How did Covid-19 affect attachment relationships in ECEC settings? Understanding educators’ lived experience.
by Jenny Shaw
I completed my MA research between 2020 and 2021; providing a unique opportunity to explore how the Coronavirus pandemic impacted Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings. I approached this research as an educator who has been strongly influenced by my experience as a Key Person so chose to explore how attachment relationships were impacted by the pandemic from the perspectives of educators. The small-scale study aimed to:
shine a light on the lived experiences of those caring for children during the pandemic
understand how relational care was affected
explore the implications for managing the Key Person Approach (KPA) during other challenging times.
It is a statutory requirement in English ECEC settings for all children to be appointed a Key Person (KP) who is responsible for meeting their individual needs both in terms of care and education (DfE, 2024). When effective, the KPA is understood to have a positive impact on children, families and educators (Elfer, 2006; Lee, 2006; Ebbeck and Yim, 2009; Page and Elfer, 2013; White and Redder, 2015). However, getting it right can be extremely challenging, and many educators find offering this attachment-based approach to care and education problematic (Page and Elfer, 2013). Additionally, the element of care in ECEC is frequently seen as inferior to education, given less regard and therefore is often not a focus within training for Early Years Educators (Elfer and Dearnley, 2007; Van Laere and Vandenbroeck, 2016; Page, 2016; Page, 2017; Rouse and Hadley, 2018).
Why this research is important
ECEC in England is facing significant challenges with regards to recruitment and retention of educators. A recent survey by the Early Years Alliance found over three quarters of settings found it difficult to recruit staff in the last year, with large numbers of educators leaving or considering leaving the sector. Reasons for these statistics include low pay, lack of professional development, working conditions and feeling undervalued. (Early Years Alliance, 2024). With the government’s increased offering of funding meaning that more and more children are now eligible for early entitlement provision, this places additional pressure on an already struggling sector.
While the pandemic was an unprecedented event and hopefully, one that will not be repeated, some of the issues faced by educators in implementing the KPA at that time are still highly relevant today. Many settings are unable to deliver the high-quality approach they would like to due to lack of staffing, meaning children may be moved around to maintain ratios, or because they are using unfamiliar agency staff. This undeniably has an impact on relational care in the setting.
Ethics of care vs Social defence system
My research sought to understand to what extent educators engaged in the opposing concepts of the ‘Ethics of Care’ (Noddings, 2013) and alternatively a ‘Social defence system’ (Elfer and Dearnley, 2007).
Noddings suggested that caregiving can be done without actually caring and that ethical caring is about engaging in the act of caring; something that you actively do. She puts forwards the ideas of “engrossment and motivational displacement” (Noddings, 2013) describing engrossment as a reciprocal relationship, feeling with another person and being in tune with them. To do this, she describes the need for motivational displacement, i.e., putting one’s own thoughts and feeling to one side in order to fully be engaged with the one being cared for.
In contrast, Elfer and Dearnley (2007) suggests that educators may employ a “social defence system” (Elfer and Dearnley, 2007) when caring for children becomes overwhelming and stressful. They describe how educators may detach themselves from the children and become less involved with them to cope with the demands of their role. Elsewhere, Elfer (2014) explains that educators may prioritise other more practical activities over engaging in care as a defence against becoming too emotionally involved.
Research and findings
To help answer my overarching question of ‘What can be learned about offering the KPA during challenging times?’, I carried out semi-structured interviews with four educators using a narrative enquiry approach. Two of these educators worked throughout the pandemic, however they worked at a local setting rather than their own, taking a small number of key worker children with them that were still eligible to attend nursery provision during the first lockdown. The other two educators were furloughed throughout, returning to work when settings reopened, under government guidance that included a strict cleaning regime and working in ‘bubbles’.
My findings were that all educators found that this displacement from their normal activity strengthened their understanding of the KPA and led them to view it more positively. Perhaps surprisingly, they all engaged in the ‘Ethics of Care’ rather than a ‘Social defence system’, finding that being a Key Person during this time became a protective factor for their own mental health. The findings also indicated that the pandemic went some way to raise the profile of ‘care’ within early years education; emphasising the importance for attachment-based pedagogy to be a feature of training for Early Years Educators.
In the BECERA conference, I’ll discuss my findings in more detail, including how I have used the basis of this research to develop the curriculum that is now used within all Busy Bees settings within England.
About the Author:
Jenny Shaw is the Lead Academic Research and Developer at Busy Bees nurseries where she leads on the development of the global curriculum for all settings.
Connect with Jenny on LinkedIn
References
Department for Education (2024) ‘Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. For group and school based providers: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five’, Crown, pp. 1–51. [Viewed 6/1/25] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/670fa42a30536cb92748328f/EYFS_statutory_framework_for_group_and_school_-_based_providers.pdf
Early Years Alliance., (2024). ‘Survey reveals tackling low pay and workforce morale key to recruitment and retention in early years’ [online]. Early Years Alliance. [Viewed 6/1/25]. Available from: https://www.eyalliance.org.uk/news/2024/08/survey-reveals-tackling-low-pay-and-workforce-morale-key-recruitment-and-retention
Ebbeck, M. and Yim, H. Y. B. (2009) ‘Rethinking attachment: Fostering positive relationships between infants, toddlers and their primary caregivers’, Early Child Development and Care, 179(7), pp. 899–909. doi: 10.1080/03004430701567934.
Elfer, P. (2006) ‘Exploring children’s expressions of attachment in nursery’, International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), pp. 81–95. doi: 10.1080/13502930285209931.
Elfer, P. and Dearnley, K. (2007) Nurseries and emotional well‐being: evaluating an emotionally containing model of professional development, Early Years, 27(3), 267-279, DOI: 10.1080/09575140701594418
Lee, S. Y. (2006) ‘A journey to a close, secure, and synchronous relationship: Infant–caregiver relationship development in a childcare context’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2), pp. 133–151. doi: 10.1177/1476718X06063533.
Noddings, N., (2013) ‘Caring. A relational approach to ethics and moral education’ 2nd Edition updated. London: University of California Press
Page, J. and Elfer, P. (2013) ‘The emotional complexity of attachment interactions in nursery’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(4), pp. 553–567. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2013.766032.
Page, J. (2016) Educators’ perspectives on attachment and professional Love in Early Years settings in England. In: Jayne White, E. and Dalli, C. ed(s). Under-three year olds in policy and practice: Cross disciplinary insights and innovations Springer Singapore. pp131-142.
Page, J. (2017) ‘Reframing infant-toddler pedagogy through a lens of professional love: Exploring narratives of professional practice in early childhood settings in England’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18 (4) 387-399. DOI:10.1177/1463949117742780
Rouse, E. and Hadley, F. (2018) Where did love and care get lost? Educators and parents’ perceptions of early childhood practice, International Journal of Early Years Education, 26:2, pp159-172, DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2018.1461613
Van Laere and Vandenbrock (2018) ‘The (in)convenience of care in preschool education: examining staff views in educare’, Early Years 38(1), pp4-18 doi: 10.1080/09575146.2016.1252727
White, E. J. and Redder, B. (2015) ‘Proximity with under two-year-olds in early childhood education: a silent pedagogical encounter’, Early Child Development and Care. Taylor & Francis, 185(11–12), pp. 1783–1800. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1028386.
If you’re interested in this, you may also like
Macagno, A. and Molina, P. (2020) ‘The construction of child-caregiver relationship in childcare centre: adaptation of Parent Attachment Diary for professional caregivers’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(3), pp. 349–362. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1755491.
O’Regan, M., Halpenny, A. M. and Hayes, N. (2020) ‘Childminders’ Close Relationship Model of praxis: an ecocultural study in Ireland’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(5), pp. 675–689. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1817239.
Neitola, M. et al. (2024) ‘Estonian and Finnish early childhood education teachers’ views of well-being and changes at work during the COVID-19 pandemic’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2024.2422342.