EYPs May have to retrain?

[Guest]

Having just read this article in Nursery World I wondered if there were any thoughts amongst the community on the impact on staff if EYPs are expected to retrain to gain a new qualification?

 

Would you welcome this as an EYP? if so why?

 

Would you be disappointed?

 

Will there be enough funding put forward in order to train all current EYPs including those that are still training?

 

If you are a manager are you worried that this will this mean an exodus of highly qualified staff from the sector and into teaching?

 

have a read:

 

http://www.nurserywo...seryWorldUpdate

 

JT

Edited November 9, 2012 by Guest

[mrsbat]

I have just spent 3 years doing my FDA and am now doing my Ba Honors as well as my EYPS which I will finish in July next year. I run a small pre-school in a village hall, it's all I have ever wanted to do, I have never had any aspirations to go into teaching or anything working in schools and I can't ever see that opinion changing.

 

So....... IF it does come in that after 4 years of training I will then have to go on and retrain again I will be FUMING! We do not get ANY of the "benefits" that teachers get (PPI time, paid holidays, paid training days etc etc) but we will end up more trained than some of them are! I would be VERY disappointed to have to go on and train even more than I have/am doing and I think it is really unfair too unless there is going to be some kind of funding to boost our wages and give us the same "perks" as teachers.

Edited November 9, 2012 by mrsbat

[hali]

I did my EYP as i wanted to improve my practise - which it did. i did not become an EYP to then train as a teacher and stilll have no intention too :blink:

[Guest]

GGGRRRRRRRR why why why this has just depressed me even more than I already was.

[ForestFlo]

I am a KS2 teacher already hold a QTS, I am doing EYPS to convert my qualification. I have chosen this route because I am passionate about early years education and continuous improvement of practice. You only get QTS once so completely silly. The Nutbrown report whilst fab in so many ways just really didnt listen to the concerns of the EYPS properly. Until there is money available to fund nurseries/preschools to be able to afford a 'Teacher salary' and 'Teacher benefits' to pay staff there is no point in the QTS, all it will do is loose fantastic people from early years settings.

Oh it makes me so cross.

FF

[Greenfinch]

Oh,I totally agree ForestFlo!

I too already have QTS, taught for 16 yrs,did EYPS quick validation route when first introduced for benefit of setting and personal prof. Development etc.

Am hardly likely to then do ANOTHER qualification to say I have QTS!

Totally ridiculous!

[catma]

Oh,I totally agree ForestFlo!

I too already have QTS, taught for 16 yrs,did EYPS quick validation route when first introduced for benefit of setting and personal prof. Development etc.

Am hardly likely to then do ANOTHER qualification to say I have QTS!

Totally ridiculous!

 

But you wouldn't need to get QTS twice though - if you already have it, you have it.

Edited November 9, 2012 by catma

[eyfs1966]

i believe its just another way of reminding us lowly nursery workers just where we sit in the pecking order of life....right at the bottom!!. The whole point of EYPS was to be a different but equivalent status...now we know just how different and NOT equivalent we are. FF has it right, the real issue here is pay in nurseries...until the eyfnep actually pays for a graduate led workforce, graduates will simply move to schools where they can be paid a graduate rate.

[SueJ]

I am a preschool owner and day to day manager and was a bit peeved when the "graduate leader" initiative first started out all those years ago as the implications was that practice and experience didn't really count for very much as ever it is the "bit of paper" that is the trump card. I have however undertaken all the necessary qualifications to achieve EYP status gaining a Foundation Degree (First) BA Hons (2:1 (2.7% off a first) and EYP status with a recommendation from my assessor to my EYP provider that I mentor other EYPs. All whilst working a 40 hour full time week. Sorry for the bit of personal trumpet blowing there but I believe that my practice experience went some considerable way towards the results achieved.

 

Don't get me wrong the opportunity to study has benefitted my practice and my setting however I also undertook this route to "future proof" my setting. As we are all too well aware pay and conditions in early years are no where near the pay and conditions that QTS have and with my owner manager hat on I know that my setting cannot afford to pay QTS wages or be "held to ransom" by an EYP who might train up with my setting only to leave for greener better paid pastures. Several owner manager colleagues who decided to "grow their own" EYP have found to their cost that once qualified their EYP has up sticks and moved on usually for better wages leaving them having to start all over again. When I first started my Foundation Degree over 50% of the other students on my course were looking to move into teaching once qualified so would not be around to improve practice in the early years sector. Of the remaining 50% a good half like myself had a "vested interest" in staying with their setting either because they were the owner manager or were working in a family business. By the time I finished my Honours Degree over 75% of students were looking to leave the early years sector. Some of my fellow students grew in confidence and well as knowledge and realised that as well as undertaking further education in early years practice the process of undertaking further education had given them knowledge and confidence in other areas and empowered them in other ways to do other things with their careers.

 

Qualifying the workforce to QTS does not mean that the workforce will stay in early years. As has already been mentioned pay and conditions (an area totally ignored by the Nutbrown Review as it was conveniently not in her brief!) will have to match those with QTS in the maintained sector or believe it or not early years practitioners may decide to look after their own interests and work in jobs that pay them what they are worth.

 

If the EYP "bit of paper" is now not going to be good enough it makes a complete mockery of having undertaken this route - one also wonders how long having QTS will be good enough - at this rate we will all have to have Masters Degrees or be PHDs.

 

Now remind me what qualifications do you need to be an MP or run the country?

[ForestFlo]

i believe its just another way of reminding us lowly nursery workers just where we sit in the pecking order of life....right at the bottom!!. The whole point of EYPS was to be a different but equivalent status...now we know just how different and NOT equivalent we are. FF has it right, the real issue here is pay in nurseries...until the eyfnep actually pays for a graduate led workforce, graduates will simply move to schools where they can be paid a graduate rate.

 

lol its certainly not the money and perks which attracted me to retrain! Its something the government must redress - there will never be a graduate led workforce (or tbh more men in early years settings) until this happens. However I fear with this government this is unlikely as the emphasis on early years certainly seems to be gradually being downgraded.

[Cait]

Many moons ago I was amongst the first tranche of students to do a course called a Diploma in Post Qualifying Studies, which would mean I could then do a further year with a local student training body and gain QTS. A year into the purse, it changed. It was no longer going to be a DPQS, but an Advanced Diploma. I, and all the other students were very disillusioned, but continued. Of course, this meant that its status was downgraded and we wouldn't be accepted onto the QTS course.

Years later I thought I would try again, and was once again in an early cohort to do the Foundation Degree in Early Years. This would, we were told, give us EYPS at the end of it, so off we all went, only to have the exact same thing happen again, the purse was downgraded, it wouldn't give us EYPS, we'd need to do more study. I completed the purse, but decided against doing the EYPS. Looking at this, I'm glad I didn't!

My main reason for not continuing was that no matter how qualified I got, the parents committee could always over-rule me, and that's something that really needs to be addressed as a matter of some urgency.

[Rea]

Our playleader did part of the EYP, I actually dont understand a lot of it these days, but she is now classed at level 5, she doesnt ever want to up her qualification. I am level 3 with a gap of some years in personal development, the rest of the committee have no childcare qualifications and I completely support what you say Cait, we can tell her what to do! Its madness!

[HappyMaz]

Whatever happens, I will always be glad I achieved my EYPS. I undertook the degree and EYPS to improve my practice, and I have to say that my setting benefitted from the day I started my Foundation Degree. Every single week I would come back from College with ideas about things to change and new approaches to try, but also it enabled me to reflect on our practice and identify just how effective it already was. Had I left at any time during the course or after I achieved the Status, I can honestly say my setting was greatly improved because of it.

 

I knew there was no hope of a pay rise, or enhanced status but I did it from a genuine wish to deepen my knowledge and improve our provision so that we could support children and their families more effectively. I never viewed my EYPS as just another bit of paper - it represents much more than that to me than that, whatever comes next.

[meridian]

Whatever happens, I will always be glad I achieved my EYPS. I undertook the degree and EYPS to improve my practice, and I have to say that my setting benefitted from the day I started my Foundation Degree. Every single week I would come back from College with ideas about things to change and new approaches to try, but also it enabled me to reflect on our practice and identify just how effective it already was. Had I left at any time during the course or after I achieved the Status, I can honestly say my setting was greatly improved because of it.

 

I knew there was no hope of a pay rise, or enhanced status but I did it from a genuine wish to deepen my knowledge and improve our provision so that we could support children and their families more effectively. I never viewed my EYPS as just another bit of paper - it represents much more than that to me than that, whatever comes next.

 

couldn't have put it better HappyMaz!

I know that over the years undertaking degree/EYPS (including night school to do my GCSE maths (and passing!)..maths my 'Achilles heal' from school) I have grown so much in knowledge and confidence so that I can hold my head up high and feel proud of all that I have achieved...think we owe it to ourselves personally and to the colleagues who have supported us on route to EYPs, to not become 'worn down' by the ever changing requirements of the early years sector, however, I too was absolutely GUTTED (to say the least!) when I heard that Cathy Nutbrown had recommended that EYPs undertook further training :wub: :angry:

[Mouseketeer]

Not sure what our setting is going to do when the 'you must have an Eyp by whenever' kicks in (is it still happening ?)... I never went there as no degree in anything, nvq4 or as my dear son calls it my 'Not Very Qualified , but not sure where they stand) along with no time, too old excuses and as for finding 'o level' there's no hope....have just had a member of staff approach me about doing this, (lev3) but don't think for one minute they'd stay once done, and again I'm guessing with no previous degree would be a long path.

[narnia]

I can't see me retraining. The EYPS and BA hons were hard enough on my poor old brain and I'm too old now to be doing any more...........

[Ratatat]

I have just received a response to my email to the DfE regarding the 'More Great Childcare’ document.

 

It reads as follows:

 

Dear Mrs Dervey ,

Thank you for your email dated 04 February 2013 about Early Years Teachers.

The Government wants to move decisively away from the idea that teaching young children is somehow less important or inferior to teaching school age children. As part of this we will build on the achievements of the Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) programme by introducing Early Years Teachers to lead further improvements in quality. There are now over 11,000 Early Years Professionals across the country. Evidence from the Graduate Leader Fund final report in 2011 and the three-year Longitudinal Study of Early Years Professional Status (September 2012) shows that these graduate leaders are having a positive impact on the quality of early education and care for pre-school children.

Early Years Teachers will be specialists in early childhood development trained to work with babies and young children from birth to five. The training routes and the new Teachers’ Standards (Early Years) will build on the strengths of the EYPS programme. Those with EYPS are graduates already trained specifically to work with babies and children from birth to five years. Existing Early Years Professionals will in future be seen as the equivalent of Early Years Teachers. Early Years Teacher Status will be seen as the equivalent to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). This change will give one title of ‘teacher’ across the early years and schools sectors which will increase status and public recognition.

The Government takes the view that the pay and conditions for staff working in early education and childcare settings are best determined at local level. However, the Government would expect employers to want to pay Early Years Teachers in accord with their status. Free Schools and Academies (including alternative provision Academies) can employ teaching staff without the requirement for them to have Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and can set their own pay scales. In maintained schools, Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) is currently a requirement for teachers. However, head teachers in maintained schools have the discretion to employ people who don’t have QTS as instructors. From September 2013 head teachers will have even more flexibility and freedom on pay.

 

Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0008141. If you need to respond to us, please visit www.education.gov.uk/contactus, and quote your reference number.

Yours sincerely,

Early Years Team

Early Years and Educational Psychology Division

www.education.gov.uk

 

[eyfs1966]

I think this is a rather idealistic response from the DofE, not addressing the core issues at all. Was somehat horrified to read the second to last sentence that seemed to suggest that as EYP's we could be classed as "instructors" in maintained schools :huh:. I did note the EYPS equivalent to EYTS, equivalent to QTS sentence, however, I trully, trully doubt that this will ever be the case, and until someione addresses the key issue of pay and sustainability within the EY sector, nothing will change!

[Ratatat]

I agree eyfs1966.

• The key word here is: 'instructor'. I'd be interested to hear why the DfE used that term rather than teacher.
  
• 'pay and conditions for staff working in early education and childcare settings are best determined at local level'. - I don't believe that Head Teachers are unscrupulous and unwilling to value and pay EYPs or EYTs at QTS rates - but when budgets are tight and the nature of EYPs and EYTs means that they cannot be used flexibly throughout the Key Stages, I can see that we will become far less attractive in financial terms unless we are cheaper!!.
  

[Guest]

I can't see me retraining. The EYPS and BA hons were hard enough on my poor old brain and I'm too old now to be doing any more...........

not sure I can cope with you doing anymore training either lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[catma]

• The key word here is: 'instructor'. I'd be interested to hear why the DfE used that term rather than teacher. I'd say it's probably because that is the current and continuing term that is used. Unless you have QTS gained after a period of teacher training, demonstrating that you meet the teachers standards, plus then the statutory passing of the induction year you don't have full QTS, so cannot be paid as a teacher in a maintained school. Unqualified teacher is also used sometimes to describe staff status but there is a different, lower range of pay for staff who are unqualified.
  
• 'pay and conditions for staff working in early education and childcare settings are best determined at local level'. - I don't believe that Head Teachers are unscrupulous and unwilling to value and pay EYPs or EYTs at QTS rates - but when budgets are tight and the nature of EYPs and EYTs means that they cannot be used flexibly throughout the Key Stages, I can see that we will become far less attractive in financial terms unless we are cheaper!!. Heads in non maintained schools can pay according to their own locally determined pay scales or arrangements, but they can also set their conditions of employment unlike HTs in maintained. Private, voluntary and independent settings are not required to have fixed pay scales or conditions of employment because they are not public bodies in the same way maintained schools are, accountable to the LA and the DfE through their Governing Bodies. Also a school has to have a qualified teachers under current legislation for every class group including EYFS.
  

Cx

Edited February 15, 2013 by catma

[finleysmaid]

Unless schools are told that they MUST have an eyt/eyps to teach the foundation stage then this situation will not change. As the head of a business I am not going to employ someone who can only do a part of the job when all their peers could do all the job ...unless there is a financial benefit to the business.

Well at least that's the way i reckon it will be seen.

[catma]

As the head of a business I am not going to employ someone who can only do a part of the job when all their peers could do all the job ...unless there is a financial benefit to the business

 

And part of that job in a school is being able to work across key stages as required by the HT. In fact training used to (not sure right now as haven't mentored NQTs in a while) have to have an element of working in an adjacent phase to the one you trained for, so EYFS teachers would have to do some time in a KS 1 class in their training and during their compulsory induction. Why would a HT employ someone ina school who would block any movement in a particular phase because they are unqualified to work anywhere else in the organisation?

 

The way I see it, EYT and QTS may be defined as equivalent in terms of hierarchy of qualifications but that does not mean automatically the same conditions of employment for different jobs in different sectors. It's a change of name not the conditions of employment in schools.

 

Cx

[Ratatat]

I have found this link which explains why the DfE refer to EYPs/EYTs as 'instructors' in their response to my email.

 

As you can see 'instructors' are 'unqualified teachers' and are therefore not necessarily in receipt of the same level of pay. The pay is negotiated at local level (by the Head Teacher and Governing Body) and local budgets will influence their pay agreements.

 

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6000189

[catma]

Which is concurrent with what I said earlier. Often overseas trained teachers who's qualifications are not equivalent to a full QTS would be paid as unqualified. Their training etc may not meet the same requirements as QTS. I believe they also then have to do the compulsory induction year if they undertake training to bring them in line with QTS.

[narnia]

not sure I can cope with you doing anymore training either lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't know what you mean........................and I'll see you in class, Missy, if they say we have to do it :huh:

[hali]

ill be there with you girls :blink:

[Madmum]

I have found this link which explains why the DfE refer to EYPs/EYTs as 'instructors' in their response to my email.

 

As you can see 'instructors' are 'unqualified teachers' and are therefore not necessarily in receipt of the same level of pay. The pay is negotiated at local level (by the Head Teacher and Governing Body) and local budgets will influence their pay agreements.

 

http://www.tes.co.uk...orycode=6000189

This really interests me!

I am a Nursery Teaching Assistant in a maintained nursery and am currently paid ( as are all our LA Nursery TAs) at Level 2 of the TA scale, despite it being the only TA job in school where a L3 qualification is essential. I am also a HLTA and cover PPA time, for which I earn about £1.60 an hour more than at TA rate. A colleague who is also a TA and HLTA in KS1 and 2 suggested the other day that she thought she should be paid as an 'unqualified teacher' as she 'actively teaches'!!! :angry: Clearly I sit in a comfy chair with my feet up for 3 hours at a time

[Pimms o'clock?]

Now remind me what qualifications do you need to be an MP or run the country?

 

Absolutely no qualifications required, just need to be able to "talk the talk"; enough said!! :wacko:

Edited February 16, 2013 by Pimms o'clock?

[meridian]

Absolutely no qualifications required, just need to be able to "talk the talk"; enough said!! :wacko:

 

well the certainly do the talking...but not the walking when it comes to early years funding and support :blink: