Professor Nutbrown answers your questions

In particular, there were many concerns about Professor Nutbrown’s recommendation that there should be a new early years specialist route to Qualified Teacher Status that should eventually replace Early Years Professional Status.

Here, we run a few extracts from these questions, along with Professor Nutbrown’s full response, as well as selected comments about other aspects of the report.

EYP and QTS

I would be really interested to know why you feel the need for EYPs (with BAs in early years or indeed anyone with a BA or higher in early years) to obtain an additional level 6 qualification on top of the 2 they already hold ( your suggested EY QTS)? …..

I ask this question as an early years advisor with EYPS (level 6), who holds a BA+ honours in Early Childhood Studies (level 6), an Advanced Diploma in Childcare and Education (level 4) and a traditional NNEB (level 3) and yet is still being denied the potential career opportunities being offered to colleagues at the same level within our structure just because they have their QTS (BA QTS) which the CWDC also rates as a level 6!....

I do not understand the need to achieve the QTS or hold the title of 'teacher' which gives completely the wrong message about our role within early years, and I have no desire to be a qualified teacher thank you. I am an early years professional who would really appreciate some credit, acknowledgement and equality, at least within our own profession, for achieving this level of knowledge within the whole early years age range. 

Tracie Butterfill

 

Will all settings be required by law to employ an EYP/QTS (Early Years)? If not, what is the expectation for settings to employ a QTS (Early Years)?

Is the expectation that candidates for QTS (Early Years) will have to teach in schools (if this goes up to age 7) and study Key Stage 1 curriculum to achieve the status?

Will the candidates for QTS (Early Years) also have to do an "NQT" year, with mentor support, CPD etc. as teachers do? If so, will this be the responsibility of the setting to provide this or the Universities?

Kathy Brodie

 

I feel a little punch drunk after reading Cathy Nutbrown’s review.  She has clearly done some much needed work regarding level 3 qualifications, very much mirroring what had been the standard for NNEBs some 25/30 years ago and I totally endorse her suggestions.

However, I feel that the ambitious, dedicated practitioners who have jumped through all the various hoops placed before them since 2000, Foundation Degree, top up, GCSEs, EYPS and now to be told this is not enough even with the wealth of experience they have had is a ‘kick in the teeth’.  It should be called ‘The Only Way is Teachers’ and I want to know why?  How can there be a comparison between an 18-year-old who does the new QTS birth to 7 years in a three/four year degree with a practitioner who has worked in early years for 12 years and in a senior position for 5 years who  studies for FdA (3 years) GCSE maths (1 year) top up and EYPS (18 months) and then has to do an additional period to gain QTS!  Will EYPs have to top up again to an Hons Degree?  Will they have to do GCSE Science?   I understand that their ‘status’ has not been fully recognised in terms of pay and conditions but that does not detract from their professionalism and the quality of their practice.  How will small village or inner-city pre-schools in pack-away settings afford to pay a teacher?

Shirley Brooks

 

I agree that EY should have a QTS route that specialises in EY. I have a 1st class EY degree and will be starting teacher training shortly. This option would have been of interest to me as I am leaving my work in group setting because the pay and career is currently not parable to teaching.

 However, I do not agree that existing EYP's should have a fast-track route if it does not have all the rigorous expectations that the government has put upon new teachers entering PGCE courses, such as passing the skills  tests, having maths/english/science gcse and having at least a 2.2 degree. I know many of those that took the EYP route were students that did not meet the requirements for PGCE courses. I do not see how letting those with 3rd or 4th class degrees, and poor maths/english skills, to have a backdoor to QTS, raises the status of the proposed specialist qualification. To truly raise standards and prevent schools being lumbered with more inadequate teachers, it must have the same demands.

 Mrs R Mehmet

 

You state on page 57, 5.12 that EYP's have stated 'the status has not given them all they had hoped for. They had expectations of a greater status, on par with teachers, and improved pay and conditions'. How is this going to be any different for the new 'EY teachers' working in PVI?

We are in a very large area with only 1 maintained setting, we have over 350 PVI settings plus 800 or more childminders.  These settings rely heavily on the Free Early Education Entitlement (NEF), which does not cover the cost of running the setting, therefore finding more money to pay graduate staff is near the impossible.

If the issue is pay and status, then who is going to pay the EY Teachers?  Where is money going to come from to pay a QTS who could be working in a school on teachers pay and conditions. If more money is going to be injected into EY settings to pay EY Teachers, why not pay the EYP's instead?

If the low status is in anyway partly caused by the low wages, I can't see what difference a job title and status title will make if the pay will remain the same, surely the same problem will occur.  

Laura

 

Given that Professor Nutbrown’s report suggests that current NVQ3s are not fit for purpose, why does she suggest that all current holders of "full and relevant" qualifications, including recent NVQ3's are "grandfathered in" as full and relevant under her new proposals. How does that then reflect on current EYP's who she suggests should retrain to get QTS? Why are they not be going to be grandfathered in?

 Does she envisage that PVI's will be able to afford  to release their best staff for QTS (having already released them to gain EYPS), knowing full well that any member of staff with QTS is never going to be paid a teacher’s salary outside of the maintained sector, and thus PVI's are most likely just to "train to lose" their best staff?

R Airlie

It was reassuring to hear of the Government’s commitment and recognition that 0-7 is THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME in a person’s life; I sincerely hope their aims are not just rhetoric and it will be interesting to see how they can fund it all!  It was also heartening to hear Cathy Nutbrown’s recommendations to elevate the skills and knowledge of the workforce. However,I feel that there is a missed opportunity to further raise the status of those that work with these important formative years. The early years profession does not need teachers, it needs specialist practitioners and pedagogues. I therefore am disappointed with Recommendation 17 which goes against this. It is also degrading to those who have achieved EYPS because they prefer to specialise in these important early years. There is a massive dichotomy between the teaching profession and the EYPs, not least in their wages. All of the differences still need to be addressed.

Jane Harrison

 

I am a Key Stage 2 Teacher who already holds a QTS (I completed a 4 year BEd Hons in September 2001). In September I will be undertaking EYPS as well. I therefore will have both EYPS and QTS already. Will there be provision for people like me who already hold QTS in another KS tor will we be expected to complete yet another teacher training course. Could you also tell me why it is that if I worked in a school I could teach Foundation stage, yet I am unable to teach in a pre-school or nursery? Why is there no simple conversion route for teachers who would happily teach in the EYFS?

Kirsty Curtis

 

I am an EYP and I also assess EYPS. In my work I come across some fantastic practice from some really driven, passionate, empowered, hard-working and yet underpaid and under-valued EYPs. I have a masters’ degree and have studied specifically early childhood for the last 8 years. Yet, my qualification remains unrecognised and under-valued by many of the teachers and professionals I work with, despite often working with qualified early years teachers who have never had training in child development and clearly do not understand properly how young children learn. I had hoped that the new recommendations would strengthen the role of the EYP. However, saying that EYPs can now have priority to train for QTS completely devalues our role.

Over the years many people have asked me if I plan to train to be a teacher, implying that QTS is the thing to aspire to. I have always explained that EYPS is the equivalent of QTS for the under 5’s, which is how it was billed. I now find it’s not, and feel totally let down

Sandra Matthews

 

The EYFS is designed for children aged 0-5, So why then would the new Early Years QTS be required for 0-7yrs?  Surely this will muddy the waters even more with Key Stage 1 in the training mix?  

Kay Watling

I have received a lot of questions from people confused or concerned by my recommendation that there be a new early years specialist route to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). Some of these have come from people who hold Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) who want to know what this could mean for them.

Firstly, it is important for me to make clear that it is up to Government to decide whether they want to introduce an early years specialist route of training for QTS, and also for them to decide the future of EYPS. At this stage, I can explain the reasoning behind my recommendations, and how I think they could work in practice, but I cannot anticipate Government’s next steps and what the implications could be for individuals.

In Foundations for Quality I spoke highly of Early Years Professionals (EYPs) and of the positive impacts they have had on children’s lives. It was not my intention to suggest the knowledge and capabilities that EYPs have are insufficient, nor that they are inferior to that of somebody who holds QTS. Far from it. I believe that EYPs are talented, dedicated people with real expertise, who deserve better recognition. I would not want to discourage anybody currently working towards, or considering, EYPS from doing this valuable training. We need more such graduate pedagogical leaders working in early years settings.

Many of the questions sent in by Nursery World readers expressed frustration that people who hold EYPS and QTS are qualified at the same level, but are not always regarded as such. This is exactly what I heard in my Call for Evidence, and what I sought to resolve. Having two different statuses at the same level and working in the same sector is confusing. It is my recommendation that we move towards having a single, well-understood and respected status. I believe that this should be QTS because this is a status that is universally recognised and valued in education, and also by parents and the wider public.

With regards to the future of EYPS, as I have already said, I do not think it logical to carry on offering two parallel routes to graduate level status. I have therefore suggested that routes to EYPS be integrated into the new route to an early years specialist QTS. This would not mean a person’s existing status as an EYP would cease to exist or cease to have currency, only that no new candidates would train on this route.

I do not believe existing EYPs should be forced into seeking QTS. However, many EYPs have written to me to say that they would like to. Existing EYPs have extensive skills, knowledge and early years expertise, and therefore it would be a waste of everybody’s time and resources to make them start at the beginning again and re-train. That is why I suggested that there should be a quick and straightforward route for EYPs to gain QTS. I do not know what this will be – that is up to Government to decide, and will likely vary depending on the qualifications and experience of the EYP in question.

A number of people have asked me "won’t this new early years route to QTS become the ‘back door’ to teaching? – an easy way in for candidates who can’t get on primary teacher training courses". We absolutely must not allow this to happen. I strongly believe that a specialist route to QTS for the early years must be no less rigorous than any other route to QTS, and it must demand the same standard of specialist pedagogical knowledge. At the same time, someone on an early years route of training to QTS should expect the same entitlements and support as any other QTS candidate, including, for example, a probationary Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) year. What I have recommended is a high level qualification for people who want to work with babies and young children from birth to seven with appropriate knowledge of the needs of those young children. Equality with other QTS routes is essential if we are to raise the status of work in the early years, and to provide the highest quality of early education and care. Work with young children involves supporting their learning and caring - education and care – the two are inseparable.

The full details of an early years specialist route to QTS, and of the future of EYPS, will need to be decided by Government. I know that Ministers are giving my recommendations careful consideration, and I look forward to a full response to my report later this year.

 

Maths and literacy

I am a childminder with over 18 years experience holding a level 3 NNEB Diploma, Level 5 Early Years Foundation Degree and I am currently studying for a BA Hons in Intergrated Childhood Studies with a view to obtaining my Masters next year, also in early childhood studies. I run my own childminding business alongside my husband offering private day and overnight care, 2, 3 and 4 year old free Government Nursery Funding. I also work in collaboration with the local family centre to offer respite and emergency care. 

The biggest problem I find with qualifications is the total mix and match approach to what a practitioner needs to obtain in order to get a qualification. I obtained a level 3 NNEB with a D grade in English and no Maths certificate, I also obtained the Level 5 Early years Foundation Degree without English/Maths qualifications. I had to pass English to get on to the BA Hons course but there is no chance I could obtain a Maths grade as I have dyscalculia, which also meant I could not be considered for the EYPS! But strangely I can do a Masters and still not need Maths.

 Although I am aware that the EYPS as with teaching would need some demonstration of Maths and English skills there seems to be no accountability for experience as I believe that yes there should be a minimum Level 3 Qualification but also the government should consider those of us with higher levels who wish to obtain EYPS/teaching certificates but are held back due to dyscalculia when dyslexia is recognised. This is an unfair and frustrating system with skills and expertise being left wasted.

Amy Warner-Whyte

Amy, as I said in my final report, the current qualifications system can be very confusing. It is particularly difficult when different courses have different entry requirements. This can be frustrating for anyone wanting to develop their knowledge and skills, and to progress in their career.

I recommended that candidates for level 3 early years courses should be required to demonstrate their literacy and numeracy before entry. It is in early years settings that young children are first systematically introduced to the written word, and to numbers, shapes and other mathematical concepts. An early years practitioner needs to make these early experiences exciting and engaging, and they cannot do this unless they are confident in their own literacy and numeracy. I also believe that, if we set this expectation from the start of training, in the longer term entry requirements will be less likely to be barriers to experienced practitioners later in their careers.

 

Caring and qualifications

Although I agree that not just anyone should be able to become a childminder, I have my reservations about everything that was stated in the report. I don't believe that having qualifications up to NVQ3 would make a considerable amount of difference to making a very good carer.

I agree that people should hold a form of qualification, but this does not make a childcarer any better, I think you are either a natural carer or not. There needs to be a middle ground as many carers who have worked 15 years + have survived without extra A levels and NVQ3s.

As I said, a qualification does not always make a good carer.

Mary Hordle

It will be for the Government to consider my recommendations, and how they might be implemented. I do agree with you though that qualifications alone that do not make an excellent practitioner.  However, I do believe that we must continue to raise the standards of education and care we are offering babies and young children.  That is why I have recommended that we raise our expectations of practitioners’ knowledge, skills and understanding.

 

I run a childcare provision as a business.   I find that staff who work in childcare usually have a vocation to do this, as well as requiring a salary.  If they had the qualifications that you are asking to be more prevalent, they would probably be a teacher with school holidays off!!  Staff who have 2 A levels would like to be paid well.

The government are now talking about reducing childcare costs - how! If raising qualification levels means less staff because the hourly rate will have to increase for better qualification, then reducing staffing does not add up to quality childcare.  Children like to actually have a person to interact with, not a qualification to talk to. I am lucky that at present most of my staff have a degree or NVQ3; they also have a vocation to provide children with the care they should have. They enjoy their work, it fits in with their childcare and family arrangements and so they are ok with less than top rates for their pay.  They also understand adult to child ratios are important.

I also object to your assessment that childcare needs to have more intelligent workers.  Intelligence is not the uppermost quality required for looking after children.  Empathy, patience, cheefulness, common sense are very important.

Judith Hadley

 

You raise an important point, Judith, and it will be for the Government to consider my recommendations, and how they might be implemented. I do agree with you though that qualifications alone that do not make an excellent practitioner.  However, I do believe that we must continue to raise the standards of education and care we are offering babies and young children.  That is why I have recommended that we raise our expectations of practitioners’ knowledge, skills and understanding.

 

I fully agree with the recommendations of Professor Nutbrown's report
and whilst agreeing with the great importance of staff being qualified
to a minimum level 3, I am concerned for those staff who whilst being
excellent child carers would feel unable to undergo training to that
level. Having run and worked in my own provision for 15 years, I
employed over those years several assistant members of staff who lacked
academic confidence either through their own academic ability, self
belief or through age. What a major loss there would be to the children
they cared for over the years of the skills and qualities that they
brought to the workplace, especially for those children who do not have
a grandparent figure in their lives! In my opinion a person's life
experiences and personality have as much to offer children as
qualification status. In an ideal world it would be wonderful to be able
to employ multiple numbers of staff who do not count in the staff:child
ratios but in the current economic climate it is not possible for small
providers to have this luxury. What will become of those members of
staff who have so much to offer yet through personal circumstances,
ability, age or self esteem will no longer be as easily employable? I am
fully committed to ensuring children receive the best start in life and
fully believe in staff knowledge and education but worry about the life
experiences, skills and attributes that may no longer be shared. Will
there be opportunity for these wonderful caring people who have so much
to give in future provision?

Eleanor Walters

 

I absolutely agree with you, Eleanor, in that qualifications alone do not make an excellent practitioner. We must absolutely continue to value warmth and kindness in our carers, and also the practical skills and understanding that are gained through long-term experience of working with children. I don’t want to lose these qualities from the workforce, but I do believe we must continue to raise the standards of education and care we are offering babies and young children. That is why I said in my report that we need to support those already working in settings to progress.

 

If level 3 is the minimum qualification acceptable for ratio purposes, what will happen to level 2s and apprentices? Is there any plan/proposal in place? What will happen regarding existing staff not at level 3 who are unable or do not want to qualify to level 3?

Tim Squires

 

Tim, you ask about some of the implications of my recommendation that staff should be qualified at a minimum of level 3. As I said in Foundations for Quality, I don’t think a level 2 qualification is sufficient, on its own, in preparing a person to give high quality education and care to young children. I can see that there may still be a place for level 2 qualifications as a stepping-stone to help new or unqualified staff work towards level 3, but I do not think they should count in the staff:child ratios of the EYFS.

I recognise that Apprentices must be able to work in settings so that they can learn on the job and gain practical experience. But, similarly, I believe that a person on an Apprenticeship is not ready to work alone with children, nor to count in the ratios. They need supervision while they carry out valuable support work in the setting.

 

I have a number of concerns about the Nutbrown Review.

I have 25+ years experience as Trustee of the largest voluntary Playgroup & After Schools club in Brighton & Hove. We have 35 employees, most of whom are part-time.

Our After-Schools Club (for 5-8 year olds) is partly manned by over-18’s, Students at the local Universities, who can accommodate our hours of 3-6pm around their own studies, which may well be Child related, eg Psychology, and also gives them the opportunity to generate an income. Are they now going to have to taken on a new Level 3 qualification, or are they going to be exempt? The fact that they work with us for a max of 3 years, and sometimes only 2, depending upon their academic schedule, means they won’t have time to do any additional studying, and we’ll lose a very useful source of employees, especially as they tend to be male, and give us excellent role models for children in single-parent families who might not otherwise have exposure to suitable male role models in their home life.  

I appreciate the seriousness of the observation in the Nutbrown review of some settings having staff so illiterate that they cannot read a story to children. However, if I require staff to be able to read The Hungry Caterpillar story to children, I don’t think that it necessarily requires GCSE English. It does however require an ability to use gestures, funny voices etc. Similarly if I require staff to teach children their colours, shapes, numbers from 1-20, etc it does not need the rigour of GCSE Maths. To then require both GCSE English & GCSE Maths as pre-requisites to allow anyone to even commence their training in Childcare, will disqualify many of the best employees I’ve ever had.

A couple of my employees would have probably been considered educational special needs during their own school careers. We have managed to give them a career, starting at the bottom, and bringing them through on-the-job training. I doubt if either of them have got GCSE English or Maths, and I doubt they could achieve anything to a Level 3 standard. Will existing employees be exempt from the proposed legislation, or will I have to make them redundant? I don’t think I have enough money in my reserves to pay their redundancy. They are currently in their mid-30’s, so are already faced with having to find employment for another 30 years or so before they can retire.  

50% of my employee base are aged over 40, having raised their families and then come back to work. They are now faced with working for another 20 years before retirement, Are they now going to have to retake their GCSE English and Maths, and take on a new Level 3 qualification, or are they going to be exempt?

I currently pay my employees between £7 and £10 an hour, based upon experience & qualifications, and charge my customers between £4.20 and £4.50 per hour for childcare. If every member of my employee base has to become more highly qualified in terms of Level 2 & Level 3 qualifications, then my average salary will undoubtedly have to go up by 30% to attract & retain those people. That in turns means my childcare fees will also have to go up by 30% to between £5.50 and £6.00. Given that the UK already reportedly has the most expensive childcare in the EU, I don’t see how working parents are going to be able to afford Fees at this level out of their after-tax income, when many of them aren’t paid much more than the National Minimum Wage. It has been suggested that we hold the Fees down by changing the ratios of Staff to Children. We currently work at a rate of less than 4 children per staff member. This is because we recognise the quality of giving children individual attention when working with puzzles, artwork etc. Also when a 2-4 year old goes into ‘meltdown’, or needs intimate care because they have soiled themselves, then requires 1-1 attention away from the other children, and if each member of staff has 6-8 children as the norm, then there is a risk of leaving some unsupervised whilst a distraught child is being attended to. Whatever is the answer to the issue of affordable childcare, it is not to reduce the staffing ratios.  

Brighton is blessed with a very diverse population; over 10% of my employees are not UK natives, but come from elsewhere in the EU (eg Spain, Italy, Portugal, Poland), USA, Zimbabwe. We recognise their homeland qualifications in order to offer them employment. Are these people hard-working individuals also to be required to take this additional Level 3 qualification before being allowed to work with children, or will we be allowed to exempt them in some way?

I myself haven’t got ‘O’ Level English (from the late 1960’s) due to my own disabilities, but that hasn’t prevented me from getting Graduate Qualifications in Maths, Physics, and Post Graduate in Economics & Management, as well as operating in a highly technical environment in the Financial Services Industry for over 25 years. This in addition to conducting my Voluntary work in both the Childcare Sector with this Playcentre, and as Chairperson & Business Advisor for Young Enterprise in Brighton & Hove for 8 years, and being an Advisor to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris.  

I’m not anti-education : my own children all have first class degrees from Oxford & London, and are fully qualified as a Medical Registrar and a Chartered Accountant, but I don’t see the need for this level of educational achievement across the board in the voluntary childcare sector, which has proved so valuable in giving meaning to some very disadvantaged individuals.

Keith Appleyard

 

 

Keith, your voluntary playgroup and after-school club sounds wonderful. You ask if all your staff will need to have level 3 early years qualifications. My recommendation to Government was that, by 2022, they should do if they are to count in the staff:child ratios of the EYFS. It is not my intention to exclude unqualified staff, part time staff and volunteers from working with children. I know how valuable these staff can be in settings, and what a positive impact they can have. But I do believe that unqualified staff should be working alongside staff who do have proven pedagogical knowledge and expertise, to make sure young children are receiving high quality education and care that will positively benefit their emotional and cognitive development.

Funding

I totally agree that Early Years Workers should all have a full and relevant level 3 but I am concerned where are nurseries/childminders going to get the funding from to do it. The local authorities say they have no money for training in their budgets. The government want quality raised but why not have a Workforce Development Fund like the social care sector that at least can help part fund the qualification? We have lost the Graduate Leader Fund and yet still need our EYPs to raise standards in our settings and teach/mentor others.

I am concerned about mentoring newly qualified staff. Great idea but how do we fund it without any help from LA/Govt?

Sheila Turnbull

 

You raise an important point, Sheila, and I do hope that in taking forward my recommendations the Government will give further consideration to how qualifications are funded, as you suggest.

 

Many people come into Early Years later in life after they have had their own children. These people want to progress in their careers, but are financially unable to pay for themselves to get a degree. How can we fund the cost of degrees with fees being at least £5000 per year ?

Jackie Graham

 

I know a lot of talented practitioners are being put off further training and qualifications by the costs of higher education. In Foundations for Quality, I recommended that Government considers how to increase graduate leadership in the early years. This issue is something they will need to take account of.

 

Further education

I totally agree with all you have stated about the future of qualifications and the prestige that should be given to careers in childcare. I myself undertook the rigorous training of NNEB, qualifying in 1975 and proud to work in Early Years. Following many years of experience in a variety of different roles within the childcare profession I am now a tutor in childcare at my local college.

My worry however is that it will not matter how we alter the awards and how we try to raise the profile, that it will have very little impact on the standard of students until such time that the funding and ethos of FE has had a dramatic change,

Due to the constraints of retention and achievement and funds not being paid until students have successfully completed a course, FE now has a no fail policy. We as tutors are expected to pass all students even though we know some are not fit to work with children. Unless the student makes a big error whilst training they will be helped to pass whatever that may take. Students are allowed to progress to higher levels even following incidents or aggression to tutors and poor practice in settings.

I feel that alongside the changes to the syllabus and entry requirements there also needs to be a clearer understanding of the funding issues in vocational courses before there will be a complete change in the level of some students’ capability in the workforce.

Do you have any solutions to this matter?

Disillusioned tutor

Local FE college

 

The perverse incentives you describe are a concern to many tutors. This is why I made recommendations to ensure early years courses are rigorous and consistent, so that only those ready to offer children good quality education and care will pass. I also hope that in taking forward my recommendations Government will give further consideration to how vocational courses are funded, as you suggest.

 

Two-year-olds

I am interested in seeing a specialist qualification for those who work with children under two years.  The content of teacher-education qualifications interests me greatly for this age group, as research broadly investigates the impact of teacher qualifications on quality experiences without invesigating the content.  My concern is that many 'integrated' age group qualifications do not provide the specialised content knowledge for working with this complex age group.

Congratulations on the Review, it is a wonderful step forward.

Jean Rockel

 

I appreciate your support, Jean. I do agree that early years practitioners need particular expertise and understanding to care for children under two years, and to foster their social, emotional, physical and cognitive development. This is why throughout my report I make clear that all early education and childcare qualifications should include a thorough understanding of child development from birth, including the new early years specialist route to QTS that I recommended.

 

First of all I wanted to say the review was very fair to existing staff and it will go a long way to ensuring that some very good staff stay in the profession.

My question is: Are staff qualifications right for supporting all children including our two-year-old funded children?

I think they are, but I am concerned that at present some LAs are using qualification levels unfairly when looking at two-year-old funded children.  This is causing parents to question again the proficiency of childcare staff within their local area and also creating barriers to parental choice of settings.  If we are saying qualifications are acceptable for children they should be acceptable for all children so that parents have confidence in the staff within their local area.  After all it should be the role of Ofsted to monitor the setting ability to meet the needs of their children.

Dawn Spall

 

I absolutely agree, Dawn, that meeting the particular needs of the two-year-olds who will receive the free entitlement will be a new challenge for the workforce, and we need a system of qualifications that will support practitioners to meet that challenge. As I said in my final report, I would like to see early years qualifications cover working with children from birth to age seven, and have a much greater focus on understanding and supporting children’s development across that age range. However, it is up to Government to consider this further, and it will be for employers to decide how to train, support and deploy their staff.