Children’s education involves different educational agents, mainly the family and the school. For this reason, it is especially important that there is a good relationship based on communication between both, since this way they are jointly involved in their development and can exchange information about them, their progress, their difficulties, their activities outside of school … A way for the teacher to understand the context of the child and for the family to get to know the person in charge of the child’s education, as well as the things that happen within the educational center.
Everyday life has moments that promote communication between family and school, and, according to Arnaiz (2012), it allows improving the quality of the child’s identity and responding to the child’s needs by reinforcing personal relationships between their personal references with the aim of knowing the child’s life more closely.
In this case we are going to focus on the moments of entry and exit since, due to its informal nature and its frequency, it favors the exchange of relevant information about the child and its context. Some of the issues that may arise are: aspects related to health, conflicts, development of skills, behaviors, interests … It is very important that the teacher takes into account the lack of privacy at this time when transmitting certain information (both verbal and physical), the presence of the child and the sensitivity of the family (Menendez, Ruiz & Rebaque, 2002).
Once we have contextualized what we understand by communication between family and school in moments of everyday life, we are going to present the analysis of the results of listening and observation.
After analyzing the internship colleges we have been to, we can affirm that most centers do not promote communication with families, not even in everyday life. In the experiences we have had, communication is based on arranged meetings when there is a specific and clear problem, however, on a daily basis it is not considered or only superficially to deal with issues related to physical aspects (diarrhea, constipation, wounds, blows, sleep …). Therefore, we consider that they do not take advantage of the opportunities offered by daily life to communicate and consequently understand each other, know each other, support each other and jointly promote the optimal development of the child, as stated by Arnaiz (2012) and López-Herranz (2004).
However, due to what has been worked on the subject Psychoeducational Attention from 0 to 3 years and what was explained at the beginning of the document, the theory is far from the reality that the three of us have observed on this subject.
Some example of how daily life can be carried out to promote communication between family and school and take advantage of the benefits it has, could be: avoiding that the entrances to the school are an exchange of children in which the family deposits their children in line and the teacher picks them up (in reverse at the exits), but there is a meeting between the agents in which they can have a conversation. Another possibility would be that the teacher shows interest and concern in knowing and understanding the contexts of each of her students, since we consider that one of the barriers that make communication difficult is that it is more difficult for families to take the step due to shyness or shame.
On the other hand, one of us states that in one of the centers where she has carried out internships, communication between the family and the school is more common and is carried out naturally in everyday life. At the entrances to the classroom, the tutor goes out into the hall to receive children and families, greet them, chat with them and invite them to enter the classroom. Although it was more present, it is true that it did not develop in an individual way but rather globally because the teacher did not stop to talk with each one, only with those with whom it arose spontaneously or with whom she had to exchange some type of information.
This is closer to what was worked in class since there is a closer and more frequent communication than in the first example.
From all this, we conclude with the idea that Fabrés (2006) exposes by highlighting the importance of the way in which these moments are carried out since they define the interaction between both educational agents.
References
Arnáiz, V. (2012). ¿Cómo se cuida la identidad del niño en nuestra escuela? Aula de Infantil, 65, 27-28.
Fabrés, M. (2006). En el día a día nada es banal, nada es rutina. In-fan-cia, 100, 14-17.
López-Herranz, R. (2004). Aula de Infantil. Revista Aula de Infantil, 18
Menendez, L., Ruiz, J.M. & Rebaque, M.O. (2002). La tutoría en educación infantil. Praxis.
Authorship
Alejandra Massot, Leire Pérez y Rebeca Vega, 2020.