central.

A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT

Dr Elfer argues that the complex child-practitioner relationship needs a nurturing environment in which it can thrive (Elfer et al, 2012). He currently devotes much of his work to what he refers as the ‘enabling conditions’ of the key person role. ‘It is this that needs a rethink if it is to work effectively. Logistics aside, the emotional complexities of key person work are immense.’

Close relationships with babies and young children will evoke aspects of the practitioner’s own early relationship and attachments. This may be difficult to bear at times, and tricky to navigate. For Dr Elfer, ‘It is this aspect of the role that needs working on.’

He says practitioners need a specific forum where they can safely reflect on their work. ‘The practice of a “work discussion” is something I cannot stress enough. A space where close attention can be given to the emotions raised by nursery work is vital to the key person role.’ ‘Work discussions’, or similar models of reflective practice, are therefore essential to the implementation of the key person role.

This is reiterated in the 2021 Development Mattersguidance which recommends ‘work discussions’ as integral to the key person approach. The guidance says, ‘Offer supervision or work discussion sessions to staff. Staff will need to talk about the strong feelings that children may express. How are practitioners feeling about these and developing their understanding of the children’s feelings?’

The introduction of ‘bubbles’ during the pandemic is ‘in the spirit of the key person approach’, Dr Page told The Nursery World Show 2021 in her key-person-themed seminar. Small bubbles prioritise the principle that children fare best when looked after by one or two closely attached adults. In a briefing paper from December, Ofsted remarked how bubbles can improve the connections between practitioners and children: ‘… the introduction of “bubble” groups had enabled staff to get to know the children in their group really well. Some providers told us that staff have a greater knowledge of what children know and can do and of their interests because of the more concentrated time that they spend with children.’

CONCLUSION

It is clear that many practitioners have seen the benefits of some of the recent Covid-friendly practices. In some cases this is causing them to query aspects of the mandatory key person approach. This in itself cannot be a bad thing. All good practice depends on reflection and development.

What would be dangerous is if the perceived advantages of very new systems were to call into question an entire, well-evidenced approach.

Ms Cozens is clear that any rethinking must be done with great care. ‘I think we need to be highly cautious when reviewing the key person approach. Practices such as “kiss and drop” cannot be a decision-maker.’

Reconsidering the use of the key person approach would be a serious and delicate endeavour. In contrast, rethinking aspects of the implementation of the key person approach could be useful, even necessary.

Finally, it is probably worth remembering that ‘kiss and drop’ was initially designed to alleviate car congestion. Basing an EYFS practice on this premise would be of deep concern.

Preserving the informal moments

The importance of the ability to continue day-to-day interactions with parents can make all the difference to communicating with their children, says Ms Cozens. ‘When I was working in a nursery in Hampshire, we had a young child (under two) who was trying to tell us something. His speech was unclear, and we couldn’t pick up on what he was trying to tell us. At home time his parent explained that they had visited a monkey sanctuary and he was saying ‘orang-utan’. It all became clear and we could pursue the conversation with the child.’

‘This simple chat enabled us to let the child know that we were listening and wanted to respond to what he said. If we hadn’t, I imagine it would have been as frustrating for him as it was for us. Instead, he knew he was being listened to and we could develop what he said by looking at books about monkeys, and so on.’

Parental interactions can be about many things, including care or emotional needs. It is a time when the parent can share their invaluable expertise about their child. There is the danger that kiss and drop removes the opportunities for these ‘small’ but potentially invaluable moments.

Ms Cozens adds that regular contact with a different parent enabled them to build trust. ‘I have been working with a two-year-old for over a month and only recently her mum told me she was breastfeeding. Parents can feel worried that we will judge them. Building a trusting relationship with the family isn’t instant, it takes time. This is exactly why we need those daily informal opportunities to get to know each other.’

Bubbles and the need for connection

Paint Pots welcomed the use of small bubbles during the first lockdown. Owner David Wright says, ‘For some children, pre-school or nursery provides a place of relative safety. Small bubbles are ideal for nurturing and therapeutic healing.’

When bubbles were first required, staff teams thought about how their setting could implement them. For settings with several discrete spaces, the children could easily be organised in small bubbles. ‘Much of this aligned with the way we work anyway,’ says Mr Wright.

However, dividing larger spaces was ‘reminiscent of a set from Les Misérables’, he adds. ‘Some children would storm the barricades to find their friends on the other side. They were telling us something about their need for connection.’ Any attempts to impose such artificial constraints on movement were then abandoned.

‘We have been clear throughout that our focus would remain on children’s well-being. Our risk-benefit analysis is based on the needs of the individual to connect with others. We have not separated children from their friends, against their will,’ he says. Measures that might have compromised the child’s needs for attachment were not imposed.