With college-based learning opportunities dwindling and new starters feeling unprepared for the workplace, Jo Caswell and Kate Peach of Peachwell Early Years Consultancy ask what we can do to make the level 3 qualification fit for purpose…
As Early Years specialists, we’ve visited over 70 settings in the last year. We’ve engaged in numerous discussions with leaders about the validity and suitability of the current level 3 Early Years qualification.
While this qualification is currently being reviewed and the DfE consultation has recently closed, we can’t help but wonder, is the DfE looking to revise the criteria appropriately? And can we do more to help make this qualification more suitable for the role and fit for purpose?
The role of an Early Years practitioner has changed significantly over the years. But in our experience, the training and preparation for working in an Early Years setting has not caught up.
Careers advice for school leavers still undermines the value and responsibility placed on an Early Years practitioner. Little consideration is given towards the essential role a practitioner plays in shaping a baby and young child’s future learning potential. The 1980s ‘hair or care’ debate, regarding school leavers either joining the care workforce or becoming hairdressers, is still very much apparent.
This is disappointing. In our view, there are few other roles with the same level of satisfaction as childcare. We believe watching a young child grow and develop healthily because of the care and nurture a practitioner offers cannot be matched by any other profession.
But there are challenges now. The recruitment crisis means that leaders are left struggling to find high-quality staff and future managers. Young people are joining the sector without gaining the deep-level knowledge those of us who trained years ago were lucky to have.
We have repeatedly debated with Early Years leaders about the notion of reintroducing the National Nursery Examination Board (NNEB) Diploma, or the well-loved BTEC Nursery Nursing qualification.
These were world-renowned qualifications delivered in the 1990s, which fully prepared students for their role. We would champion any petition to re-introduce these.
There are some fantastic newly qualified practitioners entering the sector now, but there are also some who are very under-prepared. College-based, theoretical courses are currently few and far between, with the vast majority of students learning through workplace assessment within their practice.
Since the pandemic, we are increasingly hearing that assessors are not visiting students in the workplace, preferring to use online meetings to discuss practice. This is not intended as a criticism, but it doesn’t replace the direct observation of a student in a workplace, nor the ensuing accurate assessment and evaluation of their practice and future development points.
The course content appears limited too. In our view, there is insufficient focus on several key areas of childcare learning. For example, safeguarding procedures, the fundamentals of child development, teaching pedagogies, and the legal requirements relating to the role of an early years practitioner are not studied in great enough detail.
Young people are entering the profession with very limited experience of working and, at times, with insufficient preparation for the workplace environment. College-taught courses prepared students better for this with weekly ‘professional studies’ lessons where basic health and safety, leadership, effective communication in the workplace and teamwork skills were taught.
With this lack of basic training, we’re not preparing our students effectively enough to take on the challenging role they have chosen.
We have previously raised our concerns regarding some level 3 training providers pledging 100% pass rates for all students. This cannot possibly be a true and accurate reflection of a whole cohort of learners. There will always be mixed abilities and those who, for whatever reason, do not meet the criteria to become an effective, high-quality early years practitioner.
But, with the promise of a passing grade, are we allowing lower-quality practitioners to enter the workforce? If so, what impact is this having on practice, and more importantly, the care and learning experiences we provide for young children?
With the rise in workplace-based learning, the quality of a student’s practice is reliant on the skills they learn from those around them. If those they are learning from are already of lower quality or newly-qualified themselves (which is often the case), students are not gaining skills from those with extensive experience and fully embedded good practice.
Again, looking back at the traditional NNEB and BTEC courses, students regularly attended carefully chosen placements in schools, nurseries and home settings where mentors had been selected due to their wealth of professional knowledge. The valuable experiences we remember from our college days are, sadly, no longer the norm.
So, what can we do to try to boost the quality of the Early Years qualification, and our practitioners in turn? As leaders, we can make sure our apprentices and students receive the highest standard of training opportunities we can offer.
We need to carefully select where we place students and learners to maximise their learning experiences and ensure we have a mentoring system where we set aside time to share best practice and explain theoretical learning.
We need our newly-trained practitioners to be fully competent in assessing, observing and monitoring a young child’s development; to be able to plan for each child accurately and recognise, at an early stage, if there are any gaps in their learning.
Our training in safeguarding arrangements must be rigorous and robust. On any day, a child could make a serious safeguarding disclosure to an untrained or newly qualified practitioner, and they must know how to respond so that they may keep that child safe.
We also need to consider the entry requirements for those wanting to complete a level 3 qualification. We all know many highly experienced, competent and fantastic practitioners who are restricted from undertaking level 3 training as they do not hold a GCSE in maths.
We recognise the importance of students being competent in English, and the understandable requirement for a GCSE pass in this subject. But is a pass in GCSE maths still relevant? With the current recruitment issues, could we possibly relax this area and introduce a competency-based assessment instead?
There are many unqualified practitioners with skills which far exceed some with a level 3, but they are failed by the current system. We feel this needs reviewing as a matter of urgency.
And what of the early years practitioner recruitment crisis? We believe a relaxing of the requirement for room leaders to have formally achieved a level 3 qualification would allow excellent and highly experienced practitioners to hold more senior roles.
Instead of an arbitrary piece of paper, we’d assess these expert practitioners on competency and experience, and could model their practice and experience to those in training.
Years of experience cannot be disregarded. We could introduce a skills-based assessment alongside revised level 3 criteria, to marry up that valuable experience with formalised Early Years requirements.
At Peachwell, we support leaders in delivering the highest quality provision, all day every day. It’s what children deserve. But we do recognise the increasing challenges imposed on leaders at present.
We believe now is the time to review policy issues and recognise where we could make some adaptations without compromising on quality. We must always ensure children experience the best possible care, and that those with the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience are at the helm, making that positive difference.
Kate Peach and Jo Caswell run Peachwell. Together, they are a combination of nursery operator and a former Ofsted HMI. They have more than 60 years’ combined experience in the Early Years industry.
