Early Years Teachers and EYPS

[AnonyMouse_1027]

Hi just had this through from teaching agency:

Info for EYPs.pdf

Edited February 19, 2013 by hali

[Guest]

I am an Early Years Professional. What does this change mean for me? Those who hold EYPS will continue to be valued as graduate leaders and will be recognised as the equivalent of Early Years Teachers. Early Years Teachers will be able to work in all private and voluntary sector settings. Free Schools, new mainstream and alternate provision academies, and existing academies can employ teaching staff without the requirement for them to have Qualified Teacher Status (QTS).

QTS is currently a requirement for teachers working in the maintained sector.

 

So basically go back and train to get your EYPS upgraded to a teaching standard however if you choose to work in the maintained sector you will still need the QTS. Sod this I am just going to do the PGCE at leats that way I can work across key stages and in any sector!!!!

[AnonyMouse_5970]

They say that EYP's will be seen as 'equivalent to' Early Years Teachers but I don't really know what that means. We EYP's aren't given much status or recognition now, so what will being 'equivalent to' another new qualification achieve?

[Guest]

It wont be equivalent because even after you have gained your EYT you still wont be recognised as a teacher should you wish to work in the maintained settings. Herein lies the problem! With QTS you can work across settings but with EYT you wil be limited to the settings highlighted above. Where is the equivalence?

 

Equivalent in terms of equality or equity?

 

Equivalent only in terms of equity but not equality because accessibility to all early years settings in the sector will be limited to QTS only!

 

£9,000 for the year to gain QTS...better start saving!

[Guest]

I understand the idea of calling the EYP an Early Years Teacher in terms of using the same title across settings, so parents, etc know that it is as important a role as a teacher in a school. However I don't think that merely changing the name will imbue the title with that importance. Now if the two posts attracted a similar wage.....!

 

I'm not saying the money is the only thing we should be concerned with, but governments/local authorities/management change the names of things all the time and I think most people are more likely now to think that it doesn't make a difference. I remember a few years ago there was a big thing about renaming the role of bin men (sexist - I'm sorry but I haven't seen a female one yet, well I haven't seen ours for weeks at all, but that's another story). I can't remember the name they were given at the time but it didn't stick and everyone knew they were still the people who came to take your rubbish away!

[AnonyMouse_7677]

to be honest.....as an Early Years Professional responsible for managing a busy setting with all that goes with that.....dealing with all HR, budgets, staff performance, driving force behind new initiatives etc.etc. just feel that my responsibilities are more than an 'Early Years Teacher' so think will be keeping that title because it reflects what I am!

[AnonyMouse_75]

to be honest.....as an Early Years Professional responsible for managing a busy setting with all that goes with that.....dealing with all HR, budgets, staff performance, driving force behind new initiatives etc.etc. just feel that my responsibilities are more than an 'Early Years Teacher' so think will be keeping that title because it reflects what I am!

 

Well said, I agree, unfortunately parents possibly see the title of "teacher" as professional status, where as the term "early years professional" seems to get used for anyone working in the early years sector its difficult to distinguish an actual graduate leader EYP. it does need a better clearer title that sets us above the rest as a senior role across the profession but also highlight the role goes far and above teaching

 

[Guest]

Indeed.

 

Never did make much of a fuss about being an EYP and relished the idea of being the all encompassing agent of change and all things to all men and women in the early years...until the fuss began about equating it to teaching. Thats when my blood began to boil because its a whole load of t*&%!! as you can see from the above it is not equivalent and will never be untill as an EYP you can work in the maintained sector. Untill then keep dreaming about equivalency ugh!!....

 

Teachers have QTS with extensive knowledge and experience of curriculum delivery for the assigned age group and EYP's have extensive experience and knowledge of the 0-5 age range. Full stop. Can it not just a be a role that is unique in its own right and respected for what it is and what it can deliver?

 

Respect is not going to come from a title alone but from the whole sector upskilling. The maintained sector has got it right (or maybe not?)- as you cannot teach unless you have QTS. In the early years you can 'teach' even if you are unqualified (see me later for examples :wub: ). As a sector we need to demand more than just being a warm, caring, gentle and giverer of great cuddles from staff but have a minimum entry requirement like the maintained settings. There are numerous discussions on so many early years websites about some staff although unqualified are great with children and some with qualifications not having the knack and how sometimes its better to have the unqualified and not highly qualified because of this one reason. Why not have both qualifications and the natural flair (pretend you had won the lottery so for now forget the cost implications - there's a thread somewhere on that! )

 

We (hehehe the royal 'we' here!!) have to make the choice between being respected based on what qualifications we have or being respected because we have a 'knack' with children. If we choose the latter then we need to need stop moaning about not being equla to QTS lark and about not being respected as teachers.

 

Sorry for ranting but I think writing it all down has clarified it for me and now feel I can make an informed decision about where I see my career heading.......maybe a bit of everything eh...NVQ3, FND, EYPS, QTS, EYT, NPiQCL...and maybe even an MA just to top it off nicely....... B)

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I remember when the term practitioner was brought in and not may teachers I knew at that point were happy with that terminology as they felt it

was not their professional title. But everyone got used to it and nothing changed much. I suspect it will be much the same this time as well.

 

Cx

Edited February 19, 2013 by catma

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I am thinking out loud here:

Considering what Alabaloo said above, I suppose teaching and the maintained sector is also about far more than just EYFS. It is about 3 - 17, so a whole raft of other legislation exists and a teacher in the EYFS works in that wider teaching community too. The role of teacher is also not widely perceived by the profession as being about childcare, nor does "childcare" per se feature in the teaching standards. When I went into nursery class (as DHT) many parents asked me if I was still DHT because their perception was I wasn't doing a senior level teaching job working in that age group! So perception of other provision for 0-5s is prehaps predicated on the care model rather than the educating model. This is maybe why you have the variation in perception of status. Equally I have had conversations with people who work in the PV sector who fight against anything that even hints at being "education" and teaching children, which compounds the "care" being more important position. So there, maybe, the conflict of interest lies?

 

I shall cogitate more.

Cx

[Guest]

I am thinking out loud here:

Considering what Alabaloo said above, I suppose teaching and the maintained sector is also about far more than just EYFS. It is about 3 - 17, so a whole raft of other legislation exists and a teacher in the EYFS works in that wider teaching community too. The role of teacher is also not widely perceived by the profession as being about childcare, nor does "childcare" per se feature in the teaching standards. When I went into nursery class (as DHT) many parents asked me if I was still DHT because their perception was I wasn't doing a senior level teaching job working in that age group! So perception of other provision for 0-5s is prehaps predicated on the care model rather than the educating model. This is maybe why you have the variation in perception of status. Equally I have had conversations with people who work in the PV sector who fight against anything that even hints at being "education" and teaching children, which compounds the "care" being more important position. So there, maybe, the conflict of interest lies?

 

I shall cogitate more.

Cx

 

Very well said Catma. There are so many conflicting terms, feelings and perceptions about the status of teaching the various age groups. The point about being able to teach across 3-17 age group does offer more to higher status than teaching in the first five years.

 

You would argue though that the first five years are the most important but the flexibility that a teacher has to be able to move across key stages demands higher status and pay because of this particular reason..... its getting clearer as to why now.... so maybe being given the title of EYT is not so bad after all as this will raise an awareness about the importance of the early years....

 

so to be fair maybe we are being done a favour :blink: .......never thought i'd say that ! ...penny's dropped! ...unless someone can shed more light or bring to the fore something I havent considered......This may seem obvious but I dont do obvious! :lol: :lol: