Interview with Kateřina Sirotková about the Czech Early Childhood Development (ECD) Platform, the largest collaborative ECD network in Czechia
As part of its Joint Action Fund*, Places to Grow (P2G)** has a project it is working on in collaboration with the Czech ECD Platform called “Local Incubators of ECD.”
This project is collaborating with four local governments in Czechia to understand better the early childhood development (ECD) needs in their areas and to find ways to address them. The project involves working with various stakeholders in the ECD ecosystem, including organizing study visits, workshops, and regional research. It serves as an umbrella organization coordinating different groups and professionals involved in early childhood development in the Czech Republic. The project was initiated in 2019 by four organizations and was initially set up due to a lack of leadership in advocating for the positive outcomes of early childhood development. While it started as a project, it has evolved to become an independent organization over the past year.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of this project and update you on its progress (if you haven’t read our first article about the project, visit here), we interviewed Kateřina Sirotková, the Director of the Czech Platform for Early Care — Platforma pro včasnou péči. Kateřina has a degree in social work and social policy from Charles University, Prague, Czechia. She has three sons, and her own parenting experience has gradually led her to the topic of early care.
Below, we have included a condensed version of the conversation with Kateřina. Please note that some texts have been abbreviated or adjusted with Kateřina’s permission.
Why start a project like this in the first place?
In our previous experiences, we worked on projects with individual organisations, which were fine but limited in scope. We always look for innovative approaches when considering long-term processes and their outcomes. This is why we have chosen to work with four locations. Our goal is to support them in improving their collaboration with other stakeholders, particularly with politicians. When discussing important decisions regarding financing, funding, or long-term processes, it is important to consider providing facilitation or external support.
Beyond that, we are working to implement a Primokiz approach in the Czech Republic, an evidence-based program licensed by the International Step by Step Organisation (ISSA). We did not want to jump in too quickly without being 100% clear that it would react to people’s needs. Thanks to the JAF project supported by Places to Grow, we have taken it slowly.
First, we could take the politicians and the people from the regions and go to Budapest and other municipalities, where they had already implemented Primokiz. We hosted an introductory workshop supported by ISSA. All of these steps helped us to be sure that this is really what we wanted and that it will hopefully continue for another two…five…then years, I don’t know–I hope it’s going to be long!
Can you explain the Primokiz methodology and share why you chose it?
As I mentioned, it is evidence-based. It’s not a project or a program. The most important part is that it’s a process. It’s about supporting municipalities in better understanding the importance of early childhood years.
Awareness is the first step. Once awareness is established, the next steps obviously involve more action!
It is important to note that an external facilitator leads you through the process, but it is up to the local people. So, the outcome of the Primokiz is empowering. The people, the citizens, those responsible for social affairs, health or education, those living in the city — we give them the tools and the know-how: how to improve services and local policies, and how to make them responsive to the needs of families and children. So, part of the process is to analyse the needs of families, kids, and professionals, but this is done in collaboration with the health, social, and educational sectors.
What drives you to do this work? What interests you most about it?
I was looking for something to react to the users’ needs and address the blind spots within our current system. That’s why I am so interested in the Primokiz methodology.
Second, we have to start doing things differently. When one organisation is doing a great job but has no support from the local government or politicians, it is insufficient. I see many great people who are active, smart, and have great experience, but they are exhausted — maybe from ongoing battles and minimal change in the system. So, we must start approaching things differently, as we are with the platform and this methodology.
How has this project evolved since you began? What are some of the things that have impacted it? What are some of the barriers you’ve experienced that have caused you to reroute, etc?
I’ve learned that I need much more time than I expected just to make an introduction or motivate people or future municipalities. People have to be convinced, and ultimately, it must be their motivation, not mine.
For example, I can say, “I’m offering a great methodology that works in five different countries,” but it’s not enough; it can’t work. People need their own time to realise that this could work or answer their needs, questions, or problems. We have found that it does not work better when we push more. Instead, we must carefully respect their pace, as the situation differs in each place.
For example, in one city, we only had a couple of discussions with them, and they were on board. In another city, we have already had twenty discussions with them, and they spent three days with us, but they are not on board.
Sometimes, it’s tough to accept that this is nobody’s fault. It’s just how it is, and we have to respect that. If we start the process in a city or in circumstances that are not ready, it wouldn’t be positive for anyone.
One of the words that keeps coming up for the Joint Action Fund projects is collaboration. Could you share with us what this looks like in practice? What are the benefits, the challenges, the realities… anything particularly notable?
Collaboration can only work when people have time for it. Sometimes, people say, “Yes, we would like to collaborate,” but in practice, they have no time for it. When there is no time or limited time, it can’t work. People have to spend time together, and when they are not showing up or spending time, it’s not working.
We stress this every time. The director’s role for these organisations should be to collaborate with others. They should spend about 50% of their time talking to others, which is probably not the current situation for most of them. But this is the only way.
Last month, we had a study visit, and this was apparent. We spent just three days together and realised that the most essential parts of the program were the unofficial moments — when people were just talking about their hobbies or shared interests during dinner. They started to understand each other more, and then the collaborations could continue from there. The first necessary step is building relationships; collaboration can begin from there. It could go vice versa, but it’s much more challenging.
However, it takes time to convince donors to support this kind of time spent together. It certainly doesn’t work to communicate it like this: “Please give us the money so we can organise time together.”
Could you reflect on the study visits you’ve hosted with the JAF already? Any notable outcome?
We knew before that the most valuable moments are those spent together. For example, one nice unplanned outcome was that the city head of the department responsible for social affairs and education and one person from an NGO spent considerable time together during the study visit, which led to future steps.
Now, it’s not the NGO trying to persuade others to make changes for the families, but now the head of the department handles it directly by sending one email and making the change happen. Before, this NGO spent so much energy, time and effort to do the same thing. This would never have happened if those people had not built a relationship during the study trip.
What has been the most surprising thing throughout this entire process?
The most surprising thing was that even if there are more people in the room listening to the same stuff, looking at the same things at the beginning, at the end, you realise that they may have understood it entirely differently than you. I know it’s how the world works, but I was still surprised and hard to accept.
This is one of the lessons I learned: even if we are listening to the same lecture and reading the same sentences, afterwards, I have to make sure that we understand it in the same way. For example, after the introductory workshop on the Primokiz methodology, it was clear that our participants had different levels of understanding. The most challenging part was for people to understand that it’s a process. Participants often asked, “So, what’s the outcome?”
Many would understand if the outcome was a new building, new service, or something tangible, but when you tell them, “An outcome could be a new service, but the outcome that we are aiming for is setting up a process of collaboration within a city.” This is extremely hard to explain, hard for many to accept and understand, and even more difficult to say, “Okay, that’s what I want too.”
So far, what are your key takeaways from this work?
I have learned that it is crucial for me to explain very clearly that it’s a process and to find the right way to explain it to each person. First, I have to understand their needs, use the correct arguments, and describe them in the best way possible based on that information.
Second, I have to respect their rhythm, their pace, and their situation. We have to accept that, in one city, they will take two steps, but they will be very significant — and in another city, they could take twenty steps, but there is no winner — because it is not a competition. It is about respecting the way that they learn.
This is especially difficult when people want a tangible outcome. It also raises questions about how to communicate about the platform and manage its public relations.
Why is it necessary for people to invest in and care about this work?
Even if we have many experiences with being unsuccessful when trying to collaborate with politicians and city heads, it is not impossible to start doing it now. The Czech Republic spent the last 30 years using EU funds for many projects with great outcomes. However, the work stops at the end of the project, and we need to start doing things differently. Even try to take the first baby steps and see where it goes.
The Czech ECD Platform is in the process of conducting this project and will present its findings at the P2G conference. If you are interested in what we do or want to join Places to Grow, please contact info@placestogrow.eu and consider registering for our P2G Conference in Prague on November 14th, where we will also present this project.
*In 2024, Places to Grow launched the Joint Action Fund. This grant scheme fosters innovation, learning, and cross-sectoral collaboration aiming for systemic change in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia. This flagship initiative is designed to strengthen collaboration among Places to Grow partners and other relevant stakeholders, therefore contributing to creating a robust and evolving ECD ecosystem. It consists of financial and non-financial support and incorporates knowledge-sharing with the community of practice.
**Places to Grow, a catalyst for excellence in early childhood development (ECD), education, and care in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia, strengthens relationships between organisations active in social services, education, advocacy, and research.
