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.
I work in a maintained school nursery. I have QTS and I am the teacher in charge of a large unit. Some of the other staff have EYPS but they are not responsible for the Nursery. Perhaps QTS is more valued because we are part of a school and every other class has a qualified teacher with QTS too.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking more about Children's Centres, whether or not they provide nursery/daycare facilities as even if they don't then I know the early years consultant (or equivalent job title) works closely with nearby daycare settings.
ReplyDeleteDo you think QTS is more respected because it has a good, longstanding reputation and EYPS is new and not yet valued? Or do you think having QTS improves your ability to have a positive effect than having EYPS?
The EYPS covers solely the Early Years whereas QTS is far wider ranging. That's not to say it is necessarily less suitable, as there is a lot of logic in being familiar with the 'next steps', but experience with babies, for example, will be very lacking.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of respectability, QTS is far more valued than the EYPS. (I say this as someone with the latter.) One need only look at the lack of standardized pay scale for the Early Years to see how it is not seen as important. See also how the EYPS course itself cannot be covered by Student Loans, how it is only recently that the EYFS even came into being, how poorly paid most Early Years workers are, and indeed see also this decision to diminish the status further still by essentially saying, "yes, you may well have a sole focus on birth to five, but those with QTS in any age range are still better suited". It's an important and worthy status, but it's one this government fails to value: what they claim on the one hand, they sadly wave goodbye to with the other.
(To address the points above, I think having someone with both QTS and EYPS is the best move. It gives you someone with specific and detailed knowledge of both ends of the Early Years, from babies to beyond nursery. Taking one of these away, be it the person with EYPS or QTS, seems utterly crazy to me. They are both to be valued as equals.)
ReplyDeleteThank you for that response. I think you've put it far more in to perspective for me. I think the key thing you have highlighted is that QTS gives knowledge beyond 5 years - and that needs to be understood to offer those under 5, and those caring for them, the knowledge they need, especially when considering 'school readiness'.
ReplyDeleteNo worries! Like I said, it's important to have both in this sort of setting in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteOne key thing about the EYPS is the experience with babies and children aged from two- to three-years-old. The lack of experience in this area will make having solely someone with QTS a big mis-step. Another important characteristic of the EYPS course is its big emphasis on child development and theory which is mostly absent from the PGCE.
EYPS is very valuable, and should work in tandem with QTS. One shouldn't be shunted away by the other. I fear though that QTS will almost always win out over EYPS in these settings, purely because the PGCE has been around for longer. To lose one will be a great and damaging loss.