Surely not..........

[mumto2]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/review-rais...045321881.html

Surely the welfare of the children is more important? At this age maybe simple numbers (1-10 or even 20) and maybe the alphabet, but thats what schools for, is it not? Sorry rant over (bad night with youngets DS!!) hope I dont cause arguements
Have a lovely weekend everyone xx

[sarah707]

Yes there are some unqualified staff - but there are more who are qualified.

And you don't need to be qualified to do a good job teaching children the basics...

I have never yet used my grade c maths O level while helping the little ones to count to 10!

That is a good example of skewed reporting just to make us look bad!

[miffy]

Grrr to the fact that the headline only mentions childminders!

Miffy xx

[Mouse]

Grrr to the fact that the headline only mentions childminders!

Miffy xx

I agree with that, but I also agree with what the Nutbrown report says. In my experience Childcare courses are seen as being for those who are not capable of taking the more traditionally academic subjects. When I was at school they were for the lower band groups to take. ie. you weren't bright enough to take traditional o'levels, so you took childcare. And as my own children have gone through school, it is clear that childcare courses are still for the lower achievers. I have friends whose daughters have wanted to take childcare as an option, but been put off by the school as they say childcare isn't suitable for them.
It does mean that many of the young girls who go into childcare are low achievers academically.

I don't think it really applies to childminders as many of us we don't tend to go into childminding straight from school, but I do think a lot of young staff in nurseries are just not very bright. It's not all about whether or not they are qualified and capable of 'teaching' children, it's about having basic skills and knowledge to help them offer the best care to the children.

[watgem]

perhaps if pay reflected qualifications? Funnily enough during the labour governments drive to raise qualifications of EY practitioners it was mentioned that pay needed to be raised in order to reflect the responsibilities of our jobs in the EY and motivate us to become more qualified, however this was "quietly dropped" (Tina Bruce) so now we are all expected to become more qualified, often at our own expense, for the same low payThe one overriding thing that I have learned from doing my degree is that for the EY age group, supporting PSED is key; unless the children we work with feel securely attached, motivated and have high emotional and physical well being they will not be able to learn cll and psrn effectively, and if they are introduced , to formal learning too early before each individual child is ready it will demotivate them and undermine their self confidence and self esteem, sorry lecture over, but would love to be able to explain it to these out of touch politicians lol

[catminder]

So the 'experts' have concluded, in their wisdom, that having gone through the British education system ourselves, we are still not 'qualified' to work within that very same system ourselves.
I don't know what else to say really

[Mouse]

perhaps if pay reflected qualifications? Funnily enough during the labour governments drive to raise qualifications of EY practitioners it was mentioned that pay needed to be raised in order to reflect the responsibilities of our jobs in the EY and motivate us to become more qualified, however this was "quietly dropped" (Tina Bruce) so now we are all expected to become more qualified, often at our own expense, for the same low payThe one overriding thing that I have learned from doing my degree is that for the EY age group, supporting PSED is key; unless the children we work with feel securely attached, motivated and have high emotional and physical well being they will not be able to learn cll and psrn effectively, and if they are introduced , to formal learning too early before each individual child is ready it will demotivate them and undermine their self confidence and self esteem, sorry lecture over, but would love to be able to explain it to these out of touch politicians lol

But my point, and that of the Nutbrown report, is that it's not about formal teaching at a young age. It is about encouraging self confidence, emotional well being and an interest in finding things out and trying new things. To understand this and to be able to encourage this, staff need to be mentally bright. The report is highlighting how childcare is seen as the career for girls, mainly, to go into when they are not very academically bright. I don't think it's the fact that they don't have formal qualifications that's the problem, it's the fact that they're not capable of getting them. If they struggle with the basics themselves, how are they going to encourage and understand the importance of promoting emotional well being?

[rickysmiths]

Grrr to the fact that the headline only mentions childminders!

Miffy xx

Yes but if you read the first line of the report they clearly have no idea what a childminder does or how they work! The Nutbrown report is aimed more at young inexperienced nursery workers and I think is absolutely right in what it says.

It still amazes me that so many parents seem to have this belief that nurseries are so much better because they 'teach' the children and yet in proportion they have less experienced staff!

I must say as well though there are quite large numbers of childminders in some areas who speak very little functional English and speak their native languages with all mindees at home and these children then enter school with English as a second language. They are very cleaver because other write their Policies and paperwork and in an inspection Ofsted to not check if you are physically capable of writing your paperwork do they? They will speak English for an inspection as well even though this is not their normal practice.

I this day and age is unforgivable because if these children had been in my care for instance they would have entered school fully functioning in English instead of being at a disadvantage by not. Childminders like this I feel should be made to take a stringent test in English and be subject to unannounced inspections to check they are using Engish the majority of the time in their settings.

[peppa Pig]

when I did the NNEB the entrance requirements were a pass at Maths and English minimum grade c GCE or Grade 1 CSE, this seemed to drop when the NVQ arrived. No wonder people don't see child carer's as professional when we don't have minimum standards.
Not saying you need a full GCSE in Maths and English to carry out our job as I know some fabulous childminders with no qualifications at all, but there should be some sort of bench mark to ensure we are fully competent, I suppose this is the Ofsted inspection but it's so easy to put on a show for a few hours.....

[stardust]

Gcse wise the grade you get is not always the level you are actually at.
In English my spelling ment that I was put in a class where the highest I could get was a d even though at 9 I had the reading age of a 18 year old, I was graded a's on all my essays but in the exam I got the highest for my group which was a D.
Same in maths I got a D because that was the highest I could get on the Gcse paper. Yet I found the work easy, I understand decimals, percentages, fractions, areas, circumfrances, pythagourous and trigonometry.

I was one of the not so bright nursery staff who went in at 16 gained a nvq3 by 18 along with 4 a levels and a foundation degree in social care (I almost qualified as a social worker but couldn't complete the placement as I was put with a social worker dealing with a sexual abuse case which they didn't have enough evidence to remove the child and the social worker didn't want to risk her job stepping in to soon. I couldn't go back without feeling physically sick and feeling angry at the parents of the child- I knew it wasn't for me). I'm both nurseries I was asked to do the EYP but refused as I don't want to spend my life doing qualification after qualification so will probibly sign up when my son is older.
It's hard to show brightness in an area you are still learning about.
My senior at my first nursery was an EYP with 8 a levels and 2 degrees all in childcare and she still didn't have a clue. She was all text book and couldn't get her head round each child needing a different approach.

With children you either have 'it' or you dont.

I feel that a good childcarer is someone who has the ability to look at every child's needs individually, who uses their initiative, can stick it out and see things through, is open to training and improving themselves and who enjoys their job and wants to make that difference.

It's hard to be all of the above when you work for less than minimum wage ( i got £80 a week and worked 50 hours), often being left alone, have to train and stay for meetings and not get time back, get treated like a skivvy and constantly put down. Private nurseries are not nice places to work as a apprentice.

I was put on anti depressants about 3 months after working in the nursery, I walked out 2 months after qualifying at level 3 and came off 2 weeks after. It's hard to look bright when you just want to keep your head down, do your job and qualify so you can move to a better place.