Lib Dems Say Early Years Settings Leaders Need Qts

[HappyMaz]

Wondered what you make of this article which reports the Liberal Democrat's children's spokesperson's view that practitioners should "strive for more as time goes on" and that "We've always felt in an ideal world that you would want somebody with fully qualified teacher status to lead an early years setting".

 

Needless to say I've told her what I think!

 

Maz

[Cait]

Good for you!! And are they proposing to pay us QTS salaries? I think not

 

 

and what does this mean "She challenged local authorities to ensure the EYPS is delivered effectively in primary schools" ??

Edited February 16, 2010 by Cait

[Upsy Daisy]

So the Lib Dems agree with the principles of EYPS - oh except for the very important principle that it is equivalent to qualified teacher status and offers children in the Early Years age group the opportunity to be taught by an Early Years expert.

 

Well that put us in our place didn't it? No matter how good we are, a teacher will always be better

[HappyMaz]

and what does this mean "She challenged local authorities to ensure the EYPS is delivered effectively in primary schools" ??

I think that was a typo - I think she probably said EYFS.

 

Maz

[Cait]

well either that or the reporter hadn't a clue! (shock horror)

[Guest]

Maz thanks for keeping us all up to date on this kind of stuff......bloody infuriating read!

 

And thanks for fighting for us all!

 

In our eyes you are already a truely passionate QTS (Quite Truely Spectacular) Lady!

[Guest]

What a fantastic way to win our votes.......!!!!

[Cait]

Oh of course "and in an ideal world ......" well, what's my 'shopping' list for this then!!!

[HappyMaz]

In our eyes you are already a truely passionate QTS (Quite Truely Spectacular) Lady!

Ahh thanks - can I put that on my CV?

 

It will be interesting to see if I ever hear from her - I imagine most parties are very busy at the moment, gearing up for May. As if our morale was't as low as it could possibly be at the moment - and how irritating to think any party would imagine we'll be swayed by a soundbite...

 

Maz

[Rea]

Here's a link to her page Annette Brooke

I think she needs to decide if she supports us or not.

I sent her this...

I have worked in childcare for 12 years before becoming chair of a management committee for a local pre-school playgroup. I, and the staff I now work with, have always striven for a better understanding of their role, for higher qualifications and for better pay to reflect the qualifications. Unfortunatly, we are undervalued as a profession by all the main parties which you have highlighted by your wish to have a QTS leading every early years setting. The people currently in childcare work hard for often just above minimum wage, they do work without pay to ensure they are achieving the aims of the EYFS and often work out of rented accomodation so have restrictions placed on them by others. These people do not need anyone telling them that everything they do isnt good enough and that should a QTS come along all the problems would be solved so making your ideal world. Ministers on all sides need to understand the commitment and hard work people already put into the early years, not say they arent good enough.

[Rea]

http://www.annettebrooke.org.uk/articles/0...g_alliance.html

We would like to see a graduate trained in Early Year's education in most settings; with better pay, training and professional status and recognition for the whole childcare profession.

 

She supported us more in March 2005

[SueJ]

I was quite interested to read all about her on her page (thanks for the link) - most recent job was head of economics at talbot heath - living in deepest dorset as I do I know that this is an all girls public school - absolutely wonderful with fabulous facilities and a bill to match. Looked around it some years ago with the daughter at that time average class sizes were 13 to a class - obviously as a teacher there she would know absolutely everything about working at the coalface of education and care

 

I would also be v. interested to know how she thinks an early years QTS will get paid - especially on the SFF being proposed for Poole where some base levels are set to be £2.47/hour!!!!!

 

Sometimes you do have to wonder what goes on in their heads

[HappyMaz]

Ministers on all sides need to understand the commitment and hard work people already put into the early years, not say they arent good enough.

You're much more succinct than me Rea!

 

Your last point is really valid - I don't think its about which party you support, particularly. I'm not sure any of them really understand what we do, let alone how election soundbites like these have the ability to send our blood pressure through the roof!

 

I'm interested to see that she moves from talking about how every child deserves to be cared for by a well trained and qualified workforce, and then says she'd use the money saved from Child Trust Funds to reduce class sizes so that teachers can offer children the individual attention they need. I don't have an argument with either of those sentences but wonder if they are connected? When she thinks of an early years setting does she see a classroom?

 

Maz

[Rea]

When she thinks of an early years setting does she see a classroom?

 

Maz

 

 

I'm not sure if she knows what she means. She supports pre-schools and nurseries in her constituancy against the implementation of the SFF for just the reasons SueJ states, a reduction to £2.74, so I presume she knows how pre-schools work and where they work from. But if this is the case she needs to be more consistant with her support in all areas not just the ones that will make her look good come election time. And it will make her look good, how many parents will read her comments about all settings having QTS and think 'how wonderful'?

She also says "We have long been concerned about the over-prescriptive nature of the Early Years Foundation Stages and feel that too much testing, particularly at an early age, is often detrimental to the children and the freedoms of the teachers". I dont think the EYFS is prescriptive at all and if people are using it to 'test' then they havent understood how to implemnet it. Does she know what it really means?

She needs to be invited to work in a playgroup out of a rented hall for a week, then she might understand. But then that goes for all politicians and all walks of life does it?

 

I'm off now to read the other parties views on early years while still on my high horse.

[Guest]

"We've always felt in an ideal world that you would want somebody with fully qualified teacher status to lead an early years setting".[/i]

 

I'll pop that on my "to do" list as well then!

 

Nona

[Guest]

Reading that just makes my heart sink.

[diesel10]

Hi

 

I don't think that QTS's are qualifiled to run a setting. I employed a QTS at our setting, She had no idea how to run to setting, although she was very good at teaching.

 

Unfortunately, leading a setting is not only about teaching. I don't have the opportunity to send everything else 'to the office' or 'call a caretaker' I just put my other hat on.

 

This afternoon, I have met with surveyors, sept admissions, registers, fees, drawn up a cleaning rota, contracts, payroll. None of this involves teaching children but is essential in running a setting.

[Marion]

What sort of school has she worked in!

I was in yesterday painting and catching up on filing and phone calls I don't have chance to make while teaching.

 

Probably the only things from your list I don't do is set fees and do the payroll although as a wages clerk in a previous life I'm sure I could cope.

 

Having said that I'm not sure where the Lib Dems are coming from except I agree the present Gov are trying to con parents in the idea of all graduate practitioners while paying less in wages

[hali]

Reading that just makes my heart sink.

 

 

im with you there PPP - i did my EYPS to better myself and lead practise - was asked only last week why i didnt do QTS and stated i didnt want to work oin a classroom!!!!!!!

 

...makes you wonder what hope there is for us

[Guest]

How ridiculous! I have QTS and although I think you can take this with an early years specialism I didn't (and I'd be wary of how 'specialist' this route made you anyway, particularly for those taking a PGCE). I would never dream of thinking I could be the lead person in a nursery or early years setting, in fact up until this year I wouldn't even have been confident in taking a reception class, never mind a school nursery class!

 

QTS gives you little to no experience with the specialist practise required in early years settings. On my PGCE they even avoided putting you in reception classes for placements as it was such a different environment and there was no direction given as to how to run one or talk about any of the relevant documentation. Until I actually got into schools I assumed they were still run in the same formal way as year one classes! I've no idea why they would think QTS would be at all relevent to early years settings without a major overhaul of the way the qualification is taught and that's not even getting into how on earth they expect it to qualify you to look after babies!

Edited February 16, 2010 by Guest

[Guest]

It does seem that the goal posts are moving yet again. I was intending to go down the EYPS route, however should I now consider QTS, although I intend to stay within early years in a pre school environment. This just seems to devalue EYPS, as its seen as being not quite as good as QTS, how long before we will all need a Masters degree, just to do the job we all love and are bloody good at.

 

Claire x

[Rea]

Another thought..if all EY settings have QTS leading would that reduce the ratios? 1:13 in nurseries wouldnt benefit the children or the teacher.

[Guest]

Another thought..if all EY settings have QTS leading would that reduce the ratios? 1:13 in nurseries wouldnt benefit the children or the teacher.

 

 

The ratio's are already reduced where an eyp works directly with the children aged from 3 upwards with a 1:13 ratio, thats how I understood it, but could be wrong, although I think an eyp can refuse to work to such a high ratio, I think.

[Rea]

Its all academic anyway, I havent heard theres any chance of the Lib Dems winning the next election, so it back to seeing how the Tories would deal with the EY issues.

[mundia]

Cupcake, you go ahead and do what your heart tells you, if you where you want to is in a pre school environment, then getting QTS is not the way forward for you.

 

Ratio wise, Im not sure an EYP employed by a setting can actually refuse to work to a 13:1 ratio, that would be down to the management of the setting. It wold be interesting to know though how many of you EYPs out there actually are working to that ratio.

[HappyMaz]

The ratio's are already reduced where an eyp works directly with the children aged from 3 upwards with a 1:13 ratio,

Not automatically though, cupcake. Some of us are resisting this at all costs - although as groups become less sustainable I wonder how long this will continue!

 

Maz

[Upsy Daisy]

Not automatically though, cupcake. Some of us are resisting this at all costs - although as groups become less sustainable I wonder how long this will continue!

 

Maz

 

What a depressing thought!

[laura]

When I was training to be a teacher 12 years ago now, I came from an Early Years background as my mum ran (and still does) her own pre-school. I was already planning for her then. I remember going on a nursery placement and my tutors having no idea about early years. After my placement the tutors would send other students to me that were going into nursery placements so I could help them with their planning!

 

Now I work as a deputy for her, I also gained EYPS. There is no way she could pay me a teachers salary so I work at school for a day and a half. I have just written in my SEF that although we could have a ratio of 1:13 for 3 year olds we don't as I don't have extra arms or eyes!