reply from Richard House
I replied to Richard's e-mail last night (much along the lines of Penny, Sarah and uf) and got this response this morning. Thought I would share. I'm not convinced he understands the subtelties for us of agreeing with him in not wanting overburdening EYFS paperwork and not agreeing with EYFS targets and that we can still see ourselves as professionals. If what he means is the negatives of professionalism rather than being professional then why just apply it to childminders and not nurseries - I'm sure as many early years teachers and nursery workers have left the profession for the same reasons as childminders I wonder if so many strong responses will make him rethink as I don't think we've convinced him about how negative his letter is
================================================== =======
Thanks for replying, xx. I think there does exist a difficult tension for at least some, and possibly many childminders between how they envisage the nature of the work they do, and the demands of the EYFS. And as you'll know, many thousands of childminders have left the field since the advent of the EYFS in 2008 - and some of them have written to us in despair about feeling they have no choice but to give up the work they love in the face of the statutory demands of the EYFS. This is the 'shadow' side of what I term 'over-professionalisation', and I've heard enough people speak about it now to believe that there's a significant problem that can't be ignored.
Also, I'm not in any way diminishing the quality or the importance of the work childminders do; I've never done that, and I've always only ever written positively and admiringly about the important work that childminers do. As I see it, the problem (and possibly the misunderstanding) is to do with language and 'discourse' - i.e. from my viewpoint, not to use the term 'profession' to describe childminding is not only not a diminishment of your work, but is actually an enhancement, as I don't believe that the conventional discourse of professionalisation is appropriate or helpful for the subtle loco in parentis nature of childminding. But I see that from your standpoint, part of your identity is perhaps to be seen as a 'profession'. If I could be convinced that the discourse of professionalisation and all that goes with it (which of course currently includes compliance with the statutory EYFS) were not having any negative effects on the subtle quality that childminding at its best provides, then I wouldn't be saying any of this. But having seen the effects of 'professionalisation' in my main professional field (counselling and psychotherapy) and the compromising effect it has had on the subtleties and quality of therapeutic practice, I'm afraid I'm not convinced. But please convince me if you think I'm wrong! But just to reiterate: from my perspective, to say that childminding should not be seen as a 'profession' as conventionally understood is a compliment to your work, not a diminishment!
I hope this clarifies my position, and perhaps makes our difference(s) clearer. I appreciate your writing, and I'm certainly open to having my mind changed, if I'm getting something badly wrong.
if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got
Bookmarks