Last year, the Government invited Professor Cathy Nutbrown to carry out an independent review of early years qualifications and career pathways in the foundation years. Now, in her interim report, she sets out current concerns and presents pointers for reform.
Evidence for the review came from across the sector. The report notes, 'Thousands of people and organisations have provided evidence and perspectives to this Review, via a Call for Evidence, at consultation events, meetings, and via online surveys and other interactions.'
Professor Nutbrown acknowledges the professionalism, best practice and commitment of people across the sector, but highlights many concerns and key areas for further consideration (see box). Her final advice to ministers will be published in the summer. Below is a summary of current findings.
CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
What has emerged is 'a complex and at times confusing qualifications picture', says the report, citing at least 445 different qualifications currently available. While 223 of those are deemed 'full and relevant', they are 'no longer' trusted by some employers.
As to a solution, those giving evidence understood the need for common standards, but some felt a single qualification approach was too prescriptive.
'To some extent,' says Professor Nutbrown, 'the sector is faced with a tension between creating a consistent approach - which inevitably involves some standardisation - and avoiding a simplistic, "one-size-fits-all" approach that might fail to respond to important differences in student experience and the philosophy of settings, and risks the closure of certain types of provision.'
CONTENT AND TUITION
Content: Areas cited as critical or enjoying significant support from respondents were:
- child development and the way children learn as the key element (83 per cent)
- communication skills (39 per cent)
- thorough knowledge of the EYFS and other legislation (29 per cent)
- child protection and safeguarding (27 per cent)
- stimulation and learning development skills (26 per cent)
- engaging parents in their child's early learning (22 per cent)
- observation skills (21 per cent).
Breadth and depth of content: Many people questioned whether level 3 courses that can be completed in a year provided practitioners, and potentially setting managers, with a proper understanding of child development. Many also extolled the benefits of gaining experience in a variety of settings and understanding different approaches before qualifying.
Inclusion: 60 per cent of respondents felt the sector was insufficiently inclusive and diverse, points reiterated in feedback on recruitment and retention.
Current qualifications: Some three-quarters of respondents felt colleagues had the necessary skills and knowledge, although, notes Professor Nutbrown, it is not clear what their qualifications were or how they acquired their skills. The current CWDC Certificate and Diploma were seen as too broad and devoting too little time to child development, as they cover the 0-19 age range. Yet, according to CWDC figures provided as evidence, around two-thirds of the children's workforce hold early years posts.
NNEB: 'It will come as little surprise that many people have raised the level 3 NNEB Certificate in Nursery Nursing as an example of the "gold standard",' says Professor Nutbrown. Forty-five per cent of respondents noted the NNEB's high standards and rigour, including entry qualifications, though many recognised that any NNEB-type qualification would need updating. Direct comparisons between the NNEB and current Diploma are impossible, but 'in simple terms, the NNEB certificate demanded more than double the number of guided learning hours in a college-based setting, and again more than double the number of days spent on practical placement, where detailed observations of young children were carried out under supervision. It does not necessarily follow that double the time leads to double the outcome... but it is likely to have an impact on the quality of training. And it focused on the 0-7 age range.'
Level 2: People were 'more comfortable' with a more generic Level 2 certificate, giving students a broad introduction to early years and before choosing a speciality.
Minimum qualification: Professor Nutbrown is considering Dame Clare Tickell's recommendation in the EYFS review that Level 3 be a minimum qualification for the whole workforce. While she sees the advantages of such a move, she fears it may also exclude the very people the sector wants to attract, such as black and minority ethnic groups, and raises questions about heightened expectations and training for managers.
QUALITY
Delivery: Sixty-four per cent of respondents commented on training providers delivering qualifications in different ways. Too much variation in delivery, quality of tutor and lack of standardisation led to very different experiences for learners, they said. Only 6 per cent of respondents thought that qualifications and training were well delivered across the whole sector. Employers voiced concern about lack of support from colleges, while some tutors felt the way courses were structured left little time to visit students in settings.
Practice: Professor Nutbrown is concerned about how many settings 'take a studious approach to confirming whether learners have demonstrated the practice expected of them on a course', adding 'not least because we know that not all settings are of outstanding quality, with a sufficient sense of what should be expected of learners'.
Completion rates: Another worry is the pressure on college tutors to pass inadequate students, because of funding pressures and the need for a college to appear a high-performing institution. Ten per cent of respondents expressed concerns that assessors were able to pass inadequate learners.
Tutors and assessors: 'I have also been told that the quality of tutors is not always all it should be,' notes Professor Nutbrown. She was told of instances where tutors teaching Level 3 or foundation degrees had only a Level 3 qualification themselves. The same applied to assessors.
Support in settings: There was unhappiness about the lack of a link between the quality of provision in a setting (for example, as measured by Ofsted) and its ability to host students. Many questioned the suitability of work-based learning as a route for people without any previous early years experience because it lacks rigour and depth of knowledge.
Literacy and numeracy: Many commented on the lack of basic literacy and numeracy requirements for courses, with 39 per cent of respondents saying communication skills should be a key part of early years qualifications; 8 per cent said practitioners without good literacy and numeracy skills should not have a role in educating children.
RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND PROGRESSION
Entrants: 'The "hair or care" stereotype still exists for many considering a course in the early years,' notes Professor Nutbrown. 'I have heard a general message of discontent from employers over the lack of appropriate skills and knowledge among applicants.'
Progression: Generally, progression routes and opportunties were seen as few, unclear and poorly understood.
Leadership: Feedback here was that well-qualified, experienced leadership is key to driving up quality of provision.
EYPS and teachers: While the overall view of the EYPS was 'positive', Professor Nutbrown notes that 'major concerns about parity have been expressed to me, particularly with Qualified Teacher Status.' Some respondents said it was wrong that a secondary school teacher with QTS could lead a nursery class in a school, while an EYPS is not able to.
Status and standards: Improved qualifications alone will not raise the status of the profession and attract high achievers, Professor Nutbrown believes. Higher pay, while outside her remit, was cited by 47 per cent of respondents as a way to boost the sector's status; 44 per cent favoured a publicity campaign. Two other suggestions were the creation of an Early Years Initial Teacher Education route, leading to QTS, which covers ages 0-7, and licensing. This would involve periodic reaccreditation to ensure minimum levels of continuing professional development. This approach is being investigated by the NCMA and NDNA and already operates in Scotland.
KEY AREAS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
- How do we ensure that the complex historical, current, and future qualifications picture does not act as a barrier to those who want to train and learn?
- What should be the expectations for the content and age range for early years qualifications, and the preparation demanded to achieve them?
- Should we seek to raise the minimum level of qualification required of the workforce, and if so, to what and by when?
- What is the best way to ensure that tutors have up-to-date knowledge and skills and are qualified to the right level?
- How can we ensure that settings are supported to play an effective role in the training of their staff and students on placement?
- What levels of literacy and numeracy should we expect of the early years workforce, and how can we secure these?
- How can we best establish clear progression routes for all members of the sector (including black and minority ethnic groups), and support less well qualified members of the workforce to progress?
- Is there a strong case for introducing an early years initial teacher education route, and how might the practical obstacles be addressed?
- Is there a case for a licensing system and, if so, what model might be best?
MORE INFORMATION
The Review of Early Education and Childcare Qualifications: Interim Report, www.education.gov.uk/nutbrownreview
Cathy Nutbrown is professor of education at the University of Sheffield
