Background to University of Brighton EYPS research During Summer 2008 leaders of the EYPS course at the University of Brighton and their Local Authority partners commissioned a piece of research to explore issues involved in the recruitment and retention of candidates to their course. This work was intended to explore factors which helped and hindered EY graduates in successfully undertaking EYPS. The work being commissioned as a tool for developing a thorough understanding of candidates' experiences of EYPS reflected how important EYPS is to them and how committed they are to workforce transformation. The commissioning group were keen to make clear that they were concerned not only with quantity (government plans to train 20,000 EYPs (CWDC, 2009)); but quality. We take it very seriously and we're not number crunching. We really do want those people to be influencers of others. Therefore we aren't just shoving people through a sausage machine. We really do want them to be able to demonstrate that they can lead and that they have the understanding and knowledge that goes behind that leadership. Because they need it. (Course Leader) The research was subsequently undertaken by researchers from the University of Brighton, Education Research Centre during the 2009/2010 academic year and involved interviews with 93 key people. These included 39 candidates undertaking the course plus: course mentors and course leaders; setting managers with (involved) or without (uninvolved) staff members on the course; qualified EYPs; and Local Authority representatives. Achieving Early Years Professional Status EYPS is a post-graduate status designed to develop a lead practitioner role in full EY daycare settings. Candidates undertake different routes to achieving the status depending on their level of experience in the sector, extent of work across the birth to five age range and their highest level of qualification. During the research period candidates followed one of three routes offered by the University of Brighton: a four month Validation Pathway; a six month Short Pathway; and a fifteen month Long Pathway. All involved assessment through written and practical assignments in addition to a setting visit and interviews with nominated colleagues. For the short and long pathway there are a number of taught sessions which are attended including sessions on leadership and management skills. Positive Impact on practitioners Those interviewed expressed a number of positive outcomes of the EYPS pathway. For EYPS pathways which involved a significant number of taught sessions (Short Pathway and Long Pathway), many candidates placed a high value on the learning involved. Examples of learning about speech and language development and sustained shared thinking were often mentioned. Candidates across pathways also suggested that a key effect of EYPS was to help them develop confidence in their own judgement and to become more reflective about practice. They felt that this newfound confidence enabled them to implement change which was appropriate for their settings rather than being purely reactive to external policy changes. For a few, this represented a transformation beyond the professional sphere: I think because of how much I've learned...I've learned about myself and we learn things in our everyday practice, actually going to uni and doing something like this has so many benefits, and it affects your personal and social life and just the confidence in things. However, undergoing change was often demanding. Most candidates described EYPS as highly demanding and for some it was extremely stressful. The extent to which undertaking the EYPS process of development was a pleasure or an unpleasant trial is discussed in relation to three themes of understanding, acceptance and participation. Understanding of EYPS The majority of candidates worked full time in demanding childcare jobs and were undertaking EYPS in addition to existing responsibilities. They were attracted to the course for a range of reasons including an expectation that it would support their development as skilled leaders of practice and that it would improve their credibility, status and opportunities for career progression. One source of stress was that candidates felt that at the outset they lacked understanding of what would be involved in achieving these aims and so were unprepared for what was to follow. In part the group involved in the study were disadvantaged by being an early cohort of EYPS candidates. Course providers (course leaders and local authority representatives) described how there had been numerous changes in the structure and assessment procedures required by CWDC and Formation Training: these changes had led to confusion and increased workload among candidates in previous cohorts. Even though there was now clarity on the part of course providers about course and assessment structure - and this information was included in literature provided before the course began - requirements were often not understood by candidates at the outset. And while the course leaders did not want to over-burden and alienate candidates by emphasising assessment requirements early on, candidates were keen to discuss and start getting necessary work done as soon as possible so that they could fit it into their busy lives as efficiently as possible and to avoid workload crises later on. Well, for me, the thing I've been struggling to find out...what we're aiming for, and the end process that we're heading towards. So it makes it a little bit jilty when we're trying to work out how to assess [and] prioritise both time-wise and effort-wise. Nor did there exist a significant pool of knowledge within the workforce who might have prepared the candidates for what to expect. There are few qualified EYPs who could pass on their knowledge of the course. In addition, there was a serious lack of knowledge among managers about EYPS: many involved and a few uninvolved managers had a good understanding of its general purpose and aims but generally had very little understanding about the course, or the role of an EYP and what it involved. Upon probing, it was revealed that some uninvolved managers confused EYPS with EYFS and had no idea what it was. I feel like people seem to know that EYPS exists, but when it boils down to what it involves and what it would involve for their staff and for the settings, that's when it all seems to go awry. Acceptance of EYPS Issues of poor understanding raise questions about what setting managers are buying into when a member of their staff undertakes EYPS. If they are only signing up to a vague aim of improving standards and practice or to fulfilling a government target they may not have considered the practical implications of the course. Crucially that the course involves the staff member leading change in the setting so that genuine acceptance of an EYP role will involve changes to the setting and staff, not only professional development of the individual undertaking the course. Issues of acceptance of EYPS were not only related to understanding. Reasons for managers not yet having a staff member undertaking EYPS included: a lack of trust in the longevity of EYPS - that it was a 'flash in the pan'; that it lacked status especially compared to teaching qualifications; that it undermined the position and experience of longstanding staff... I think it's going to be all these bright young things that are doing it. And all us older people [without a degree] who have been in childcare and have got the experience will be the ones who are not allowed to do it. And, therefore, we won't have Early Years Status. So, people will think we're not as good when we're the people with the experience. ...and that there was a lack of a willing or able staff member to undertake a demanding course of study. Participation in EYPS For uninvolved managers issues of participation were mainly raised by those managers who would not or could not yet develop an EYP role in their settings. However, for involved managers levels of understanding and attitudes about the value of EYPS had a significant impact on the way they participated in the EYP 'process' and, in turn, this impacted significantly on the experience of their EYP candidate. Where there was understanding and acceptance of EYPS on the part of managers and setting staff the development of the EYP role could become a joint project which was demanding but positive for the candidate. Supportive managers organised release time for study and accommodated candidates' development of a leadership role. One candidate described a situation where staff members were 'in it' together: From the beginning we had a staff meeting, we looked at...what we would be doing and why we would be doing it; and they've been really great. But, to be honest, unless you tell people why you're doing something...you're going to face some challenges with it. From the beginning we were very honest, why we were doing it, we need to do it because by 2010 there has to be one here, the benefits that it would have for the nursery; so it would mean that they would have some extra support with their planning and assessments, maybe looking at some other ideas within the nursery.... At the opposite extreme some managers failed to enter into the development of the EYP role in their setting or to support their staff members' efforts to achieve EYPS successfully: At one point, my manager...became rather hostile towards myself as the person doing EYPS because I think she felt a bit threatened by me doing this training: perhaps I was expecting to take over her job or something afterwards. I went through a really unpleasant and difficult period with my manager over it. The manager of this candidate ultimately came to understand and value the positive contribution the EYP made to the setting. Yet in such cases, candidates' ongoing participation in the course and successful completion of EYPS depended on support from course staff but also on extraordinary levels of personal commitment and determination to become better practitioners and leaders of practice. For other managers when the candidate commenced with EYPS they had not realised the extent of what they had agreed to, how much time it would take and ultimately what the candidate would need to achieve to be awarded the status. Where managers were not prepared and did not understand EYPS this often led to a more challenging process. Consequences for attracting new candidates There remains work to be done if the role of the EYP is to continue to develop as the driving force behind Early Years workforce transformation. Initial cohorts of EYPs have been attracted to the role as a means of developing their professional skills, their status and career prospects and have displayed determination in achieving EYPS. However if others are to be attracted rather than deterred from following their example it is important to increase support for EYPS candidates by improving sector understanding, acceptance and participation in the development of the role. This represents no small challenge given that for some managers a sea-change in attitudes or circumstances will be required before they will be willing to genuinely participate. For those embarking on EYPS meeting with the setting manager and owner about what this will involve early in the process is crucial. Additional Research Team members: Cathy Ota and Julie Canavan
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.