Jump to content
Home
Forum
Join Us
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

Nutbrown Review


catma
 Share

Recommended Posts

I went into a childcare class for a visit at out local secondary school years ago and was struck by the low level of listening and speaking skills of the students. It seemed to me then and since as I went to various settings as agency staff that schools were pushing the less academically able into childcare, almost telling them 'go and play, you'll like working with babies'.

 

 

Edited to say, I'm not disrespecting those people who are good at their job despite a lack of numeracy and literary skills (mine arent all they could be), I've worked with some fab people, I just think that when we're teaching young children we should at least know the answers ourselves :1b

Edited by Rea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went into a childcare class for a visit at out local secondary school years ago and was struck by the low level of listening and speaking skills of the students. It seemed to me then and since as I went to various settings as agency staff that schools were pushing the less academically able into childcare, almost telling them 'go and play, you'll like working with babies'.

 

 

Edited to say, I'm not disrespecting those people who are good at their job despite a lack of numeracy and literary skills (mine arent all they could be), I've worked with some fab people, I just think that when we're teaching young children we should at least know the answers ourselves :1b

 

Humm have you been reading this by any chance??!!!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/24/nursery-staff-skills-nutbrown-review

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but it really is so obvious sometimes. I worked with one 19 yr old girl who didnt know periods stopped through pregnancy. Not relevant to looking after children maybe but it highlights a level some people are working at, its not fair to them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting that she states ' it is seen as a low paid, low status and low skilled - i disagree except for the low paid bit !! we are all striving to improve our qualification for ourselves and staff but there are many who do not have qualifications but a wealth of experience , i agree that those coming up and through, should have relevant qualifications and it is schools that need to be looked at , as it is them who are providing education to these indivduals .

With all these reviews and bearing in mind the l;atest comments , when are they going to look at the pay scale for those working in early years , we are expected to abide by all these guidelines and yet we are offered no financial incentive , yet what we do is one of the most important jobs for our future generation .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen the standards of students coming to us for a placement from a local college really drop over the last few years. This year out of 3 students we asked 2 not to come back, but they'll just get placed somewhere else. The tutor never came out to them, despite repeated requests from me, they had obviously only chose child care as it was the 'easy option'.

 

The scary thing was these girls had already done level 2 and were going straight onto level 3. I know someone who tutors at the college and they said unfortunately anyone that isn't doing very well on other courses or if they are not very academic are put on childcare or animal care courses......

 

The student we did like, was fab, she even came to us in her week off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pleased she has recognised the standard of some qualifications and the fact that it isnt a hair.care choice. On one hand I find it reasuring that she believes that EYPS have been given a short straw from saying they were the same as QTS but a little worrying when she says there could be an ITE qualification to ensure parity with QTS and she doesnt know what is going to happen to the EYPS - we await the next review I suppose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand I find it reasuring that she believes that EYPS have been given a short straw from saying they were the same as QTS but a little worrying when she says there could be an ITE qualification to ensure parity with QTS

 

But EYPS is a different thing to QTS, like a BA is different to a BSc, they both have the same level of achievement (level 6) but allow the holder to do different things with it based on what is covered in the syllabus - so if it were to be made equivalent then they would both need to demonstrate the same expectations and meet the ITE standards e.g. as an EYPS you wouldn't be expecting to work outside of the EYFS, but with QTS you would be expected to be able to teach across the phases in any year group and be subject to the induction year pass/fail process as the final part of the qualification.

 

Interestingly I note now EYFS/Primary teachers are being allowed to access EYPS training to give them the 0-3 training, which they are often criticised for not having. So equally shouldn't EYPS have additional training to match QTS if we want overall equality?

 

Cx

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the talk about English and Maths levels is just a smoke screen to improve qualifications. There are some of us that are not EYP's but we still have the skills and experience do the role and even have outstanding settings. There are a number of EPY's in my area who are struggling to improve their settings so lets face it funding is the real issue. Unless this is addressed we will continue to be unpaid and unvalued and that why childcare is not given the respect it is due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC played a blinder in their reporting of this......see here

 

They have missed the important stuff in the report and just picked up on the literacy skills bit. But what will make you really annoyed is the comments made by the more ill informed public at the bottom.....be warned if you read some of these you will be fuming!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly I note now EYFS/Primary teachers are being allowed to access EYPS training to give them the 0-3 training, which they are often criticised for not having. So equally shouldn't EYPS have additional training to match QTS if we want overall equality?

I agree catma, as an EYP I would really welcome the opportunity to undertake the necessary additional training to make my status truly equivalent to QTS. Or alternatively, to have EYPS confer a different sort of status altogether. I think it has been very confusing to say that EYPS and QTS are of an equivalent status, for the reasons you put forward in your post.

 

When people complain about having to have GCSE English and Maths in order to gain the Status, the reason is often given that it is necessary because EYPS has equivalence of status to QTS, however what I never understood was why EYPs didn't need to have a GCSE in science too. If there is to be parity of Status, perhaps our entry criteria needs to be the same? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I suppose the confusion is that they are both level 6, ie graduate level of study but they confer different outcomes...which includes for QTS the Induction period which if you fail stops you teaching in maintained schools completely. If you failed the EYPS then is there another penalty other than failing?

 

There are some other things teachers have to do before they can be called fully qualified though which get a bit forgotten, which I don't think (happy to be proved wrong) are required to gain EYPS:

 

http://www.tda.gov.uk/training-provider/itt/qts-standards-itt-requirements/guidance/itt-requirements/entry-requirements/suitability-requirements/R1-6.aspx

 

They currently have to take/pass the professional skills tests in numeracy, literacy and information and communication technology (ICT) even if they have english/maths GCSE's (I believe).

You also have to be judged fit and having the physical capacity to teach, by a screening process and medical evaluation. http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/fitness-to-teach-a-guide-to-the-law-for-education-providers-3356.

 

So you would need the additional skills tests, the medical screening and clearance, the degree level qualification including the accredited training route for teaching and the one chance only induction year for EYPS to make them fully equivalent.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be the same but it's more than just about what the status does or doesn't let you do.

 

Cx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just two comments on that catma, the ICT test has been dropped as of April 1st (I've just had my booked test cancelled as I don't need to do it now) and the medical screening and clearance is less onerous than the one PVI settings have to complete for the Ofsted Suitable person check for managers. Some EYPs might already have completed that if they are already managing a setting. Incidentally, as an EYP and potentially a QTS I would be quite happy for the procedures to be made the same for both. Certainly my experience of the EYPS standards and the QTS ones is that they are fairly similar, with more emphasis on leading practice in the EYPS. They are, or can be, very distinct roles but I think if there is a growing move to encourage trainee teachers to understand child development then there should be a move also to say that EYPS is the PVI sector equivalent and there should be funding to match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks - I forgot the ICT was going! I absolutely agree with the need for more understanding of child development!

 

I would completely agree. I learn lots from here and being of an age where I have many friends with little ones have been subjected to many in depth discussions on the subject but never quite feel I have as strong a grounding in it as I'd like to. I often hear the teachers of children further up the school asking 'what were they like in reception/year 1/2?' and can come and compare if they need to - not so easy for a lone reception teacher!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest sn0wdr0p

Thank you very much. I tried to find it this morning and was going to have another try later. You have saved me a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. (Privacy Policy)