Qualifications For Delivering Eyfs

[AnonyMouse_8282]

I chose my course BEd (hons) because like catma I wanted to be able to teach all age ranges (although I always planned to work in Early Years so specialised in my final year, my friend on the course ended up teaching in higher education ) My course covered child development from birth but obviously I haven't worked with children below the age of 3 as a teacher. I picked the MA in Early Childhood Education to expand my knowledge and as I am now mentoring the manager of the CC nursery in her EYFD I am indirectly working with birth to three in her setting (I have previously mentored my NN in her Foundation degree) and yet my qualifications aren't recognised by the CWDC ...

 

 

I questioned my university as why my qualification wasn't on list - they simply (and honestly) said the paperworked needed is so complicated and time consuming that no-one wants to take on the role of doing it!!

 

 

xx

[AnonyMouse_4544]

I questioned my university as why my qualification wasn't on list - they simply (and honestly) said the paperworked needed is so complicated and time consuming that no-one wants to take on the role of doing it!!

 

 

xx

 

I would imagine that will be the case with lots of universities the course I did no longer exists so that will be an added complication... I wonder how the CWDC will sort that one out or will we not be able to continue to work with young children...

[Guest]

And that's exactly why I did a 4 years Bachelor of Education (Honours) degree - to have a pedagogy that allows me to teach any age range. I can (and have) learn what the "curriculum" is for any given age range but I know about how children learn and how they develop. But with all this I'm starting to feel like i don't belong in early years again! As a teacher in a school I am not likely to be working with under 3's but it doesn't mean I can't work in Early years ie nursery/reception classes does it? For many teachers working in the PVI sector could I argue their primary "qualification" for under 3's is that they are parents? Am I now disadvantaged because i don't have my own children????

 

Cx

 

 

I don't think you should be disadvantaged because you don't have children, just noting that if one doea have experience then experience should be valued in some way.

I did sort of add a disclaimer in my rant that I don't know what every course includes. I am sure you know that I highly respect and admire you're wealth of knowledge and expertise and I think you should be employable within any section of the early years field. Surely, common sense would recognise you're child development knowledge and therefore enable APL to 'qualify' you to work with 0-3's if this age range wasn't included in your honours degree.

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Makes sense to me too! So are you drafting a letter to CWDC for us all to sign?

 

 

in short NO, sorry cait but I couldn't handle the stress levels of getting into communications with them.

 

Feel free to 'quote' me if you like though.

 

 

Peggy

[AnonyMouse_13453]

Well thanks for that! I wonder if there's anyone on here who works for them......

[AnonyMouse_1999]

I have spoken to the CWDC again

 

The amendment to the 'full and relevant level 6' in the EYFS is in relation to the change in ratios. Therefore if you have a QTS or EYP you can alter the ratio to 1:13 if you wish. Any other level 6 does not have the 'recognition' to be responsible for 13 children

 

However, they do 'recognise' level 6 as a full qualification and sure enough on checking the site today I found tthat the Open University BA in Early Years and BA(Hons) in Early Years are now 'on the list'. They are listed separately and both recognised as being Level 6.

Both degrees meet all seven criteria (3 mandatory and the 4 others)

 

I seem to think it is all about content of courses and there is one BA Hons in Early Years dated 2004 and that is now considered not valid as there are aspects of the course content that do not meet the criteria and therefore accredited training is required.

 

The bit that I REALLY don't get is that if you put in CWDC as the provider and choose their level 6 qualifications it comes up with one - EYPS BUT it does not meet the 7th criteria of Includes all areas of the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children’s Workforce

 

So all in all not sure I am any the wiser and it all still seems a bit of a mess to me.

[Guest]

Hi everyone, sitting in bed with a chest infection - have heard that 3 parents and two chlidren have it also so don't feel quite so guilty.

I have so enjoyed reading the debate on qualifications Level 3, 4, 5,6 and what they all mean.

 

I trained many many moons ago in alnwick as an NNEB - did an advanced NNEB in Carlisle then on a move to Oxfordshire took a BA(Hon) degree in Early childhood Studies and Education following that up with a GTP and gained my QTS (Primary). I currently work in a foundation class with a group of 30 4 -5 year olds in a maintained school. I love it and am lucky to have the help of an equally trainned NNEB like myself as my TA (doesn't get paid as an NNEB as in a reception class a TA will do!!!!) my ratio is 1:15 and boy would I like 1:10 or even 1:8 but thats never going to happen.

 

I agree with the debate about raising the standards of qualifiacations for Early Years Workers ( no I don't happen to think being able to bear children is any qualification - I've come across some very poor parenting over the years , incidently I have two wonderful chidren so am not bitter)

 

I have also heard careers advisors and spoken to young people who are partakng an early years course' well I like children', 'i do alot of baby sitting' -great BUT that is not what we are about - we are not babysitting children but providing them with rich educare experiences that will enrich their personal learning journey's and to do that you do need specialist training.

I am not sure if the modern QTS provided this but my course certainly didn't!!

 

I attended a developmental course where the leader didn't know what ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) was, a key in learning for young children.

 

What I do feel should happen is that similar to how NVQ were viewed in the dim and distant past that relevent work and training experiences were taken into account and could count towards the gaining of a higher qualifiaction -

I do very strongly feel that we should all be qualified Level 2, level 3 and above that way I feel we will be taken much more seriously, incidently in Denmark ALL early years workers have a basic Child develoopment degree which is then added to, to gain more qualifiacations and more responsibility - we seem to be going in the same direction only with NVQ , cert's and diplomas great say I

 

I am attempting to find out more about the Early Years Specialism award for Early Years workiers with degrees but not having much luck - does anyone know anythnig

 

Wow quite enjoyed that soap box bit - sorry off to have a coughing fit now - hope you'll all forgive me

[AnonyMouse_8466]

I agree with the debate about raising the standards of qualifiacations for Early Years Workers ( no I don't happen to think being able to bear children is any qualification - I've come across some very poor parenting over the years , incidently I have two wonderful chidren so am not bitter)

Wow Glynnis - would quite like to hear you argue your case when you're feeling 100% fit!

 

I have to raise my head above the parapet here and say I agree with you with regard to parenting versus childcaring. Being a parent is no guarantee that you'll make a good childcare practitioner - and although I am not usually one to blow my own trumpet I am quite a good practitioner but have not always been a good parent. Conversely, nor is it true that people who don't have children cannot be good practitioners - although I have often heard this used as a criticism against someone who does or says something someone else disagrees with (and used it myself about my son's teacher, once in just these circumstances).

 

I too am in favour of having at least a Level 2 qualification as the minimum requirement for practitioners, starting with those new entrants to the workforce. There are issues around inclusion here, and when I was teaching I had a big issue with assignment writing because I felt that not all students would be able to write an assignment that truly represented their practice. I always thought that NVQs were more practically based, but seeing the amount of written work MrsWeasley is doing for her Level 3 I'm not so sure. So I recognise that not all practitioners will find it easy to achieve a Level 2, and I think ways of enabling these practitioners to demonstrate what they can do and what they know will need to be found.

 

I'm not saying it is easy, or that it will be comfortable for everyone, but I think if we start with the new entrants we will be able to move towards a fully qualified workforce. I also recognise and understand that it is not all about qualifications - experience counts too but that's a whole other argument!

 

Will retire now to duck the bullets...

 

Maz

[AnonyMouse_19635]

Qualifications in child care always raise the eyebrows of the people who work in this sector. The goalpost is for ever getting moved but there is never any recognition from the government for our hard work. I completed a level 4 NVQ last year and according to the qualifications list my next step is EYPs but I have been led to believe that I would need to do a degree first can anyone help me with this?

[AnonyMouse_8466]

my next step is EYPs but I have been led to believe that I would need to do a degree first can anyone help me with this?

Hi salm, and welcome to the Forum.

 

Yes, in orer to do EYPS you will need to do a Foundation Degree and then top up to full degree. I can thoroughly recommend it!

 

Maz

[AnonyMouse_19635]

Hi Maz

thanks for the reply I have been thinking about doing the EYPs for a while but with all the other paper work I'm not sure when I would get time especially as I would have to do the degree first but hey prehaps I should stop finding excuses and just get on with it

 

Sal

[AnonyMouse_8466]

prehaps I should stop finding excuses and just get on with it [/font]

Well Sal only you can make that decision - I won't deny it took much time and hard work. But I learned so much and it is a great feeling now to be able to tick the 'Level 6' box in an application form or whatever!

 

Maz

[AnonyMouse_1027]

hello salm and welcome to the forum - it is worth doing - honest

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I don't think you should be disadvantaged because you don't have children, just noting that if one doea have experience then experience should be valued in some way.

I did sort of add a disclaimer in my rant that I don't know what every course includes. I am sure you know that I highly respect and admire you're wealth of knowledge and expertise and I think you should be employable within any section of the early years field. Surely, common sense would recognise you're child development knowledge and therefore enable APL to 'qualify' you to work with 0-3's if this age range wasn't included in your honours degree. Peggy

 

Hey Peggy, I wasn't for one minute doubting your faith in me!!!!! It's the thought that all those years of dedication could be for nothing if CWDC decided it!!!

 

When I joined my LA there was such antipathy towards the teachers in early years from the "Early Years" people and I've had to fight many battles to show that - YES - teacher's can deliver high quality EYs practice sometimes in really difficult situations, such as SMT with no understanding of what they are doing and that NO they are not all making them sit on carpets for 50 minutes at a time!!! So anything that seems to say teachers can't do early years just pushes the wrong buttons.

 

Cxx