AnonyMouse_19762 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 One of my staff members is also a childminder and is currently studying for a NVQ Level 3 'Home-based Childcare' (hope I've got the title right - possibly not!). Anyway..... long story, short .......I am trying to give her as much 'help' as I can with this ....... when she has finished this course - she will begin DPP......which will be of much more 'use' to me! She rang this morning to ask........"what do you know about 'scaffolding learning' - the tutor didn't know what it meant. WHAT!!!!! What hope is there really - I am seriously shocked that a'tutor' did not have a basic understanding of child development. Sunnyday
AnonyMouse_13453 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 When we were doing our Quality Assurance scheme a few years ago, the people supporting us didn't know that either, and actually drew a ring round it on our sheet!
AnonyMouse_19762 Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 When we were doing our Quality Assurance scheme a few years ago, the people supporting us didn't know that either, and actually drew a ring round it on our sheet! No!!! - Is it just me then, are you not horrified by this? Thought hard about whether or not to start this topic - didn't want to offend anyone - but really - this is just beyond me - if 'tutors' and/or others in a similar position don't have this sort of basic knowledge.......... Another thought.......do these people not prepare for their 'lessons' - how could she allow herself to be 'fronting' a class and have to admit that she doesn't understand the question?
AnonyMouse_13453 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I can remember being totally horrified. I mean, even if you don't know whose theory it was, or whatever, surely the term itself is sufficient explanation of what it means
AnonyMouse_5895 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Hi Sunnyday, i also have a childminder working for me who has a level 3 qualification in Home Based Childcare. She was looking at doing something like DPP but was advised to check the CWDC website for the status of her Home Based Qualification and on checking she found that it meets all the criteria for an acceptable level 3 qualification (it just suggested she accessed training in working as part of a team). I am not sure but could you insist on DPP in that situation could you?
AnonyMouse_19762 Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 Hi Sunnyday, i also have a childminder working for me who has a level 3 qualification in Home Based Childcare. She was looking at doing something like DPP but was advised to check the CWDC website for the status of her Home Based Qualification and on checking she found that it meets all the criteria for an acceptable level 3 qualification (it just suggested she accessed training in working as part of a team). I am not sure but could you insist on DPP in that situation could you? Oh - I haven't 'insisted' - luckily this something she wants to do for her own CPD - I really hope that when I decide to retire (no plans yet - I love my job) that she will 'take over' from me.
Guest Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I'm not suprised. I'm an NVQ Assessor and had a job assessing full time, which I loved; I loved visiting various settings, I loved seeing the learners progress, I loved advising and giving guidance. What I didn't love, however, was being told to sign learner's off as competent, when quite clearly they weren't just so the training provider got paid; no completion = no money. I also didnt like seeing assessors dictating answers to the learners just so they would complete. Needless to say I left and went back to managing and now I question and questoion and question the assessors who come into my setting!! They don't seem to mind lol!!!
Guest Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I was at some training recently in which it appeared only myself and the tutor knew what a schema was. As it was a mixture of people attending I didn't stress too much until another person there identified herself as a LA advisory teacher
AnonyMouse_19762 Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 I was at some training recently in which it appeared only myself and the tutor knew what a schema was. As it was a mixture of people attending I didn't stress too much until another person there identified herself as a LA advisory teacher Oh Holly - that's just awful. So.......doesn't an 'advisory teacher' - have to be a qualified teacher? Ah - answering my own question here - can it be that they don't have to have 'Early Years' experience.......no that can't be right...can it?
Guest Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I had a behaviour specialist come into our setting and i mentioned the child was showing evidence of a schema and she didn't know what i was talking about... i was quite surprised!!!!!!!!
Guest Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Certainly in my LA it appears an advisory teacher needs to be QTS but doesn't have to have early years experience. I think it is a poor way of working but I don't think my opinion counts for much!
Guest Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) Certainly in my LA it appears an advisory teacher needs to be QTS but doesn't have to have early years experience. I think it is a poor way of working but I don't think my opinion counts for much! So good I said it twice! Actually a dodgy network connection. Sorry Edited June 7, 2009 by Guest
AnonyMouse_19762 Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) I had a behaviour specialist come into our setting and i mentioned the child was showing evidence of a schema and she didn't know what i was talking about... i was quite surprised!!!!!!!! I'm beginning to think I have been too naive and trusting.....whenever someone claims to be an advisor/specialist or similar I have just always assumed that they know what they are talking about!!! I have 'popped back' to say........ I do understand that most advisors etc. are well qualified and I have no wish to offend those that are!!! Edited June 7, 2009 by sunnyday
AnonyMouse_13453 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I'm sure that most of them do, these MUST be the exceptions. As an advisor in Girlguiding I had to prove my experience and undergo quite a bit of training, so I'd imagine an Early Years advisor would need at least a teaching qualification and experience of the early years sector, and training adults etc.
AnonyMouse_19762 Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 I'm sure that most of them do, these MUST be the exceptions. As an advisor in Girlguiding I had to prove my experience and undergo quite a bit of training, so I'd imagine an Early Years advisor would need at least a teaching qualification and experience of the early years sector, and training adults etc. Of course you are right Cait and I have edited my last post to reflect this! Think I was feeling just a little frustrated.........
AnonyMouse_8466 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I think the comments in this thread just go to prove that no matter what lofty status we achieve there is always something we can learn or maybe haven't yet committed to memory so that we can produce just the right theory or theorist in the right situation. It is a powerful to know that just because someone has a 'higher' position than you in the organisation it doesn't necessarily mean that they are (or can be expected to be) expert in everything. We each have our own strengths, weaknesses and 'blind spots' and as a tutor I always told my learners at the outset that I would learn much from them during the course, and that they would learn as much from their fellow learners as they did from me. I see the teaching/learning process as being co-constructors of knowledge rather than simply the dissemination of information - and there is no shame in admitting that you aren't au fait with every aspect of child development theory. Once you accept that no-one is perfect or has all the answers (including tutors, advisory teachers or LA development workers) it makes it a lot easier to challenge, question and argue your point if you really believe in what you're doing. Oh, and that probably goes for Ofsted inspectors too, although personally I think it takes real courage and conviction to challenge Mrs Ofsted mid-inspection! Maz
AnonyMouse_13453 Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 It certainly does, and there have been some good examples on here, haven't there! Some people have a natural 'authority' which makes it hard to feel you can openly challenge them (I feel anyway) and so I mutter behind my back when they've gone
Guest Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I think that's a good point. We shouldn't be overawed by titles if we feel a legitimate challenge can be made to what we are being told. It helps to know that those in advisory positions can be less knowledgable than ourselves. It just rankles when they might no accept that themselves.
Guest Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I would just like to know if early years advisors and all these specialists that come to the setting have to renew their training like we do... we have to attend 4 courses a year and they also keep moving the goal posts with qualifications.... NVQ, degree, EYPS etc...i just curious as to wether they also update their training.... I also agree that we should see these people as equal to us, after all with all this multi agency working it should put us on an equal footing as them in early years and all our knowledge should be taken into account. sometimes we have a little more knowledge than them in certain areas, this should be accepted as early years practitioners have an awlful lot of knowledge that we can share. Not that i'm blowing our own trumpet but we are very knowledgable!!!!
AnonyMouse_64 Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I would just like to know if early years advisors and all these specialists that come to the setting have to renew their training like we do... we have to attend 4 courses a year and they also keep moving the goal posts with qualifications.... NVQ, degree, EYPS etc...i just curious as to wether they also update their training.... I also agree that we should see these people as equal to us, after all with all this multi agency working it should put us on an equal footing as them in early years and all our knowledge should be taken into account. sometimes we have a little more knowledge than them in certain areas, this should be accepted as early years practitioners have an awlful lot of knowledge that we can share. Not that i'm blowing our own trumpet but we are very knowledgable!!!! I would imagine that any advisor has to have current knowledge in order to do their job effectively. I don't doubt for a minute that they would have some sort of appraisal, CPD and training schedule to follow. I always think of advisors a bit like GPs though. They need to have a breadth of knowledge to identify problems within a setting but they don't necessarily have all the information at their fingertips initially to work out the answers. They do this by working within the setting (and remember that every setting is different so there is on one quick solution to be had!) and tapping into other experienced folk. That is why multi agency working is so important. The advisors I have had to work with have all acknowledged any time I have displayed more experience or knowledge than them. In fact in the main they have all stated that one of the 'perks' of the job is being able to go into settings which are working well and see them in action. They can then take some of these ideas back with them to 'problem' settings to help them improve their practise and provision. They always made a point of saying when this happened and I know that when they passed on the information they credited the setting whose idea it was. Perhaps some advisor's abuse this position which is a shame, but I don't think we should damn the whole lot for the sake of a few 'bad apples'.
AnonyMouse_13453 Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Perhaps some advisor's abuse this position which is a shame, but I don't think we should damn the whole lot for the sake of a few 'bad apples'. Oh absolutely not -and I'm quite sure that this isn't what's intended. It's just that sometimes it seems to be basic things that we feel they should know, like scaffolding, and schema as mentioned above. Some advisors unfortunately DO abuse their position, and it's those people who, I feel, 'damn the whole lot'. Is it possible to ask for a different advisor do you know?
AnonyMouse_2732 Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Our local advisory team are a great bunch, and I know they are required to continually keep up to date with everything. That does not, however, prevent me from 'debating' issues when I see the need. I must say, however, that they are not deficient in things like schema, scaffolding etc - but excuse me, how really 'basic' are these? Did you know about them before you followed further training?? Or am I misunderstanding you?? Sue
AnonyMouse_13453 Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 My level 2 student learned about schema, and in her reading about this she found out about scaffolding
AnonyMouse_8466 Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 My level 2 student learned about schema, and in her reading about this she found out about scaffolding The s/he's well on the way to developing good underpinning knowledge for her future studies. However I'm not sure it would be on the syllabus for most level 2 courses. Maz
Recommended Posts