One more thought on EYPS!

As the Government have announced their decision that the CWDC will cease to be a non-departmental public body with its functions brought into the DfE, (click here for the the Education Secretary's letter to the CWDC) is this a precursor to EYPS being scrapped completely?

EYPS vs QTS

I've been thinking and reading a lot more about the fact that Children's Centres will no longer be required to employ somebody with both Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) and I must admit I am a little perplexed.

My understanding is both EYPS and QTS are level 6 qualifications, and for both, you must hold a full degree by the end of your training.

My immediate thought (remembering I am a novice in this field) is that a practitioner with either professional status will be as suited to their role within a Children's Centre as the other, but looking at this forum on the TES site gives me the impression that most contributors would opt for an employee with QTS over an employee with EYPS. Maybe that is because it is a site frequented mainly by qualified teachers?

I understand that those with EYPS have no formal payscale as those with QTS do, and that it in these cost-cutting times it may well be tempting for Children's Centres to save money by employing the staff that will cost less.

But - is that a cost-cutting measure that will have a negative effect? Is a staff member with QTS more effective that an employee with EYPS? Going back to the oral evidence taken before the Education Committee, Spending Review Settlement for the Department for Education I referred to yesterday, the following conversation took place.

Q73 Chair: If we keep Sure Start open but it just doesn’t have the same number of quality teachers, or whatever, because it is a political promise in a clunky governmental and political world, isn’t it in fact possible that we keep the form but not the real substance?

Bernadette Duffy: We need to keep the ingredients. We need to keep the ingredients we know work. You are quite right: the qualified teachers were the things that made a difference. In the American research as well, it was qualified teachers who were making the difference. So if you can get the best of all worlds, you can get the parenting support and the high-quality early education, and then you will have the outcomes we want for all children.

Is the chair referring to those with EYPS by his remark 'or whatever'? As Bernadette Duffy only talks about qualified teachers.

I am aware that EYPS is a relatively new professional status and that in research from the Effective Provision of Pre-School Provision (EPPE) it is highlighted that improving the quality of the early years experience is directly related to better outcomes for children. They point out that key factors contributing to the quality of this experience are well-qualified leaders, trained teachers working alongside and supporting less qualified staff and staff with a good understanding of child development and learning.

Do staff with EYPS recognise themselves as well-qualified teachers? Do other professionals?

Maybe EYPS is so new that not enough research has been done to know if practitioners with this professional status are in fact as effective on the outcomes for children as those with QTS. I am hopeful they are, otherwise I question the need for the qualification to have been invented in the first place.

Qualified staff in Children's Centres.

Fancy a bit of oral evidence taken before the Education Committee, Spending Review Settlement for the Department for Education (Tuesday 23 November 2010)?

Please be aware that I am making sure I point out - Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The full transcript can be found here, but if you just fancy knowing what I found interesting, then please read on!

Bernadette Duffy OBE, Head, Thomas Coram Children’s Centre, Camden: 'There are some very welcome messages coming from the Government around the importance of Sure Start children’s centres, and around focusing on child development and being very clear that it is about child development and closing the gap for the most disadvantaged. However, some of the decisions that are being made...are very rapidly in danger of undermining that...There was the requirement to remove qualified teachers and early years professionals from children’s centres, which I think was also announced last Tuesday. We know that the qualifications of the staff have the biggest impact on outcomes for children, particularly the most disadvantaged, so removing the requirement to have those qualified staff is a concern at a time when local authorities are finding funding challenging. The fact that Sure Start and early years are not ring-fenced, as schools are, means that there may be a temptation-however reluctantly-to cut those things within their children’s centres to the detriment of the children.'

I believe this is a concern shared by many. However, the message about qualified staff seems to have been a little misunderstood.

An article by Sarah Teather MP in Nursery World points out that
'We are also removing the requirement for centres to have both an Early Years Professional and a Qualified Teacher. We are instead leaving it up to them to choose which of the two roles is right for their centre, to provide the highest quality advice and expertise.'
Sarah goes on to explain that,
'We know it's the quality of support that makes the biggest difference for children's development and we trust professionals to use their local knowledge and professional judgment to decide what level of graduate support they need in their own centres. But we still expect there to be at least one Early Years Professional or Qualified Teacher to provide leadership in centres.'

Please share this! The Government are not removing highly qualified staff, they are removing the need for the highly qualified staff in Children's Centres to have both QTS and EYPS.

Or am I missing something?

Latest NESS research.

The report I have been longing for! Even if I do feel too tired to read it tonight now I've got my mits on it!

The impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on five year olds and their families

If you don't have time to read the full report, click here for the brief.

Finally, if you have any time spare (please may I have some?!) there is another new report that has been published

The quality of group childcare settings used by 3-4 year old children in Sure Start Local Programme areas and the relationship with child outcomes

Happy Monday!

Getting involved.

I have just been reading through a letter from Barnardo's to the Treasury regarding the spending review. I love the amount of information from Government that is available online, it seems almost endless.

A few parts of the letter are of particular interest (and concern!).

'The Government must now ensure that when budget cuts are translated into service cuts by local authorities and others that poor and vulnerable children are not disproportionately affected. We are particularly anxious that investment in Sure Start is sufficiently protected. The nature of the Government guarantee in this respect is less than watertight.'

I have already heard alarming words in relation to potential cuts in our area.

Another section of their letter read,
'It appears that current Sure Start investment is to be part of the new Early Intervention Grant and it is unclear to what extent it will be open to local authorities to spend current Sure Start investment in different ways. Can the Government confirm the extent to which the current investment in Sure Start will be protected?'

I am sure all will become clearer very soon. I have a vague memory of this coming Tuesday being a day when the council are releasing details of future spending? Could be completely wrong! I really don't know a lot about the Early Intervention Grant so if anyone does, please share your knowledge with me!

Knowledge, it's a wonderful thing isn't it? I am enjoying having the opportunity to focus my mind, and although I am a complete novice, I am passionate about how I can help give children the best possible start in life. This week I am dipping my toes into the world of local politics by attending the Children & Young People Services Policy & Scrutiny Panel public meeting on Wednesday. No idea what to really expect but excited about the chance to see what happens. Will report back later in the week, hopefully inspired and not deflated!

Impatience.

I am eagerly awaiting the chance to read a report researched and compiled by the National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS).

The NESS site contains all of their published documents including
Early Impacts of Sure Start Local Programmes on Children and Families 2005 and,
The Impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on Three Year Olds and Their Families 2008.

I am in the process of reading these!

So, when browsing The Guardian website on Friday, I came across a report from Rachel Williams which immediately caught my eye - Sure Start good for families and for children's health, say researchers.
After reading the article I was eager to get hold of the report, but couldn't find it anywhere! After looking on every page listed on the NESS site (where it says the impact study on five year olds and their families will be published as soon it's available), searching the DfE web site and wondering if I was going mad, I emailed Rachel and was very happy with her speedy response. Rachel kindly provided a link to the report, contained in the research section of the DfE site, but since Friday lunchtime their research gateway site has been closed for maintenance.

SO frustrating!

My lovely partner has assured me this is all just a technical problem and the report will soon surface but I must admit I am finding it very frustrating indeed to know it exists but it is currently not possible for me to read it. Rachel contacted the DfE who advised they would find the report and email it to her, at which point she will email me a copy. I will post it here as soon as I receive it. I suppose it's the weekend, and on Monday all will become clear.

I can't help feeling impatient though!

Are we doing something wrong?

I have just come across a set of statistics regarding Narrowing the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile and the rest.

In England between 2005 and 2010 the gap between the lowest achieving quintile of children and the median child in England fell from 38.9% to 32.7%.

In the South West Region the gap fell from 35.9% to 30.3%.

In North Somerset LA the gap fell from 33.7% to 32.3%.

So, our gap was a lot smaller than the national average to begin with, and our gap is now below the improved figure. Which is good.

However, do these figures beg us to work harder still? To be more innovative? To somehow find a way to make the gap even smaller still? I don't want to jump to conclusions based on statistics alone, but they do lead me to question why our figures have only improved by just over 1% when the figures of the South West region and England as a whole have improved by over 5%.

How to narrow that gap is a question with an infinite number of answers. Answers I am only just starting to learn about.

I hope I can look back on this very first post at a point in my future career and be able to see that we have narrowed that gap further.
I hope when I ask how to narrow the gap my mind is filled possibilities, but even more importantly, evidence of how we have done so.