Scottish Government

CHAPTER 4: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The main consultation stated:

The main proposal within the review is to develop a single, shared framework to encompass the diverse roles and responsibilities of the early years and childcare workforce, which links explicitly to the vision for children.

The roles and responsibilities framework is the cornerstone of this review. It sets out broadly what every worker in the early years and childcare sector should be doing to realise the vision for children and young people. It is structured around 3 sets of organising principles:

• One is the vision with its seven outcomes - "Safe", "Healthy", "Nurtured", "Achieving", "Active", "Included" and "Respected and Responsible".
• The second component which we have called "Organisational" covers a range of functions necessary for the delivery of effective services.
• The third organising principle is the set of three registration categories identified by the Scottish Social Services Council in relation to early years and childcare workers - "Lead Practitioners/Managers", "Practitioners" and "Support Workers".

4.1 The main consultation asked:

Q1: WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO DEVELOPING A COHERENT EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE WORKFORCE WITH A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES? HOW CAN THEY BE OVERCOME?

This question attracted a high response rate with one hundred and two respondents (89%) to the main consultation suggesting barriers to the development of a coherent workforce.

4.1.1 Barriers Identified

Whilst many respondents welcomed the notion of a single shared framework, most identified potential barriers to the development of a coherent workforce. Two respondents, however, emphasised that the identification of barriers should be viewed in a positive light as a focus for change to help to move forward ( TP, Rep).

Overall, three main barriers dominated the responses:

• Differences in pay and conditions between the public, private and voluntary sectors workforces
• The wide variety of different settings and provision of service
• The wide range of qualifications and qualification routes available

It was argued that the different terminologies used, and expectations of purpose of provision in different settings, hindered coherency in the early years and childcare workforce. Others considered that many workers and managers were confused by the current qualifications' structures with differences in routes hampering movement across settings.

Other barriers were identified by consultees. Several proposed that networking between professionals in different sectors was currently limited, leading to a lack of shared understanding of respective roles and responsibilities. Although a few of the individual respondents considered that there were too few opportunities to network with colleagues working in other settings, one consultee ( TP) reported what they interpreted as signs of internal resistance to integrate with others. Likewise, a few consultees (Rep, TP) suggested that rivalries and professional jealousies between different sectors lay behind the current lack of cohesion. Others noted what they saw as an artificial "hierarchy" between workforces in different sectors which tended to hinder integration.

Several respondents from a variety of sectors considered that one barrier to developing a coherent early years and childcare workforce was the different funding amounts and streams associated with different provision. For example, a recurring theme was that not all childcare establishments could afford to put their staff through relevant courses. Another factor identified with hindering access to training was rurality, with local authorities and training providers in particular highlighting geography as a potential barrier to accessing courses and qualifications.

Another common theme was that childcare and education lacked clear definitions which clouded conceptual understandings of what they constituted and promoted the view of them as separate entities. Several consultees remarked that the diverse roles of the early years and childcare workforce did not help in creating a coherent workforce especially as different parts of the workforce appeared to adhere to different philosophies and beliefs.

The prominence of local solutions to local issues was raised as potentially problematic with several consultees commenting on what they saw as significant variation in the way early years and childcare provision is structured across different local authorities. Others suggested that differences in the quality of the physical infrastructure of premises could be seen as a barrier to coherency across the workforce.

A few more barriers were identified by a smaller minority of respondents:

• Not including teachers/childminders in the Review
• Differences in the quality of provision
• Lack of self-perception of the sector being a profession
• Lack of a shared vision
• Lack of career opportunities for the early years and childcare workforce
• Separate inspection bodies (Care Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education ( HMIE))
• Gender imbalance across the workforce

Table 3 gives a broad indication of the frequency with which these barriers were raised by respondents.

Table 3: Respondents' Views on Barriers to Developing a Coherent Workforce

4.1.2 Views on How Barriers can be Overcome

Of the one hundred and two respondents who addressed the issue of developing a coherent early years and childcare workforce, sixty nine (68%) contributed ideas as to how to promote greater coherence and shared understandings of roles and responsibilities.

Two ideas dominated the responses of consultees. Around one-third of those who provided suggestions recommended the provision of joint training involving staff working in different sectors. It was considered that the capacity of training providers should be addressed in order to meet needs and that prior learning and experience should be taken into consideration.

Another recurring recommendation (from just under one-third of those who commented) was for increased and sustained funding across all parts of the workforce. One respondent remarked:

" Attempting to implement it (the Roles and Responsibilities Framework) without adequate resources could in itself create barriers" ( TP)

However, another cautioned that safeguards should be attached to any additional funding to make sure that the resources are used to raise staff salaries and/or improve opportunities to attend training ( CP).

Other recommendations for overcoming the barriers to a coherent workforce were made by a smaller minority of nine respondents or fewer:

• Greater focus on integrated planning and delivery
• Promotion of a shared vision and core values
• Parity of pay and conditions across sectors
• Greater sharing of terminology and a common name for the profession
• Promotion of the profession's status and profile
• Greater opportunities for networking
• Greater use of secondments and placements across sectors to promote more mutual respect
• Promotion of the single roles and responsibilities framework
• Documenting and sharing good practice across sectors
• Promoting easier access to training and CPD
• Encouraging careers and guidance professionals and educational establishments to promote the coherence of the sector
• Setting minimum entry standards
• Promoting minimum care standards
• Creating a shared career pathway

4.2 The main consultation asked:

Q2: TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FRAMEWORK PROVIDE A USEFUL BASIS FOR DEVELOPING A SHARED PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY ACROSS THE EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE WORKFORCE, AND FOR DRIVING FORWARD THE INTEGRATED WORKING AGENDA?

The majority (85%) of respondents to the main consultation addressed this question. The overriding message to emerge was of support for the framework albeit with some provisos and constructive criticism.

Many respondents expressed support in general terms, by stating that in their view the framework was " useful" or " helpful", a " good starting point" and " welcome". Others went further with their approval:

" An excellent, important and necessary basis for sharing professional identity" (Rep)

" We commend the Steering and Working Groups for identifying the key aspirations of a professional workforce" (Rep)

" Excellent, straightforward and helpful proposal….which would be instrumental in forming the basis for the promotion of…common understanding" ( TP, Rep)

For a few local authority consultees, the framework represented more of an aspirational picture, with one comment:

"…for many it may appear highly aspirational given the lack of resources for childcare"

Others agreed that to make the framework a working reality other changes had to be put in place. A recurring view emerging from consultees from a variety of categories was that the workforce needed to be committed to work collaboratively and to strive to excellence. One respondent recommended that collaborative working at a strategic level was required ( LA). It was argued that negative perceptions of colleagues in other parts of the workforce needed to be addressed ( CP). A few respondents emphasised that multi-agency training ( LA, CP) and more staff development opportunities ( CProv) would help to make the framework effective in practice. Several consultees representing different categories recommended that careful thought be given to the implementation of the framework, including its resourcing. Finally, one respondent advised that much work would be needed to disseminate the framework across the sector in order to increase its value ( CProv).

4.2.1 Merits of the Framework

Many consultees stipulated what they identified as the particular merits of the framework. The most frequently made comment was that it clarified roles and enabled workers to know what was expected of them. A typical comment was:

" …..helps to bring clarity to the professional expectation of the sector's workforce" (Rep)

Another recurring comment was that the framework appeared to be consistent with the Integrated Children's Services planning arrangements.

Several local authority respondents welcomed the framework as encouraging shared thinking, promoting a common understanding and being sufficiently generic as to apply to all areas of the profession. Caution was expressed by a few consultees that the framework should not be too generic (Rep) or too diluted as to lose its relevance to specialist development ( LA). Other respondents commended the framework for underlining the key issue of children's rights ( TP); tying in with the vision for the sector ( CP); reflecting the care standards ( LA, CP); promoting a common goal ( CProv); and facilitating both vertical and horizontal progression (Rep). It was remarked that the framework successfully emphasised similarities ( LA) and commonalities ( CP) in the workforce rather than focusing on differences.

4.2.2 Future Benefits of Framework

Several respondents, largely local authority consultees, saw future benefits emerging from implementation of the framework. A common theme was that the framework would help with future recruitment and the construction of job descriptions. Others suggested that the structure would enable a common language to develop over time, with all settings able to use it as a benchmark against which to measure themselves. It was envisaged that the framework would ensure a greater consistency in quality of provision. One consultee summed up their view thus:

" That all levels of early years and childcare services would be singing from the same song sheet would greatly help parents choose the service that best suits their needs. They would not have to worry about sacrificing quality for convenience" ( CProv)

4.2.3 Recommendations for Changes to the Framework

Other respondents expressed caution about aspects of it and/or recommended amendments to the proposals.

A common concern was that the framework appeared not to include key workers such as those who did not have to register with the SSSC, those working with agencies that provide care in a child's home, and teachers. Several consultees requested that the role of education be made more explicit in the framework. A further recurring concern was that the structure appeared to be less relevant to committee-led establishments or very small settings compared with public sector settings.

Two respondents presented their view that playwork and the play ethos had been overlooked in the framework (Rep, Indiv). Another argued that the framework lacked an understanding and confidence in what was already in place, with the framework's promotion of a shared identity compromising individuality amongst establishments and the ability to cater for individual client group needs ( CProv). This consultee stressed that in their view the framework " is too definitive and does not allow for flexible working".

A general comment was that the framework should be kept under constant review ( LA).

4.2.4 Specific Amendments Requested

A few respondents suggested specific amendments to the framework be considered:

• In the organisational factors section there should be more coverage of managers enabling workers to gain experience of working in the wider workforce (Rep)
• At section 2.6: "respected and responsible" should be changed to "respected, respectful and responsible" ( CP, LA)
• The emphasis on safety principles appeared too limited - good childcare involves more than this and overemphasis on safety could inhibit a child's development ( CP, LA)
• There should be more emphasis on dealing with parents, budgets and keeping up with relevant legislation ( LA, LA)
• The purpose of the framework should be made more explicit, eg how it relates to performance indicators, self evaluation documents for school improvement, HMIE inspections and child protection ( CProv)
• The roles of managers and team leaders should be defined more clearly ( CP)
• The concept of integrated working needs further exploration ( TP)
• More overt reference needs to be made to the development of children's speaking and listening skills ( TP)

4.3 The main consultation asked:

Q3: DOES THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FRAMEWORK REFLECT WHAT WORKERS IN ALL SECTORS OF THE WORKFORCE ARE LIKELY TO BE DOING AS SERVICES DEVELOP OVER THE COMING YEARS?

Eighty-three per cent of respondents addressed this question. The following summary of views was derived from their submissions.

Table 4: Summary of Views on Whether the Framework reflects what Workers will be Doing over Coming Years

A few respondents suggested that the framework should also reflect current roles and responsibilities ( CP, LA). In contrast, another considered that the framework placed too much emphasis on the current situation at the expense of looking to the future ( CProv).

4.3.1 General Favourable Comments

Several favourable comments were made by respondents. One consultee praised what they saw as the way the framework captured the complexity of roles and the range of skills they demanded ( TP). Another was encouraged by the framework's identification of shared tasks across the sector (Rep). The illustrative examples were considered helpful ( LA). One respondent welcomed the enhanced awareness of the community context which they considered was reflected in the framework ( TP). One local authority respondent appreciated the way the framework took account of aspirations and concerns, focused on individual needs, and addressed the incoherent nature of current services.

4.3.2 Views on Omissions

Many respondents identified what they considered were omissions in the framework or areas which, in their view, should be given more attention. Key amongst the suggested omissions were:

• Roles and responsibilities of teachers/classroom assistants (many consultees from different categories)
• Roles and responsibilities of childminders (many consultees from different categories)
• Roles and responsibilities of employers ( CP)
• Roles and responsibilities of youthworkers ( CP)
• Roles and responsibilities of senior playworkers (Indiv)
• Roles and responsibilities of committees (Indiv)
• Roles and responsibilities of proactive leaders who will be needed to lead innovation (eg should include being analytical, enquiring, reflective, able to challenge and so on) ( TP)
• Staff not registered with SSSC ( LA)

One respondent commented that developing the framework constituted such a big aim that it would be unlikely if it covered all roles and responsibilities (Rep).

In addition to these suggested omissions, some consultees highlighted more specific topics which they considered should be given more focus. These included:

• Dealing with parents/public ( LA, LA)
• Play work ( CP)
• Private sector dealings (Rep)
• Community links (Rep)
• Relationships with other professions ( CProv)
• Learning and delivery of the curriculum (Rep)
• Education and multi-agency working ( LA)
• Adults challenging children and providing opportunities for risks ( TP, Rep)
• Encouraging a more reflective, analytical workforce ( TP, Rep)
• Communication as a category in its own right ( TP, Rep)

One respondent requested that the framework provide more detail on the specifics of service delivery rather than address this in too broad a fashion ( CProv).

4.3.3 Other Concerns

Other respondents outlined their concerns regarding the roles and responsibilities model presented. A few remarked that the framework would be effective only if adequately resourced ( LA, CProv, Indiv). One view was that with the election looming it was difficult to predict future spend ( LA).

One consultee commented that what they saw as a "one size fits all" model was not appropriate ( LA). Another considered that the framework ran the risk of defining roles too narrowly, thus having the potential to divide rather than unite the workforce (Rep). A plea was made that training should fit with the roles outlined ( TP). Concern was raised that the "goal posts" should not move again ( CP). Finally, ten respondents (largely individuals) requested that the word "worker" be amended in the framework as it appeared to them not to reflect the professional status of the profession.

4.3.4 Other Comments

A number of other general comments were made by consultees. One recurring theme (originating from representative organisations and childcare partnerships) was that the framework should retain an element of flexibility in order to accommodate emerging roles. It was argued that by focusing on the job function rather than job title, the framework provided a more flexible structure ( LA, Rep). A few respondents considered that the framework should be regarded as, " a working and evolving document" subject to continual review ( TP, Rep).

Finally two consultees stressed that time would be needed (and perhaps training) to let workers familiarise themselves with the framework and their place within it ( CProv, TP).

4.4 The main consultation asked:

Q4: IS THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FRAMEWORK A USEFUL BASIS FOR DEVELOPING PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS IN THE SECTOR?

Overall 87% of respondents addressed this question. Of these, the vast majority (83%) agreed (albeit with some provisos) that the roles and responsibilities framework provided a useful basis for developing professional qualifications in the sector. Of the others, 5% either did not think it was useful or were reserving judgement, and the remaining 12% of respondents simply passed relevant comment without indicating whether they considered the framework to be useful or not.

4.4.1 Views on the Merits of the Framework

Several respondents highlighted specific aspects of the framework which they considered of benefit. The model was seen as demonstrating where knowledge could be shared across the sector ( CP) and where common understandings prevailed ( CP). One respondent commented:

" there are obviously shared basic knowledge and skills that all staff need, with the potential to specialise, yet avoid isolation" ( CP)

It was considered that the framework allowed for flexibility ( CP), underpinned a set of core competencies ( LA) and facilitated the establishment of regulatory mechanisms to ensure the standards set out are achieved ( LA). Overall the model was viewed as matching the needs of the sector well ( CP). Although others provided contrasting comments (see below), some consultees saw the framework as linking well with the Care Commission Standards and the SSSC regulatory scheme ( TP) in addition to the National Occupational Standards (Rep).

Looking ahead, a few respondents foresaw added benefits to accrue from use of the framework. They considered that its use would promote the standardisation of quality across all levels and sectors ( CP, CP). Its potential use within an appraisal system in which gaps and training needs are identified was predicted ( LA). One consultee envisaged that the framework would create more confidence in employers, employees, parents and other professionals associated with the sector ( CP). The potential as an aid for training providers was also identified:

" an extremely helpful, useful and logical tool for those developing and delivering training programmes and qualifications" ( TP, Rep)

4.4.2 Concerns Relating to the Framework

Although most respondents expressed varying degrees of welcome to use of the framework, many consultees raised certain concerns about its future operation. Two key concerns dominated:

• The framework may not be appropriate across all settings and in particular, in rural areas and smaller establishments, and it needs to reflect more flexible ways of working in these settings
• The framework should link more explicitly to other related frameworks such as the National Occupational Standards, SSSC registration requirements, Care Commission Standards

It was also suggested that the framework should link with key national documents such as the Curriculum for Excellence and Schools Out ( LA, Rep). Some respondents recommended that as several qualifications structures were already in place, there should be some rationalisation of these to produce a simpler, composite structure ( CP, Rep, LA). One view was that the framework may have only limited application to some specialist disciplines ( TP). Another was that it may not cater for higher levels of qualification ( TP). One consultee argued that the framework would not allow for movement of workers out of childcare to working with adults or in social work ( CP).

Other concerns raised were that the ten year timescale for taking the framework forward seemed to be too long (Rep); that the implementation of the framework would need adequate resourcing ( LA); and that pay would need to reflect increased levels of qualifications of staff ( CProv). One consultee pointed out that as around 51% of the workforce worked part-time, the framework should be tailored to cater more specifically for their needs (Rep).

Two respondents urged that the framework be reviewed in the light of any future associated developments ( LA, LA).

4.4.3 General Comments Regarding Developing Professional Qualifications

Several respondents documented general comments regarding the nature of the professional qualifications which they thought should be developed from the framework. A recurring theme was qualifications should incorporate an emphasis on education. A few consultees urged that the qualifications portfolio should allow for staff to reflect on experience and practice in the light of more formal theoretical learning (Rep, CProv, LA). A plea was made for modular, unit based qualifications to be developed ( TP). Others argued for specialist areas to be reflected in the framework (Rep), and for existing qualifications such as the BA in Early Childhood Studies to be taken into account when developing professional qualifications ( LA).

4.5 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• Three main barriers to developing a coherent workforce were identified: lack of parity in pay and conditions across the sector (mentioned by thirty six respondents); the wide variety of different settings and service provision (mentioned by twenty seven respondents); and the wide range of qualifications and qualification routes available (mentioned by twenty five respondents).
• The two most common ideas for promoting greater workforce coherence were joint training across the sector (raised by one-third of those who provided suggestions), and increased and sustained funding (raised by just under one-third of those who commented).
• An overriding message was of support for the proposed roles and responsibilities framework.
• A recurring comment was that the roles and responsibilities framework clarified individual roles and enabled workers to know what was expected of them.
• A common concern was that the framework appeared not to include key workers such as those who did not have to register with the SSSC.
• Forty-two per cent of those who responded considered that the proposed framework reflected, in the main, what workers will be doing over coming years.
• Many others suggested key omissions included the roles and responsibilities of teachers and childminders.
• The vast majority (83%) of those who responded agreed that the framework provided a useful basis for developing professional qualifications in the sector.
• A concern was raised that the framework may not be appropriate across rural areas and smaller establishments. Respondents also recommended that the framework should link more explicitly to other related frameworks.