Analysis: Qualifications - All aboard for level 3?
The Government's proposal to require all childcare staff to be qualified to level 3 sounds laudable, but is it really such a good idea? Mary Evans seeks out views across the sector.
Early years employers and training organisations have had a mixed reaction to the Government's announcement that it is looking at requiring all childcare staff by law to hold the minimum of a level 3 qualification by 2015.
The proposal came in the publication of Next Steps for Early Learning and Childcare: Building on the Ten-Year Strategy, marking the halfway point in the Government's programme to transform the early years sector.
It commits the Department for Children, Schools and Families to working with the sector to 'ensure that everyone working in early years provision has a full and relevant qualification of at least level three (equivalent to A-Level) and consider making this a legal requirement from 2015.'
While no one argues with the Government's long-held desire to raise standards and improve outcomes for children, employers and training organisations have concerns about how best this can be achieved.
They cite financial and logistical issues that need to be resolved. Then there are the questions of how many people would need to upgrade their qualifications, plus what happens to those who are reluctant to do so, and the sanctions that could be taken against employers.
CORE SKILLS
Just under two-thirds of the workforce (64 per cent) across all provider types and staff types were qualified to level 3 and above, according to the Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2007. However, CACHE says 'over half of the current workforce do not hold a full level 3'.
Numbers aside, there is a debate on whether level 3 is the right qualification to make mandatory. 'I would be more interested if the Government were saying that all those working in childcare must have the core skills and must have their maths and English,' says Sarah Karkeek, director of the Cornish-based Happy Days Nurseries. 'Given the amount of literacy, language and numeracy that goes on, it would make much more sense if people had to have passed a course in these core skills.'
Early years consultant Laura Henry says, 'I absolutely 100 per cent agree that anybody who works with children should be level 3 qualified and above - and about time, too. However, what we need to look at is the quality of level 3 training.
'There are some really good-quality NVQ training providers where quality comes first, and there are some where NVQ candidates are being rushed through so it becomes a number-crunching exercise.'
Ms Henry welcomes the opportunity this proposal provides to open up a debate on early years qualifications and training, including the issues of EYPs and graduates. Given that it is becoming a graduate-led profession, she suggests the introduction of one nationally and internationally recognised level 3 professional qualification delivered as a college-based course involving a minimum of two years study.
Purnima Tanuku, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association, also supports the long-term vision of level 3 as a minimum. She says, 'Studies demonstrate that the higher qualified the staff, the better the outcomes for children. However, while we support this ambitious vision, there are questions about how it could be achieved in reality without significant Government investment.'
Ms Tanuku adds, 'Training providers must consider the flexibility that nurseries will need in terms of access to training, and plan delivery to ensure it is accessible and readily available.'
TIGHT TIMESCALES
Richard Dorrance, chief executive of the qualification awarding body CACHE, says, 'As an awarding body, supporting progression is of paramount importance to us. It can take a learner 12 months or more to progress from a level 2 and successfully achieve at level 3, which is why CACHE offers a range of qualifications which take account of existing learning and experience to allow for progression from level 2 to level 3.
'However, we envisage that such seemingly tight timescales for implementation of the Government proposals would result in unnecessary pressure and stress for learners and training providers alike.'
There is also the question of staff motivation to study for a level 3 qualification. 'I have two members of staff working as nursery assistants who are not level 3 and they do not want to go on and take extra qualifications,' says Della Grizzell, proprietor of Early Doors Day Nursery in Worcestershire.
'They have a great deal of experience and are wonderful with the children. I think if I say to them, "Sorry, you have got take a level 3", they will up and go. We would lose their contribution, experience and skills.
'A lot of people don't want to start studying. We obviously have in-house training, but that is very different from having to work to a time limit. A lot of people just don't want to work under that pressure.'
Some settings already insist on staff having or working towards level 3. 'To be fully employed by us you have to have level 3,' says Mrs Karkeek at Happy Days. 'But we train people up from scratch and level 2 and work with them towards level 3.
'I don't think this proposal is achievable. One of the things I have discovered from working with people over many years is that very often those who come in and do their level 2 are very shy of the academic side. You can get them to level 2 and they do that quite well, and then they almost stall. Their practice is first class but they do not want to study any more - at least not for a while.
'I think we are storing up trouble for ourselves with this. I don't see where we would get all these people from who would come in at level 3.
'It could be that we would go back to the days when early years staff were trained in the colleges, before the NVQ came in. If I was offered a choice of someone with level 2 aspiring to level 3 or someone straight from college, I would select the first one, as you have some input in their training. You can give them the confidence they need so they can go on.
'I can't see how this is going to improve childcare. It might make us more academically based, but a lot of work with children is about practical skills - what you could call life skills, interaction and forming relationships with young people and their parents.'
Ask the sector
A DCSF spokeswoman says the department will consult on the Next Steps document, including the level 3 proposal, and at this stage it would be only hypothetical to discuss sanctions that could be taken against providers.
'NDNA understands the reluctance of some mature workers to engage back into learning,' says Ms Tanuku. 'Training provision must consider and allow for this. Mature workers bring valuable skills to the workforce, and retaining them through this transition is vital.
'In addition, unless the support is in place and is accessible, providers will find it extremely difficult to develop staff to this level without significantly increasing costs, which will make it hard for the Government to ensure families can access high-quality, affordable childcare.'
Funding is a major concern, whether for the extra training or for enhanced salaries for those who undertake the extra training. 'We can't pass this on to the parents,' says Mrs Grizzell. 'It is not that they don't want to pay. It is that they cannot afford to pay more. Where is the training money going to come from?
'Achieving this will require significant Government investment,' says Ms Tanuku. 'Level 3 staff, currently accepted by Ofsted as a managerial level qualification, will rightly expect a higher level of pay. Already an average 80 per cent of turnover is spent on staff pay, meaning Government intervention would be necessary if PVI nurseries are to survive. With a high number of staff who would require training to reach this level, the Government would need to significantly increase funding in this area.
'In terms of sustaining a level 3 across all staff, nurseries will need help to develop career paths for their staff and still be able to differentiate by levels of experience and responsibility.
'However, without support for matching pay and conditions with this new level of professionalism, the sector could become a stepping stone to better paid jobs elsewhere, which could cause a recruitment crisis when nurseries are already struggling to find and keep staff.'
