---

Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 65ZA:"Page 19, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—" ““(b)   include within the requirements specified in an order made under paragraph (a) a requirement that relevant provision shall be under the direction of a person who is a qualified teacher within the meaning of section 132(1) of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (qualified teacher status), and (c)   from time to time publish guidance on staffing matters to which early years providers to whom section 40 applies must have regard.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 65ZA, as amended by the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 69, 71 and 72 standing in my name in this group. I understand that the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey, Lady Morris, Lady Howarth and Lady Buscombe, will speak to Amendments Nos. 65A, 66, 67A and 68. We have two closely related topics to discuss here. One concerns who delivers the services to children—the early years professionals and teachers—which is the subject of my Amendment No. 65ZA. All the other amendments are different offerings from various Members of the Committee of alternative ways of expressing how they help children in their learning and development and how they assess how that development is progressing. Amendment No. 65ZA is intended to probe the quality issues and the qualifications and training of the early years professionals. The Government’s action plan for its 10-year childcare strategy, which I have here, announced the creation of a new early years professional role. That will be at graduate level, rather than level 3, as was previously suggested. That is very welcome. There will be a target of one EYP in every children’s centre by 2010 and one in every full daycare setting by 2018. The EYP will not be the leader of a setting but will take ““a professional leading role””. That role is currently undertaken by teachers, who provide input into the settings’ educational provision. The action plan states that,"““those most likely to want to take on the EYP role include teachers, community nurses, social workers and those with early years, childhood development and play qualifications””." There will, however be a range of training routes for those without such skills, knowledge and experience, with the emphasis on settings growing their own EYP. The action plan concludes that"““it is important that this work proceeds in parallel with a wider debate about the longer-term relationship between the Early Years Professional and qualified teacher roles””." That statement appears to confirm the suspicion that the Government envisage the EYP role as replacing, rather than enhancing, the work of qualified teachers within the early years sector. As the EYP would be equivalent to—but not actually be—a qualified teacher, they would not be subject to the school teachers’ pay and conditions document provisions. There has been no suggestion that a national pay scale or conditions of service protocol will be developed by the Government. Therefore, teachers who took up employment in EYP roles would probably have to negotiate individual contracts of employment. That concerns the NUT, which is one of the organisations that has briefed me on the subject. The EYP standards have been developed by the Children and Workforce Development Council, in conjunction with the Training and Development Agency for Schools. I accept that they draw heavily on the current trainee entry requirements for initial teacher training and the revised QTS standards. However, a number of standards involve management responsibilities that are far more demanding than the QTS standards, although the two qualifications are described as equivalent. For example, section 3 of the EYP standards relates to leading practice and settings and to the leadership of the team to deliver the early years foundation stage. In addition, a number of the EYP standards are closely aligned to the professional activities covered by the QTS standards—for example, planning and leading learning activities; assessment monitoring and feedback; and reviewing and evaluating practice. Because of the close match between many of the QTS and EYP standards, it would not have been difficult to have developed an early years QTS training model, if the Government wanted to preserve the role of qualified teachers in the sector. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why the Government have not followed that route, despite the urgings of many experts in the field. One of them recently e-mailed me stating:"““the effect of current proposals for an EY professional qualification will be to dumb down all the strands that Children’s Centres are designed to combine—we need specialist teachers, family support workers and health professionals, who are given opportunities to broaden their understanding of multi-professional working through continuing professional development””." I have also had support for this view from Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford of the Institute of Education, who led on the qualitative aspects of the much respected EPPE research. She states:"““Research thus far has shown that EYs multiprofessional teams with nursery nurses, teachers, social and health workers offer a more cogent approach, with their real specialisms in working with children and families and also with support agencies. A multi-professional ‘jack-of-all-trades’ is simply a dumbing down of every role. In addition, history tells us that some of the best multiprofessional leaders we had/have were all in combined centres . . . interestingly they were almost all teachers who had developed their roles further as managers of multi-agency settings without losing a sense of the core aspects of their role, ie children’s learning””" She gives some examples from the EPPE technical paper 10 about case studies. The first example states:"““The achievements of settings against the cognitive outcomes appear to be directly related to the quantity and quality of the teacher . . . planned and initiated focused group work that is provided””" The second example states:"““Good settings had sound leadership, good communication and shared and consistent way of working amongst the staff and a high number of teachers””." Thirdly:"““The qualitative analysis of our teacher observations also appear to show an association between curriculum differentiation and matching in terms of cognitive challenge””," and so on, and she refers to ““good pedagogic practice””. Finally, she states:"““Our findings suggest that where staff shared educational aims with parents, and encouraged pedagogic efforts at home, good child outcomes were established.""““We found examples of practitioners whose knowledge and understanding of the particular curricula area under study was inadequate and this led to missed opportunities or uncertain outcomes . . . This suggests the need for more depth in early years staff education in the area of pedagogical subject knowledge. Teachers were better at this than lesser qualified staff””." In the light of all that expert evidence, can the Minister tell the Committee why the Government intended to go along the route that they have taken rather than developing early years teachers? I turn now to the subject of how we express what we are trying to help children to do. The Minister may say that this is only semantics, but I think it is much more fundamental than that. My Amendments Nos. 67, 69, 71 and 72 seek to amend the Bill to remove the word ““taught”” and reflect the reality that children learn and develop through play. They also seek to clarify that the assessment of young children during the early years foundation stage will take place, as is currently good practice, through observation. A coalition of 48 professional associations, voluntary organisations and interest groups called the Early Childhood Forum is united in its concern to develop the care and education of young children from birth to eight. It believes that young children learn by being supported to play and explore the world around them. I hardly think the Minister would disagree with that. The forum therefore believes that this must be reflected in the learning and development requirements and suggests that the clauses I seek to amend should be amended to remove the word ““taught””. Alternative wording should reflect the reality that children learn and develop through play. While the forum warmly welcomes the assurance in the Bill that the learning of young children cannot be allocated into timetables or set periods of time for teaching, it believes that the amendments I have tabled are necessary. This issue was hotly debated in another place and there was all-party support for the approach I am promoting today. At the Report stage, the Minister argued that the word ““taught”” is a term recognised by the early years sector and reflects the language already used in the foundation stage and the Education Act 2002. At the Committee stage in the Commons the Minister stated that the practitioners—those with whom we consult—are the experts. As they already use the term in that way, they are not confused by the Government’s intention to use it in the Bill for a second time. Those people to whom the Minister in the other place referred are the very people who are behind my amendments. They believe that a change in the wording of the Bill is absolutely necessary. They and I are concerned that less experienced early years practitioners will be more literal in their interpretation of the learning and development requirements and the word ““taught””. They are concerned that ““taught”” is being transferred from the current foundation stage and curriculum requirements for older children to younger groups of children. In the document Birth to Three Matters, the word ““taught”” is not used, although there is a concept of supporting learning. Play is given much greater emphasis and should be used as the basis of the learning and development requirements as expressed in an amended Clause 41. I beg to move.