In 'To the point' (27 August 2009), Alan Bentley queries why the form for the CWDC's Qualifications Audit Tool needs to 'concentrate on the ethnicity of the workforce, when it is supposed to be measuring quality and qualifications'.
His point begs fundamental questions: Do we want a workforce based on principles of racial equality and free of racial discrimination? And do we want to remove any barriers preventing equality?
If the answers are yes, then how do we ensure this happens? While Mr Bentley may have some magic answers up his sleeve, in the real world the only effective way so far identified is by ethnic monitoring of the workforce (collecting, analysing and evaluating ethnic data) to identify practices, procedures or policies that indicate different success rates among ethnic groups, including white groups. Such evaluation then makes it possible to:
- examine whether differences are due to discrimination or any other disadvantaging factors
- remove discrimination in recruitment or promotions
- at least identify, and hopefully investigate, possible causes of disadvantage
- identify whether members of minority ethnic groups who might be expected to apply are applying. And if not, why not?
In this context, it is clear that true racial equality is fundamental to quality. Without it, quality cannot exist. While few early years staff deliberately discriminate on racial grounds, assumptions, judgements and stereotypes (inevitable results of embedded racism in our society) may play some part in selection.
For example, any setting that, consciously or not, fails to shortlist or appoint applicants because of their names, non-British (but recognised as equivalent) qualifications or birthplace, may be operating unlawful and discriminatory selection criteria under the Race Relations Act. Other factors such as postcode, religion and skin colour may also subtly be used to eliminate applicants. Only ethnic monitoring would reveal such potentially unlawful practices.
The CWDC is to be congratulated, as its audit tool is a huge improvement on its earlier data collection exercises. It provides a framework for every setting (in all sectors) to live up to the principles of the EYFS and makes it possible for Ofsted inspectors to assess evidence of settings' practices for racial equality and compliance with the Race Relations Act.
The 2000 Race Relations (Amendment) Act pertains to public authorities (including local authorities and children's centres), while the basic requirements of the 1976 Race Relations Act not to discriminate on racial grounds are fundamental to all early years settings.
We all know the importance of the early years in enabling children to learn positive attitudes to differences between people. So its workforce, responsible for nurturing future generations, must set its house in order as well.
However, I have one significant criticism of the audit tool - it is not mandatory to complete it. The CWDC is included in the DCSF single equality scheme and, while it may not yet be listed for the race equality duty in its own right, its functions must fall within the remit of the DCSF and so be subject to its own race equality duty.
This duty requires public authorities to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. To meet this duty, it needs to assess the impact of its advice and policies - for example, its development of early years professionals - on minority ethnic communities. Given the CWDC's stated responsibility to 'lead changes', it would seem logical, and desirable, for it to strongly encourage local authorities to require settings to complete the audit tool. The authorities, by having comprehensive ethnic data, would then be better able to fulfil their own race equality duty.
To achieve a workforce free of discrimination, we can no longer pussyfoot about ethnic data collection - the principle for which has been widely accepted for years. All of us, including the CWDC, should be doing all we can to enable settings to see this as a positive and simple task towards the wider issue of ridding racism from our society. Does Mr Bentley agree?
Jane Lane, advocate worker for racial equality in the early years
Send your letters to ... The Editor, Nursery World, 174 Hammersmith Road, London W6 7JP
letter.nw@haymarket.com
020 8267 8401
