Qualifications

[belle06]

Hi

I know it used to be that you was okay if you had 50% of staff qualified this is not a problem all but one of my staff are qualified to level 3 or 4 but one member of staff is unqualified other than a certificate in Early Years foundation stage and first aid but she is 61 and is really not wanting to do a qualification and is worrying herself sick over it. Where do i stand do I have to get her to do a qualification???

[SueJ]

At the moment Belle I still believe that as long as 50% of the staff working the session are level 2 or above you are ok. It is still ok to have some unqualified staff as long as your ratios of qualified to unqualified are ok. I think that come 2012 all qualified staff must hold "full and relevant" qualifications as decided by the CWDC - these can be checked out on their website by doing the audit - i think is saw a thread somewhere here. Some pre 1996 level 2 and 3 qualifications will need to be "topped up" to make them full and relevant.

 

I have the same problem that I too have a member of staff who loves the job, does all the in-house training, has shed loads of experience but doesn't have the confidence, inclination or will to undertake a formal qualification. Sadly I think that the time is coming where early years will be a qualifications only sector and we will lose a lot of excellent people who can't or won't formalise their experience

[mps09]

please someone correct me if I'm wrong but....

 

I understood that all staff had to hold 'relevant qualifications' BUT only if you want to include them in ratio.

 

So your lady wouldn't have to take a qualification but you then can't rely I her prescence for adult:child ratio.

 

Probably not much help because I guess most people want to have staff to cover ration rather than just an extra pair of hands...

 

Hope this helps.

[lynned55]

No that's not right they can be included within ratio as long as 50% of your staff are L2 or above then you are ok. Like Sue I have 2 staff that have no 'formal' qualifacation but have probably done more LEA inset courses/workshops and training then me! Both are 1st aid qualified and H &S (to L2) and both have been with us for over 12 years. But if this goes ahead (2015 now) then they wont be able to work or at least be counted within our ratios- I understand about the qualifations thing I really do but I think as you say Sue, EY's are probably going to lose a lot of brilliant workers. We have five staff in every day, with myself, my deputy and one other L3 and these two in together for 3 days. Ofsted know this and are quite happy (well as happy as they ever are)

I was talking to one of our EYAT's who had happened to comment on an SEN child's reaction to something and said ' although this was in no small way due to the skilful way XXX handled him ' (referring to unqualified member of staff) When I replied that she would be one of those not able to work if these requirments became law she said not to worry about it. In her opinion it just wouldn't be practical to enforce more likely that we wouldn't be able to take on new staff without the qualifacation

Edited September 22, 2009 by lynned55

[belle06]

thanks for all the replys i have looked at the eyfs guidance and this also says 50% at full and relevant level 2 or above but could some one tell me where i can find the information about it changing in 2012 or 2015. Thanks

[mps09]

sorry I should have clarified in my response "from 2015".

 

I agree with lynned55 that this will affect a lot of settings who might loose staff.

 

I wonder how 'strict' this will be. we employ someone for 2 hours a week to work lunchtimes - will they have to be 'qualified'?

[HappyMaz]

I'm a little confused about all this myself. The welfare standards state the well known: manager/deputy must be level 3 and half of the rest of the staff must be qualified to level 2. However, it also says somewhere (I can find the page number if anyone is interested) that registered person should show how they are working with unqualified staff to encourage them to gain at least a level 2 qualification.

 

The stipulation that all staff must be Level 3 qualified by 2015 is an aspiration, I think but hasn't actually been announced as yet. Although I think it is in the ten year plan, or somewhere similar - so it is fairly likely to go ahead, general elections permitting.

 

Maz

[Guest]

So how is this going to work then? all those that are unqualified and do not wish to do the qualifications (and at 61 years who can blame them eh?)...do they suddenly get sacked?!!!! Made redundant (cost implications!)...ridiculous! Unfair dismissal? felt forced to leave etc etc?! Or will it be more gradual in that you will not be able to hire anyone new unless they have relevant qualification? This would be a more gradual approach.

 

Plus how would doing an NVQ stand? No more on the job NVQs as you will need the qualifiaction first ? A bit like how do you do a level 4 qualification unless you are a manager already? Not that I am thinking of doing it at the moment!! Chicken and egg situation.

Edited September 23, 2009 by marley

[SueJ]

I am not saying that I fully agree with the "professionalisation" of the early years sector however the writing has been on the wall for this one for a while now - at the moment I only recruit unqualified staff on the written proviso that they will undertake a minimum level 2 qualification although adverts always state level 2 + applicants preferred.

 

I suspect we will get some kind of notice like we are with the "full and valid" qualifications where we will be given between 2 & 3 years to "get staff qualified". If that is the case then job descriptions and minimum qualifications will change and sadly some very excellent people will have to make some difficult choices.

[belle06]

thanks fot your replys looks like this is going to be a minfield feel it would be a shame to lose good experienced staff due to a lack of qualification

[alis2son]

Your staff member shouldnt need to worry about doing an NVQ, there are so many ways to evidence the criteria now, and if she needed to complete one, the paperwork could be limited a great deal.

In fact, she would only really have to answer her knowledge questions, as all other evidence could be gathered from witness statements from yourself, and professional discussions now.

 

Ali :-)

[SueJ]

Have returned to this thread after a quality improvement strategy launch by my LA last night.

 

Lots of discussion about all staff having level three qualifications and lots of mis-information however this link seems to be where the "everyone level 3" as a minimum is coming from so I thought I'd pass it on for info.

 

New Opportunities White Paper

 

Pages 39 to 46 are early years pertinent and page 45 is where the level 3 aspiration lies.

[Guest jenpercy]

Am afraid I don't understand where the level 3s will come from. does this mean that we will be forced to take level3 18 year olds straight from college, who so often turn out to be scared of 9 year olds with behaviour issues when we take them on as holiday workers. At the moment you can only get a level 3 on the job NVQ if you already work in a supervisory position, but you can't get the supervisory position without the Qualification.

[HappyMaz]

At the moment you can only get a level 3 on the job NVQ if you already work in a supervisory position, but you can't get the supervisory position without the Qualification.

What makes you say this, jenpercy? Two of my members of staff have recently gained their Level 3 NVQ and neither of them was in a supervisory position. Does it depend on the training provider I wonder?

 

Maz

[eyfs1966]

Just as a note, in my LEA funding for level 2 and level 3's is being withdrawn, which makes me feel that the 2015 aim may just be pie in the sky. I do hope so. I am all for recruiting fully qualified staff, but not for forcing those towrds the middle /end of their careers to be forced to take qualifications for a job that they already hold. I think that the fairest solution would be to allow these as qualified by experience.

 

I also am under the impression that the generous funding pots for early years in general are beginning to dry up, and that we as a sector are becomming a little old news......but perhaps I am just cynical.

 

However, we will just have to wait and see.

[mundia]

What makes you say this, jenpercy? Two of my members of staff have recently gained their Level 3 NVQ and neither of them was in a supervisory position. Does it depend on the training provider I wonder?

 

Maz

 

I think it may do Maz, a number of NVQ 3 providers for Playwork require you to be working in (not necessarily supervising, but employed in) a play setting before you can enrol. So there is a bit of a chicken and egg. If all staff needed to be level 3 at some point in the future, they would not be able to enrol because they would need to be employed before they could and they couldn't be employed because they werent L3. Obvioulsy we would imagine that If this were to happen, providers would alter their admission criteria accordingly.

 

I hope that makes sense

[Bigsue]

I have 3 staff waiting for level 3 got trainer NO MONEY LEFT in pot!!!!! we can't afford to pay it, so I haven't told staff yet.

Hoping money will appear in April other than that maybe the fairies

 

Sue

[HappyMaz]

I think it may do Maz, a number of NVQ 3 providers for Playwork require you to be working in (not necessarily supervising, but employed in) a play setting before you can enrol.

That makes sense mundia - I hadn't picked up that jenpercy was talking about playworkers!

 

Maz

[anju]

I also am under the impression that the generous funding pots for early years in general are beginning to dry up, and that we as a sector are becomming a little old news

 

i get that impression too.

 

Our local training provider prefers level 3 trainees to be in a supervisory or at least more senior role with key children but they do allow it if they have experience or some other qualification. we still get funding for level 2 and 3s.

[Guest]

No funding here to to do level 3 either.....

just a thought ...is it that those working a session that have to be 50% staff qualified or those staff overall?

 

Eg one afternoon session has Supervisor, myself (both level 3) , then 3 unqualified staff...is this ok? None of the other staff want to work any afternoons and those unqualified do!!

 

Also qualified staff get paid same rate as unqualified so no advantage for doing level 3 (although supervisor fighting this with committee...we all gt paid £6.18/hr).

[Guest]

we have been told if you want to do an nvq 3 you have to register before july otherwise you will have to do the new qualifciation which is coming in in sept 2010, we have been told these wont be fully funded so the setting will have to pay towards it,

[Guest jenpercy]

No funding here to to do level 3 either.....

just a thought ...is it that those working a session that have to be 50% staff qualified or those staff overall?

 

Eg one afternoon session has Supervisor, myself (both level 3) , then 3 unqualified staff...is this ok? None of the other staff want to work any afternoons and those unqualified do!!

 

One of the others should be Level2 but I wouldn't worry -

[Guest jenpercy]

No funding here to to do level 3 either.....

just a thought ...is it that those working a session that have to be 50% staff qualified or those staff overall?

 

Eg one afternoon session has Supervisor, myself (both level 3) , then 3 unqualified staff...is this ok? None of the other staff want to work any afternoons and those unqualified do!!

 

One of the others should be Level2 but I wouldn't worry - It would be Ok if you and that other person were both Level2, so it's obviously better to have you