Qualifications - Too much choice?

Having degree-qualified staff is seen as important in early years settings across the world. Multiple studies have made links between higher-qualified staff and better children’s outcomes. Findings from the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education study show that attending a high-quality childcare setting has a positive impact throughout school, increasing the likelihood of achieving five or more good GCSEs by nearly 20 per cent compared with those children attending low-quality settings.

Yet very little is known about what early years degrees comprise. What topics do they cover? Is significant work experience built in? Do students who complete an early years degree actually go on to work in the sector? There has not been enough evidence on all of these things, and this hinders establishing the much-needed long-term commitment for graduate staff in all early years settings.

Where to begin?

We set out to answer these questions with a series of searches on the UCAS database for the 2019/20 academic year. We identified 320 degrees across England that could lead to employment in the early years and childcare sector – a big choice. A more detailed look at university websites allowed us to explore more information. We analysed things such as the type of degree, the ages of children focused on, what practical arrangements there were, and the subject content.

Most degrees were a BA of some kind (62 per cent), such as early childhood studies, with more than a quarter foundation degrees (29 per cent), and a small number BEd (1 per cent) or PGCE (1 per cent) qualifications specific to working in the early years.

Fees ranged from £4,000 to £9,250, with university degrees tending to cost more than foundation degrees offered by further education colleges.

What should you look for in a degree?

The full range of topics, and how frequently we identified them in the course descriptors, is presented in the chart on page 42.

There was no common theoretical core to the degrees. This could be a strength because it enables students to explore a range of perspectives to inform professional practice.

The analysis also offered some unexpected results. For example, psychology is often regarded as the cornerstone of the early years professional’s knowledge base, so we were surprised to see it in the bottom half of the frequency table. It is possible that the low number of references to psychology is countered by the number of references to child development (a sub-discipline of psychology). Knowledge of child development is often cited as central for those working in early years services, and within the course descriptors there was a focus on different aspects of this, such as physical, behavioural, emotional, mental health, social and cognitive development.

‘Professional practice and reflection’ was the most common topic, showing the degrees tended to have a strong employment focus. However, details of the practical work placement arrangements varied hugely. Some degrees offered stated hours to be completed per week, term or year, while others suggested that gaining practical experience was advisable, with 29 per cent offering no details of practical placements.

Little detail about support or mentoring means it is difficult to assess what opportunities students have to connect theory with practice. It may be that the online course descriptors do not provide all of the information about a degree, but no information on practical placements brings into question whether degrees are fulfilling what the sector expects, let alone any kind of industry standard.

Nearly two-thirds of degrees (64 per cent) don’t specify what age of child you are studying. For those that do, the specific age range differs considerably. This brings into question whether graduates are getting age-specific child development knowledge for going on to work in early years services.

The question of age-specific knowledge could be applied to other areas, such as ‘pedagogy (teaching and learning)’, which was frequently referred to and a subject connected to other areas. For example, while ‘play’ had a low frequency, it was strongly connected to pedagogy, suggesting it is explored in this way.

Other areas that had surprisingly low frequencies were safeguarding and children’s rights, calling into question whether degrees sufficiently prepare students for the statutory requirements of their future careers.

Who is an early years student?

Early years graduates tend to be older on average than the traditional graduate cohort, and from non-traditional educational backgrounds, more likely to study part-time, and with a higher proportion studying for foundation degrees.

The data demonstrates that just over half of graduates go on to work in early years services and have contact with children (56 per cent). An additional 15 per cent worked in occupations classified as ‘managers and proprietors in other services’ (see Technical note), so we could assume they are also working in early years services, though they may not have daily contact with children; 28 per cent had roles outside the sector.

So while 71 per cent of graduates go on to work in early years services, the workforce is highly localised, with limited travel from home to university, home to employment, and university to employment. This could mean graduates are less likely to be available to settings in areas where there are limited options for undertaking a degree locally.

There is a clear salary premium when accessing a degree linked to teacher training, but as we know from previous research, there is little financial incentive for completing an early years degree. However, there is also a salary premium for those achieving a higher degree classification.

What do the findings mean?

It may be a positive that there is such wide variation in the degrees available as it offers a graduate workforce that will bring different knowledge and ideas to professional practice. However, where students are unwilling or unable to travel to study, this choice will be limited, and students should read course descriptors to ensure a degree will support their employment ambitions.

We are concerned that the lack of a common core content and age specialism may result in a degree that does not provide graduates with the training that is required to work in an early years setting. We have particular concerns about the variation in the practical experience students gain and their opportunities to be mentored in exploring the connections between theory and practice. Just as vocational qualifications have been subject to review, we suggest that our research has highlighted how degrees also need a national review of both content and work experience arrangements.

Our findings also indicate employers need to be aware of what it is local colleges and universities offer, as this will shape the future employees available. Our findings also leave us with a question for employers: do degrees meet demands for what a graduate needs to know to work with young children?

Technical note

Data on graduates was taken from two datasets held, and linked, by the Higher Education Standards Authority (HESA): the ‘Student’ dataset, which holds information on students’ course and entry characteristics; and the ‘Destinations (Longitudinal) from Higher Education’ dataset. We analysed data from students who finished their degree in 2012/13, meaning the ‘destinations’ data was collected in 2016/17, the latest and last year this data is available.

The full report can be accessed at: https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Early-years-degrees-Plymouth-EPI.pdf

Verity Campbell-Barr is associate professor in early childhood studies, and Katherine Gulliver is research assistant, at the University of Plymouth.