Qualifications For Delivering Eyfs

[KIKPOP99]

Hi Maz

 

Thanks for the welcome!

 

I was planning on calling CWDC tomorrow for clarification, but may also call Ofsted. Luckily, all my other staff have passed the CWDC checks so I don't have any major headaches!

 

sat

 

ps - You post alot - Do you work for FSF FFS (Excuse the rude pun)?!

[HappyMaz]

ps - You post alot - Do you work for FSF FFS (Excuse the rude pun)?!

No, I just have no life! And never make an excuse for using a pun - you may have noticed they're my stock in trade!

 

Maz

[JacquieL]

Hi

 

I have just taken on a staff member with a QTS qualification. I don't mind whether she is classed as level 3 or 6, as long as I can include her as a 'qualified' staff member in the ratios! My only concern is that the cert does not mention any connection to Early Years Studies of any sort. Does anybody believe this matters or is relevant?

 

Also, does anybody believe I can definitely include her as a 'qualified staff' ratio?

 

Thanks

sat

 

What sort of QTS qualification does she have?

[Cait]

Should I take this as confirmation that there is no space in the team for an unqualified member of staff?

 

Maz

 

 

It does rather sound that way, doesn't it - I've not noticed this either. Hmm. This precludes volunteers though surely, even if they are regular?

[Guest]

It does rather sound that way, doesn't it - I've not noticed this either. Hmm. This precludes volunteers though surely, even if they are regular?

 

 

What you mean they haven't written a 'Common Core of Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes for Volunteers' (CCKSAV)

 

Peggy

[KIKPOP99]

Jacquie - I have a cert that indicates she has a QTS. Nothing else is written on there to indicate what sort of QTS qualification it is.

 

Maz - LOL!

[Cait]

Haha - good one, Peggy.

 

I'm sure someone will notice soon and do one! An EYFSVHCCKSA

[HappyMaz]

It does rather sound that way, doesn't it - I've not noticed this either. Hmm. This precludes volunteers though surely, even if they are regular?

No, I don't think it precludes volunteers - but then they don't count in ratios either unless they are on long term placements (and the provider is satisified that they are 'competent and responsible' - page 32, Statutory Framework).

 

It would hardly be fair to ask volunteers to gain a qualification to do a job they don't get paid for, would it? However it does have implications for my staff member who has decided not to study for a qualification. I feel an email to my early years adviser coming on..

 

Maz

[KIKPOP99]

Just an update for anyone interested regarding my staff just taken on with QTS....

 

I rang CWDC today and they confirmed that she is classed as LEVEL 6 if she has obtained her QTS in Foundation stage or KS1. If obtained in any other area (eg KS2) she is classed as nothing! She will have to do another course and gain a EYPS cert which could take an extra 18mths. I haven't broke the news to her yet, but just as bad for me as I now will have to take on another 'qualified' staff member.

 

sat

[JacquieL]

That is really interesting. I wonder how that affects school settings where HT's often move KS2 staff into FS.

[Cait]

It's absolutely crazy! In what other profession can people's qualifications be written off like this! It's scandalous!!

[HappyMaz]

She will have to do another course and gain a EYPS cert which could take an extra 18mths. I haven't broke the news to her yet, but just as bad for me as I now will have to take on another 'qualified' staff member.

And you know for sure that her QTS wasn't gained in FS or KS1? Even if she has to undertake QTS it shouldn't take 18 months because she has the degree. How much experience with working with children from birth to five does she have? Before you do anything rash, I would advise you to find out who provides EYPS locally and find out from them which pathway they think she should take.

 

Maz

[KIKPOP99]

Hi Maz - Thanks for the comments.

 

I'm still awaiting written confirmation about her QTS subjects. I'll give an update here as soon as I have one.

 

sat

[Guest]

I have slight problem with eyps too

 

I have many years experience i run a very successful pre-school we are not perfect but are good

I have completed many excellent course on high scope well being, management (5 day course) communications phonic with music and maths and so on

 

What makes someone with so little experience better than we are? Why do EYPS deserve more money . I would not drop my ratio's to 1:13 because that is not our ethos or of any benefit to the children in our care and yet i feel future funding will be dependant on someone holding an eyps status .

this is not a pop at individuals but the system the government have created. I am all for improving status in nursery and wages but not to the wipe out of us who have worked hard

[catma]

So if EYFS says reception classes have to have a school teacher as defined by legislation, ie someone who has got a teaching qualification (year group unspecified) and completed any required probationary year (something no other qualification has to do) then it seems contradictory that according to cwdc only some qualified teachers can be used for nursery/reception classes.

My degree cert doesn't state that I focused primarily on 3 - 7. I would have no written evidence to prove that, I just have my DES No, Degree Cert and the letter from the ILEA that says I passed my probationary year and am qualified to teach the across the 3 - 11 age ranges

 

Bemused. And again feeling like I have to apologise for being a qualified teacher in the Early Years.

Cx

Edited February 25, 2009 by catma

[louby loo]

Bemused. And again feeling like I have to apologise for being a qualified teacher in the Early Years.

Cx

 

 

Why would you need to apologise? I think most just annoyed about people with totally unrealted degrees getting preference when years of expereince in early years is not even taken into consideration.

 

xxxx

[JacquieL]

The whole thing is mad and there are lots of experienced people who have worked through all the changes over the years whose expertise seems to be being written off! common-sense seems to have gone out the window here (again!)

Well I qualified KS1/KS2 although I started my course hoping to work in secondary, teaching drama, but I changed after spending a TP in Primary as I liked it so much. I spent most of my time in Foundation Stage/KS1, some colleagues did Early Years so 3-7. As far as working is concerned we can teach in any Primary age range, and teaching staff are often moved around a school. This is not always popular when we are moved out of our preferred Key Stage. If i wanted to go to Secondary I would have to do a short conversion course.

Presumably my Cert. Ed, M.Ed, 27 years in EY's as Head of Infants/Early Years, Deputy HT, FSST etc. Mentor, Assessor, External Verifier for TA's and SWIS, no longer counts, and I'll have to retrain.

[hali]

I have slight problem with eyps too

 

I have many years experience i run a very successful pre-school we are not perfect but are good

I have completed many excellent course on high scope well being, management (5 day course) communications phonic with music and maths and so on

 

What makes someone with so little experience better than we are? Why do EYPS deserve more money . I would not drop my ratio's to 1:13 because that is not our ethos or of any benefit to the children in our care and yet i feel future funding will be dependant on someone holding an eyps status .

this is not a pop at individuals but the system the government have created. I am all for improving status in nursery and wages but not to the wipe out of us who have worked hard

 

 

- i think thats sad that people have a problem with EYPS... i dont think anyone is saying that people with less experience are better than those who have been in the profession a long time!! - BUT these people with unrelated degrees obviously have a passion for childcare and want to do thier best for children otherwise they wouldnt bother - would they??? - especially for the wages they are being paid.I would rather have a member of staff in my setting who had a degree in Zoology and was pasionate about the children than a practitioner who was working in childcare - 'just because it fits in with school holidays and its easy!'

 

As for why do EYPs deserve more money - well one i dont think they are getting any (are they???) and two - if they can get more money then why not they have put in the hard slog of hours and hours of training, going to uni and placements to achieve their status (and as with any other qualification ie nvq 3 you would expect a pay rise once passed).

 

I as most other EYPs would agree i'm sure about the ratio business i would not go down the route of 1:13 if at all possible but as you say its the government who put that spanner in the works! and i dont see at the end of the day how EYPs would 'wipe out other dedicated practitioners' i would be devestaed to see that happen!!!!

[HappyMaz]

I as most other EYPs would agree

Am not going to coment on the substance of what hali says - I'm just taking the time to savour the first few words of that sentence - see how easily that tripped off her tongue? Seems her new Status is beginning to settle on her shoulders! Go girl!!

[HappyMaz]

Presumably my Cert. Ed, M.Ed, 27 years in EY's as Head of Infants/Early Years, Deputy HT, FSST etc. Mentor, Assessor, External Verifier for TA's and SWIS, no longer counts, and I'll have to retrain.

Have you tried putting it into the database to see?

 

Maz

[JacquieL]

Well I did have a go but no luck. I'm not really worried for myself as I was just making a point, but I can see how people with years of experience in whatever kind of setting might react if they didn't feel that that is valued.

I would expect those who work in schools to have some sort of extra training with 0-3's as that has not been covered in any detail in the past, and of course we do not have any experience at all with that age group. I do also wonder why a teacher can be moved from Y6, for example, to FS without training if the CWDC are trying to ensure that practitioners are well qualified for their EYFS roles. Or am I missing something? (Carefull )

[HappyMaz]

I do also wonder why a teacher can be moved from Y6, for example, to FS without training if the CWDC are trying to ensure that practitioners are well qualified for their EYFS roles. Or am I missing something? (Carefull )

This is a good point - we were always being told that the crucial thing for achieving EYPS status was that we needed to be able to demonstrate how we lead and support delivery of the EYFS across the whole age range - which is why we needed to do a placement whilst on the long pathway. I thought this must be why KIKPOP99 was told that if her staff member had QTS obtained in anything other than early years she would be classed as a Level 6.

 

Perhaps this is just another sign that schools and pre-schools are not exactly equal (or at least not in the way they deploy staff, anyway)

 

Maz

[Guest]

Bit of a contradiction because when they talk about ratios they say half the staff must hold relevent qualifications!!!

[HappyMaz]

Bit of a contradiction because when they talk about ratios they say half the staff must hold relevent qualifications!!!

Indeed, perhaps they need a few extra words on the end of that sentence to clarify: half the remaining staff must be qualified to level 2, or working towards.

 

Maz

[catma]

Have you tried putting it into the database to see? Maz

 

I put in B Ed (Hons) and it came up with nothing. Only tucked away in another bit is the thing about having to have your ITT in EYs or KS1. Trouble is when I trained there was no "early years" as it is defined now. So - am I redundant????

 

Cx

[Guest]

Now if all children stayed in preschools until they were seven, then started Primary education, we would all know clearly what we trained for and where we want to work. A definate differential 0-7, then 7-11, in two seperate environments / settings.

 

The current confusion has arisen because the government has messed about with what constitutes Early years.

 

In the 80's when I started it was age 3-5 yrs, (term after 5th birthday to school-in practice) then it went to age 2.5 - 4.5 yrs (earlier into preschool-earlier into school), now it's 0 - end of reception year (possibly in 3 settings but no less than 2 settings)

 

No wonder there's confusion as to what qualification fits where.

And where's the APL ( or recognition) for those working in the EY's sector who have parenting experience too? (thought I'd add that for another spanner in the works)

 

I think the main problem is that qualifications are taught and then lo and behold 12 months later someone decides a certain aspect of Early Years was not included in the course. ie: I don't know, but I've heard, previous teacher training did not include child development. To level this, NVQ 3 or other EY's courses do not inlude phonics (for example).

A teacher training course wouldn't (I think) include staffing or management type modules, an Early Years course doesn't include how to work within the maintained sector, ie level 3 TA would do a TA course for this knowledge (I think).

Now I'm only talking as example and not from any factual knowledge I have of the content of every course, but my point is Every single course that enables a person to work with children classed in the EY's category should have clear mandatory units / modules. Delivered to the same context whether at level 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Then everyone would know that everyone has learnt the same thing, but just at different levels of study. No more questions such as what does an NNEB course teach compared to an ADCE one. What do they learn at teacher training college compared to EYPS.

 

I think the CWDC should look at the Swedish model of 'Teacher Training', by the way ALL persons qualified can 'teach' age ranges 0-19, and in Sweden, thay are all called 'Teachers'. And they don't have FS or EY stages, or curriculums, they have pedagogy for all.

 

Not sure if I've made any sense here (interuppted with bedtime for two littlies ).

 

 

Peggy

 

appreciate my rant will not cause any changes but feel better for it.

[hali]

glad you go that off your chest peggy - makes perfect sence to me.................

 

hope littllies ok!

[Cait]

Makes sense to me too! So are you drafting a letter to CWDC for us all to sign?

[catma]

I think the CWDC should look at the Swedish model of 'Teacher Training', by the way ALL persons qualified can 'teach' age ranges 0-19, and in Sweden, they are all called 'Teachers'. And they don't have FS or EY stages, or curriculums, they have pedagogy for all.

Peggy

 

And that's exactly why I did a 4 years Bachelor of Education (Honours) degree - to have a pedagogy that allows me to teach any age range. I can (and have) learn what the "curriculum" is for any given age range but I know about how children learn and how they develop. But with all this I'm starting to feel like i don't belong in early years again! As a teacher in a school I am not likely to be working with under 3's but it doesn't mean I can't work in Early years ie nursery/reception classes does it? For many teachers working in the PVI sector could I argue their primary "qualification" for under 3's is that they are parents? Am I now disadvantaged because i don't have my own children????

 

Cx

[Marion]

I chose my course BEd (hons) because like catma I wanted to be able to teach all age ranges (although I always planned to work in Early Years so specialised in my final year, my friend on the course ended up teaching in higher education ) My course covered child development from birth but obviously I haven't worked with children below the age of 3 as a teacher. I picked the MA in Early Childhood Education to expand my knowledge and as I am now mentoring the manager of the CC nursery in her EYFD I am indirectly working with birth to three in her setting (I have previously mentored my NN in her Foundation degree) and yet my qualifications aren't recognised by the CWDC ...