Ok I queried my BA (Hons) Early Education with the CWDC as to if it was deemed a Level 6 as it didn't appear on the Qualification List...this was the reply (after about 6 weeks) ...My problem is yes I have a degree but I can't understand what it is saying...is it that I am the same as a level 3 ..well done you?/

I Quote "Please find the guidance which is due to be released on our website in the coming weeks relating to foundation degrees:

CWDC has mapped a number of Higher Education qualifications at levels 5 and 6 of the National Qualifications Framework. These include some foundation, ordinary and honours degrees. Due to the volume of these degrees CWDC has agreed with the DCSF that it will not include all of these qualifications on the Qualifications List. Instead the following statements will be issued through the Qualifications List.



A foundation degree at Level 5 in early years, childcare or playwork will be considered full and relevant for the purposes of registration and regulation,, which means that anyone holding this qualification can count in the qualified ratio of staff at Level 3



Ordinary degrees and honours degrees at Level 6 in early years, childcare and playwork with an element of assessed performance (such as a practitioner option) will be considered full and relevant for the purposes of registration and regulation, which means anyone holding this qualification can count in the qualified ratio of staff at Level 3.



Ordinary degrees and honours degrees in early years, childcare and playwork with no element of assessed performance (such as a practitioner options) will be not be considered full and relevant for the purposes of registration and regulation, which means anyone holding only this qualification can not count in the qualified ratio of staff at Level 3 and will be required to undertake additional training and development and are advised to take a route to Early Years Professional Status.

I hope this is of assistance and if you have any further enquiries please feel free to contact me.

Kind Regards,



I can't seem to understand it...or is that what they want...i am wondering if I don't achieve EYP then I am no better qualified than a level 3...any help?

How very dare they, as my daughter would say! what other profession would put up with this!

You are obviously better qualified than a Level 3 - but I'm not clear what they mean about "an element of assessed performance". Nor do I understand what a 'practitioner option' is.

Perhaps that's what we need to get clarified - and people (especially those who don't necessarily want to gain EYPS) should be asking their universities whether their degree is recognised by the CWDC as level 6.

Its a bit soul destroying - if the CWDC haven't got time to map every single degree then they should have thought of a better method of recognising Level 6 practitioners, I think.

Maz

hear hear! Steve - put this one on your list!!!!!

My new employers are under the impression I am a level 6...it is a bit soul destroying, I have juggled my life for three years: 5 children, job, etc etc because I love what I do and actually enjoyed learning as much as possible that could help my practice and along the way keep up with government initiatives...it is demoralising.....I am constantly reminded of fellow level 3 colleauges telling me that it is all a waste as the early years profession will never be fully recognised.....I think they may have a point...

Just to add to my angst today......my dad is interviewing today for a secretary for his office and he came a cross an application from a nursery manager... change of career type of application and guess what he said....

"Can't really consider her, working in a nursery doesn't really involve paperwork or people skills" aaaarrrrghhh - after a little chat my dad is now considering interviewing her....he honestly believed that it is a job for anyone "who doesnn't really know what they want to do but loves kids"

If it wasn't for the fact that I love my job and I feel priviliged to work with children every day my self esteem would be in my boots!

I think this would come under 'morale, qualifications and professional status' in Steve's poll.

I interpret (perhaps wrongly) the element of assessed performance is a programme that has a practical element eg practice in a setting which at some point has been assessed as a pass (or better) This would be as opposed to a degree which is entirely theoretical.

I dont know if this is correct but it seems logical.

I thought, but could be wrong so don't despair, that any practitioner was classed as level 3 provided they had a level 3 or higher but did not have either EYPS or QTS. I'm not saying it is fair or right but that was my interpretation.

I just think it would be nice to have some recognition for an extra 3 years work? I think I have become a little bitter ....I think back to the two friends who have qualified as EYPs with their non-related degrees and it just makes a farce out of it all ...I will try to remember that this is the job for me and when my children are older I will go back and do the PGCE so that I can be finally recognised as a professional

Well that's how I interpreted this too mundia - but there was a whole conversation on here a while ago about some DPPs not being full and relevant for this reason. My DPP was listed as full and relevant, yet no workplace assessment took place so I just assumed I'd got it wrong!

You see if you were a cynical type, you might conclude that this is all a ploy to make people achieve EYPS in order to be recognised as a 'true' Level 6 practitioner. But that can't be right can it?

Maz

Bingo!

sigh

its a nightmare!!!!!! i do feel at the moment was was all that work for!!! - not getting me anywhere - what was the point - it does need clarifying

It certainly does. I 'mapped' my qualification and it said 'full and relevant' so..... what does that mean exactly?

I am all for having a recognised list of suitable qualifications in Early Years BUT I truly believe the current list and way the CWDC are using qualifications is a total farce

I have an NNEB awarding by the National Nursery Examination board in the 1970's and this, according to the CWDC list is deemed full and relevant as level 3.

So, theoretically I could have do nothing over the last 30 years by way of improving my personal, professional developement and still be 'recognised' by the CWDC, in fact I could have been out of the Early Years field altogether and be 'coming back' now with my old, but 'relevant' qualification.

The reality is that I have worked consistently within Early Years since gaining my NNEB and over the years have done an immense amount of study. I have qualifications at levels 4, 5 and 6 all listed as full and relevant on the CWDC site BUT BUT BUT each of them, though listed at different levels, is 'mapped' as level 3.

I don't want to appear 'anti' EYPS in any way whatsoever but this status/qualification is awarded by CWDC as the provider and it really does seem to me that they are only prepared to accept their 'own' qualification as being the only 'actual level 6' irrespective of other qualifcations listed at this level.

Differences appear when you click on the actual qualification and the criteria are listed, 3 mandatory and 4 optional. Surely the 'best' should meet all 7? and yet EYPS doesn't it misses out the last mandatory option and is highlighted as 'accredited training required' so what's that all about.

It all kind of makes me want to hang my head and weep but I know that I am a better practitioner as a result of my study and that in turn benefits the children I care for and that for me is what it's all about.

Regardless of what the CWDC site says I honestly believe there is a difference: a setting with all staff qualified to level 3 is great, another setting with some level 6,5,4 and 3 surely has to be deemed as having a higher qualified workforce? I accpet that qualifications are not all that matters and pure 'higher levels' does not necessarily mean a 'better workforce'.


I have spoken to CWDC about EYPS and questioned the 'missing' final criteria and that other level 6 qualification meet all 7. She told me that EYP students could meet that criteria but it would depend on which pathway they took - what on earth is that all about??! I gave the scenario of 10 students all working towards achieving EYPS and suggested that collectively they could cover all the pathways but at the end of the day irrespective of which path they chose they would end up with EYPS so how could they cover all optional criteria
and the answer - wait for this....
do a level 3????????????????????????????

I feel a letter to my MP coming on - he was great last time (with the old NNEB debate) and I got a reply from the secretary of state for education.

For anyone to map a recnt Honours degree with specific early years contents as being the same as an NNEB gained 30 years ago is utterly ridiculous and I think that is exactly what CWDC are doing and I am now getting seriously cross the more I think about it.

We all need recognition for qualifications and to be recognised for the level of qualification we have achieved - they (CWDC) simply CANNOT list a qualification as being level 6, meeting all criteria and then say 'well actually it is mapped as the same as level 3' it's contradictory in nature and insulting and demoralising for us all - so there

< stomping off to have a tantrum in the corner>

And my B.Ed done at a teacher training college over 30 years ago apparently doesn't even exist!!

Nor mine whitetree

It comes to apoint when as a person your self esteem, your sense of worth, your emotional well being is put into disarray...not the best place to be ...I am desperatly trying not to let it GET to me.... is there a 'hysteria' emotion face thingy?

It is incredibly demoralising and exactly the reason why I'm not bothering doing the EYPS.

Do they know what they are doing to people?

Do you want to draft a letter and post it on here and we'll all print it out and sign it and send it to our MP, cc Golden Brown?

I was planning to start my degree course in October but am not sure that it is really worth all the effort having read everyone's comments.

Oh dear! Don't let us old cynics divert you from your degree, purplepeanut! My whole journey through FDED, BA and EYPS taught me so much not only about my job but also about myself. Whatever else is going on around it, and however frustrated I get by life in early years, I'll never regret doing it.

Maz

Isn't there a move afoot to get teachers all doing their Masters?

Maz

I wanted to agree with Maz, don't put off doing the course because of us sitting around complaining! I am one of those EYPs who has a degree in something else altogether ( ) but the pathway certainly kept me thinking about my role, my practice and how I could influence things in the setting. I know from speaking to others who have done the Foundation degree and BA that those courses did the same for them. Plus it gets you meeting like minded individuals with whom to share ideas and concerns. And, yes I do believe that all teachers will have to start working to a masters if the government has its way, as a way of maintaining standards in teaching.

I bet they don't have their original qualifications downgraded to senior classroom assistant though!

I think we should all be writing to our MPs - how and why are we letting this quango get away with this?

I agree with others don't be put off.

When I decided to do my MA people assumed it was because I wanted to become an advisor or lecturer but my heart is in the classroom and studying allows me to develop my knowledge and understanding which hopefully I can transfer into my practice.

At the same time someone needs to get their act together and sort out the confusion.

Have you seen this in the news this morning?


teacher scheme

I think one of the reasons for the scheme's failure not mentioned in the report is the cost of creating an ET post in a school. Many schools can't even afford to introduce HLTA posts so teaching posts with a salary of up to £52K isn't going to be an option.

A good parallel with the EYPS then for us

Is there no equivalent GLF for schools then?

I think the Excellent Teacher scheme was intended to provide career development for teachers who didn't want to go on the traditional management route.

It was only open to experienced teachers (they had to be post threshold 6 years) and they had to meet the criteria for qualified teachers and post threshold teachers and also the excellent teacher criteria.

Unlike EYPs there are national pay scales for Excellent Teachers

ah, so not a good parallel then