It was just over 18 months ago that I posted an article entitled A Teacher by Any Other Name
The thrust of the original article was that when working with young children, they don’t care about your job title, they will learn from you in deed and word, so if the practitioner (or educator, teacher, nursery nurse or EYP) is loving and caring, then this greatly increases the chances for the children to be loving and caring. Sadly, the reverse is also true – see Bandura’s experiments for confirmation of this.
But the point of the article was that – it really doesn’t matter what you are called.
So it seems incredibly ironic that there is now a debate raging about the names that EYPs will have from September 2013.
The Coalition Government is proposing to change Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) to Early Years Teachers (EYTs). Now, you don’t have to know me for very long before you find out that I am passionate about EYP Status I was one of the first in the country to achieve the Status and have subsequently mentored and assessed on the course.
Even with some of its flaws, I still believe it is important to have this career step after degree level, for those who wish to progress.
Most significantly the EYP was a ‘change agent’, a term much discussed and variously defined.
This had significance for me because it demonstrated that the EYP wasn’t only doing a good job themselves, but the EYP was also leading, supporting, encouraging and demonstrating to others how to raise the quality of their practice too. Changing practice for the better.
However, the new, proposed Early Years Teachers’ (EYT) Standards do not have that aim. Change agent does not appear anywhere. The proposed Standards are a direct trickle down from the Teachers Standards agreed with Qualified Teachers in September 2012. There are one or two nods to the fact they are for a younger age group (‘pupils’ become ‘children’ or ‘babies and children’, Sustained Shared Thinking gets a mention) but, in essence, they are the Teachers’ Standards – hand-me-downs, slashed and inadequately re-stitched to cover the bare patches.
And this is where it starts to get messy for me.
One argument is that by being equivalent Standards, under the same authority (Teaching Agency) that there is an equivalence between EYTs and Qualified Teachers (QTS). However, an EYT is NOT seen as being ‘qualified’ in the school system. So you could work as an EYT in the Foundation Stage, but not in Key Stage 1, for example.
Professor Nutbrown clearly stated in the findings from Foundations for Quality that the EYPs were frustrated at the lack of equivalence between EYPS and QTS and the lack of parity in pay and conditions (page 57). This has not been addressed by the Government.
The claim of equivalence simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. And I’m pleased about it.
Professor Denise Hevey very eloquently puts the case for “Different But Equal” with many setiments that I would totally agree with.
It’s time to move beyond the name. Professor Nutbrown called for true QTS equivalency, and the Government have rejected this. I doubt they will take the consultation on the new Standards any more seriously.
EYPs/EYTs already have a long, hard road ahead of them. So let’s concentrate on doing what we do the best and let’s do it together, bound by a common goal.
Providing the very best for our children and their families.
Since then, there have been a number of updates to the Standards, requirements and Government policy. The Early Years Professional Status has been replaced with a new Status – Early Years Teacher Status – which still has 8 Standards, but you now have to hold GCSE maths, English and science to do the course.
In addition, you have to pass the professional skills tests. You can find out more information from the Government website here