Scottish Government

CHAPTER 6: QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT - VIEWS FROM THE WRITTEN CONSULTATIONS

The main consultation stated:

Our starting point for qualifications, training and development was the roles and responsibilities framework. We wanted to ensure that qualifications and training supported the principle that all workers in the sector have broadly common roles and responsibilities, although there will be differences in the emphasis on certain areas and responsibilities carried out.

Our model proposes that there should be a single qualifications framework for all workers in the sector. There should be a common, shared content to all qualifications for the sector. The levels of qualifications should be explicitly linked to SSSC registration categories and the level of qualification appropriate for each category of worker, determined by the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework ( SCQF) descriptors. The qualifications framework would be benchmarked against a professional base that sets out the knowledge, skills and values that would allow workers to practise in any early years and childcare setting. There would still be scope for students and workers to specialise in particular areas (e.g. pre-school education or playwork) as part of the qualification, and through continuing professional development ( CPD).

We are clear that there should be college, university and work-based routes to gaining qualifications at all levels. We are clear, too, that the routes should have equal status.

We need a flexible but robust system of recognition and accreditation of prior learning that allows staff to gain credit for learning and experience that might have been gained in a variety of ways, including experience of working in the sector, to allow them to continue to build up that expertise, without unnecessary repetition of learning.

Views were sought on the proposals for a single qualifications framework in both the main consultation document and in the separate consultation questions for childminders. This chapter presents the analysis of responses to both of these approaches, starting with the question in the main consultation.

6.1 The main consultation asked:

Q8: WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON A SINGLE QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK WITH A SHARED BASE (OR "COMMON CORE") FOR THE WHOLE EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE SECTOR? (THIS INCLUDES EARLY YEARS WORKERS, OUT OF SCHOOL CARE WORKERS, PLAYWORKERS, CHILDMINDERS AND OTHERS)

A very high proportion (96%) of respondents to the main consultation addressed this question with almost all expressing some degree of support.

6.1.1 General Views in Favour of the Single Qualifications Framework

Many respondents stated that they " welcomed" or " supported" the proposals. Other typical comments included:

" We would feel very comfortable with this" ( CP)

" The framework can easily reflect common values of all those who work with children" ( LA)

" The existing plethora of qualifications is confusing and counter-productive and often acts as a disincentive for able and mature candidates to enter the profession" ( TP)

" An excellent idea to allow for the fluidity of the workforce within the sector" ( CProv)

Some consultees welcomed in particular the notion of core units with additional more specialist modules to plug gaps and add to knowledge ( CP, TP, Rep, LA). Others emphasised the importance of recognising prior learning in a consistent way ( CP, CP, CP, LA, Rep); or welcomed the flexibility which the proposals offered to those progressing with qualifications (Rep, Rep, LA). Specific advantages to the single qualifications framework were identified:

• Easier for staff to transfer within and outwith the sector - free flow of workers
• Will promote more integrated working across the sector
• Will help staff to specialise and diversify
• Should help to retain staff within the sector
• Will promote a shared vision and mutual understanding across the sector
• Will enhance a professional identity
• More responsive to changing individual or community needs
• Will help childminders develop their careers at a pace appropriate to them
• Will help voluntary groups compete for qualified staff
• Will enable parents to have a better understanding of the profession
• Will promote better career progression and pathways

Illustrative comments included:

"…will encourage the clear, transparent, easy, free flowing of professionals throughout the career pathways" (Rep)

" This would be a positive step and a worthwhile development which would promote shared knowledge and understanding across the sectors" ( LA)

A few respondents urged that more discussion should take place on what should constitute the "common core" ( CProv, Indiv), with one consultee listing what they saw as priority elements: core standards, social and policy context, child protection, and child development ( LA). Another stipulated that speaking, listening and communication skills should be included ( TP). A recurring comment was that practical skills should not be under-valued ( LA, LA, CP, CP, Indiv). One further comment was that the core should contain elements relating to playworkers skills ( TP).

Others offered a more cautious welcome to what one consultee saw as a " significant challenge" (Rep). It was suggested that too high a training requirement or entry standard might put some potentially capable people off entering the profession (Rep, TP). Others argued that to be successful, the framework would need to be simple to use, with clear mapping between the framework and qualifications, and have currency at both national and international levels (Rep, Rep, Rep). These consultees recommended much publicity to support its implementation. Another view was that its effectiveness would be enhanced if all parts of the sector signed up to it ( CP).

Some respondents considered that the success of the model would depend largely on the quality of the course content, delivery methods and the attitudes of the workforce ( LA, LA, CP, Rep). Two consultees urged that rigorous monitoring and quality assurance systems would need to be in place ( LA, LA) with one view that some level of external assessment would be needed for in-house qualification attainment ( LA).

Views from participants at the workshops supported many of those emerging from the written consultation. A common theme was that a targeted communications exercise is required to explain the qualification structure to the workforce and relieve anxieties people may have. Participants recommended that a key message should be that the award is achievable by everyone. Another message advocated was that the new structure was not about adding to people's jobs, but rather integrating their experience and learning into the new framework.

6.1.2 Views on the Potential Drawbacks of the Single Qualifications Framework

Around eleven respondents to the main consultation appeared not to favour the proposal to introduce a single qualifications framework. Two provided the same view:

" We believe it may be difficult to make this workable". If the framework is too broad and embracing, "it will tend to be at the level of the lowest common denominator" ( CP, LA).

Another consultee agreed that although the vision appeared to be a good one, it was doubtful whether what they perceived to be the "one size fits all" approach would work in practice ( LA).

One respondent argued that in their view, a national, single pay structure had to be in place prior to the introduction of any qualifications framework ( LA).

The crux of other criticism of the proposals centred on what respondents considered to be the framework's inappropriateness for certain settings and contexts. For example, one view was that the single framework would seriously threaten the future of playgroups ( CProv). Another opinion was that the private and voluntary sectors would suffer with an exodus of staff if people had to take stipulated qualifications ( CProv). The framework was seen as not really appropriate for play and recreational settings ( CProv). A few consultees were concerned that the framework may not work as well in rural settings where issues such as the cost of staff training would need to be addressed ( CProv, CProv, LA). This concern was also raised by participants at most of the workshops who cautioned that practitioners in rural areas should not be disadvantages by restricted delivery opportunities.

A few other respondents expressed concern that too much emphasis on core elements might detract from the development of specialisms amongst the workforce (Rep, Rep). One of these consultees argued that although the common core could be valuable it should not lead to failure to recognise the specific demands of different types of working environment or roles.

6.1.3 Other Comments

The view of one consultee was that as it stands, the framework needed to be expanded to reflect a wider range of roles and responsibilities (Indiv). This theme was taken up by many respondents in relation to specific roles. Most commonly expressed was the view that teachers should fit somewhere within the framework. Others argued for the inclusion of childminders, health professionals, social workers, participation and family workers, and nannies. A few consultees considered that the roles of playworkers, out of school care workers (Rep) and sessional staff (Rep, LA) were not well catered for in the qualifications framework at present.

6.2 VIEWS OF CHILDMINDERS ON QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

As described in the introductory chapters above, separate sets of consultation questions were directed at childminders and at childcare workers respectively. The questions posed for childminders are directly relevant to a discussion on qualifications, training and development, therefore the responses of the fifty-eight childminders who responded are analysed here.

The consultation for childminders stated:

Childminders deliver essential services and are an integral part of this (early years and childcare) workforce. Working in quite different circumstances to most other early years and childcare workers - usually as the sole provider and manager of a service. Childminders are registered with the Care Commission and there is not currently a requirement for childminders to hold qualifications. Ministers do not have any plans to introduce a requirement, but we do want to see childminders undertake qualifications and professional development.

6.2.1 The childminders' consultation asked:

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT CHILDMINDERS HAVE QUALIFICATIONS THAT ARE ON PAR WITH THE REST OF THE EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE WORKFORCE? IS THIS VERY IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT OR NOT IMPORTANT?

All fifty-eight childminders responded to this question. A summary of their responses is in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Summary of Childminders' Responses on the Importance of Childminders having Qualifications on Par with the Rest of the Workforce

Overall, the majority (62%) of childminders considered it very important or important to have qualifications that are on par with the rest of the early years and childcare workforce.

Many reasons were given in support of the view that qualifications are important for childminders. These are listed below in order of the frequency with which they were identified, from the most common, to those reasons provided by only one respondent.

• Would result in a better standard of care across the board
• Would ensure a greater respect for and professional recognition of childminders
• Would give childminders more confidence
• Would provide a better knowledge of child development
• Would keep childminders up-to-date with developments
• Would create a more level playing field with workers in other parts of the sector
• Would emphasise that childminders are part of the wider early years and childcare sector
• Would provide childminders with the choice of building a career in the profession
• Very important as childminders work alone with all of the responsibilities associated with sole working
• Would provide personal gain

One consultee illustrated this final point thus:

" Having recently completed the Scottish Childminders Association qualification "Scheme of Excellence" I believe I personally gained from completing this course due to the fact that a great deal of the work was based on self evaluation. As a result I was able to put into practice further improvements to my service"

Others made relevant comments:

" By everyone having equal training it gives a better understanding of children's and childcare issues, leading to a better continuity of care right across the board"

" If childminding is to be seen as a worthwhile profession, then qualifications must be the way forward"

It was remarked that although gaining qualifications was a good idea in theory, in practice childminders had very little time available to do so. One concern was that people may be put off if qualifications were set at too high a level. Another respondent argued that what was needed was a qualification on par with, but not the same as, those available for others in the workforce, as childminders worked in different circumstances.

Five childminders remarked that any qualifications for childminders should not be made compulsory. Another respondent considered that qualifications should be compulsory only where a childminder has no prior childcare experience.

Seven key reasons were provided by the minority of respondents who did not consider it important that childminders should have qualifications on par with the rest of the workforce. Again, these are listed below in order of frequency of mention from most to least:

• Experience counts for more than qualifications
• The standard of service would not be changed by having qualifications
• The annual inspection from the Care Commission should suffice
• A better qualified childminder workforce would lead to an exodus to better paid jobs
• It is possible to keep up-to-date in other ways such as via the local authority or the Scottish Childminding Association
• Qualifications would not lead to more pay
• The role of the childminder is to care for children not to educate them

Several childminders expanded on their rationale that experience counts for more than qualifications:

" Having qualifications does not make you a better childminder. Experience counts for a lot!"

" A good childminder is a good childminder"…irrespective of qualifications

" A loving, caring and affectionate nature are far more important, along with a good working relationship with parents"

" Practical skills are more important than theory"

6.2.2 The consultation for childminders stated:

A qualifications and professional development framework will be designed to accommodate the specific circumstances of sole workers such as childminders, to encourage their training and learning.

The childminders' consultation asked:

WOULD YOU ACTIVELY UNDERTAKE TRAINING AND LEARNING IF IT WAS RECOGNISED WITHIN A SINGLE QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE WHOLE EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE SECTOR?

All but one of the fifty-eight childminder respondents addressed this question. A summary of their responses is in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Summary of Childminders' Responses on Whether they would Actively Undertake Training and Learning if it was Recognised within a Single Qualifications and Professional Development Framework

Overall, almost three-quarters (72%) of the childminders who responded considered that they would actively undertake training and learning if it was recognised within a single qualifications and professional development framework.

Those childminders who were undecided considered that they would only undertake training and learning if it added to current qualifications, if time permitted or arrangements were suitable (e.g. evening workshops).

6.2.3 The childminders' consultation asked:

AS A SOLE WORKER WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM UNDERTAKING TRAINING AND LEARNING?

Fifty-two (90%) childminders addressed this question.

By far the most common factor identified as preventing respondents from undertaking training and learning was to do with not having the time needed to pursue this. Thirty-seven (71%) of those who responded raised this as an issue. It was pointed out that as childminders work through the day with no relief staff to cover for them, this restricts opportunities to train and learn to evenings or weekends when they may well have their own family childcare responsibilities to attend to. Typical comments were:

" most of us do childminding as a way of working around our own family time"

" when all the children are away at night, by the time I have attended to my own family and tidies up it is bedtime"

" business and domestic commitments leave little time for anything else"

The views of participants at the workshops concurred with those presented above in that a common theme was that timing of learning opportunities is very important, with flexibility around training times crucial. This meant offering both daytime and evening learning possibilities to meet the needs of workers with family and other commitments.

A further eight childminders remarked specifically that they had their own caring responsibilities that prevented them from taking up training and learning opportunities.

Nine respondents considered that undertaking training and learning was simply not worthwhile. For example, some consultees were in their fifties and sixties and argued that they would rather younger childminders took up the places for training. One older consultee considered that their memory was not good enough to retain information. Another consultee who had gained a qualification stated that achieving this had not translated into providing any higher standard of service. Another view was that it was not necessary for childminders to excel in their daily work.

The cost of training was a disincentive to six childminders. One commented:

" I could not afford the loss of earnings and the money required to pay for my own childcare resulting from giving a day or two days to learning/training"

Another remarked:

" The cost is so expensive which tends to put me off"

It was pointed out that even with increased qualifications, a childminder is not likely to be able to demand more pay from parents in respect of being better qualified.

A small number of respondents felt that their previous qualifications (e.g. teaching, nursing, and so on) were sufficient for the job that they were doing.

Other barriers to undertaking training and learning were raised by either one or just a few consultees and included: course content hold little relevance; difficulties of being assessed in the workplace; accessing courses without private transport; fear of failing/lack of confidence; and lack of peer support. One similar view to emerge from the workshops was that some practitioners had concerns about attending colleges and would much prefer to study in a familiar setting with a training provider known to them.

6.2.4 The childminders' consultation asked:

WHAT WOULD HELP YOU TO START OR CONTINUE YOUR LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT?

A total of forty-eight (83%) of childminder respondents addressed this question. Over one-third of these (38%) considered that flexible patterns of delivering training and learning would help them to start or continue their learning and development. More evening and weekend courses were called for with some childminders requesting that training is supported with crèche facilities.

Another common response (around fourteen respondents) was for financial help with attendance at courses to make up for loss of earnings. Less frequently mentioned were the need for more time to train; support (from authorities or peers) in training; more appropriate course content; more notice of when courses are to be held; more local courses; work-based training; and staff cover during training.

A few respondents stated that nothing would help them to start or continue their learning and development. One argued, " childminding is a way to earn money and be at home for my own family".

Finally, seven childminders pointed out that they were already undertaking training and learning.

6.3 The main consultation asked stated:

…we have a growing body of evidence that links the quality of service to the level of qualification of staff. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education ( EPPE) research found that workers qualified at a degree level (e.g. in teaching or in childhood studies) working with children in settings for a substantial proportion of time, and most importantly as a "pedagogical leader" (a pedagogical leader uses their knowledge and information provided by researchers, academics and first-hand experience to work with their staff to bridge the gap between theory and practice), had the greatest impact on quality.

We propose that the lead practitioner/manager should be qualified at SCQF level 9 or above, either through an academic "degree" route or through a work-based route. This worker needs to be a reflective practitioner - one who evaluates incidents, draws on theory and other evidence in understanding them, makes decisions about how to proceed and reviews the results. They will work with other practitioners in early years and childcare and the wider children's services to improve their ability to question and improve their practice. They are also the reflexive practitioner- adapting to changing circumstances and the needs of different children. The relationships that the practitioner has with children is a reciprocal and mutual one, it is individualised. In other words, it is not simply being a "technician" applying the same practice in every set of circumstances.

The main consultation asked:

Q9: THE REVIEW PROPOSES THAT SERVICES SHOULD BE LED BY SCQF LEVEL 9 (ORDINARY DEGREE OR WORK-BASED EQUIVALENT) QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS. SHOULD IT BE HIGHER THAN SCQF LEVEL 9? WHY?

All but three of the one hundred and fifteen respondents (97%) to the main consultation document addressed this question making it, along with question six, the most commonly addressed topic. Many respondents provided more general commentary rather than a clear indication of whether they considered that services should be led by a professional qualified higher than SCQF level 9. However, the views of those who did submit a clear response to the question are summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Summary of Views on Appropriateness of Proposed Level 9 Qualification

The majority view (60%) was that services should be led by SCQF level 9, although sizeable minorities considered that this level was too high (22%) or not high enough (18%).

One respondent argued that the wording of the question had been misleading in that instead of asking whether services should be led by SCQF Level 9 degree, it has asked if the level should be higher ( CP). A few others considered that the premise used by the consultation for proposing a level 9 qualification was erroneous. In particular, it was felt that a causal link between level of qualification of staff and quality of early years' provision was not as clear cut as had been suggested ( TP, TP, CP, Rep). Other general comments were that the focus on leadership in the qualification structure was to be welcomed ( TP, CPr); that the relevance of the course material should be of equal importance to the level attained (Rep); that level 9 would bring Scotland in line with other European countries ( CP); and that for the proposal to be effective, training providers would need to develop the skills and the capacity to respond to new needs ( CP, TP).

A recurring theme was that emphasis should be placed on recognising the value of experience and prior learning. One consultee cautioned that " there is a real risk that academic qualifications will override experience" (Rep).

6.3.1 Arguments Against Introducing Level 9 for Leaders of Services

The most common argument against introducing level 9 was that pay would not be able to rise in accordance with the increased qualification levels gained. Many consultees expressed concern that people may leave the workforce rather than make the commitment to work towards level 9 with no prospect of additional remuneration at the end of their efforts. One comment was:

" If this proposal is taken forward the childcare workforce will be seriously depleted without a package of wages and benefits alongside it" ( CP)

Others were worried that people who did not want to take the qualification may be forced to leave the workforce altogether. One consultee remarked:

" There are a number of hard working and effective managers for whom this new requirement will come as a shock" (Rep)

It was suggested that perhaps a staged approach may soften the impact of the new requirements ( TP) and help to stem any exodus of staff otherwise unwilling to work towards level 9.

A common view was that the introduction of level 9 may be more of a challenge for the voluntary and private sector workforce in that facilitating training, and financially rewarding qualifications could create disproportionate difficulties. Participants in the workshops held similar views and highlighted their concern that market forces limited the funding available in the voluntary and private sectors. There were some concerns from written consultees that some smaller establishments might have to close, leading to reduced choice for parents ( LA, CProv). Likewise, many respondents highlighted the difficulties which they considered smaller rural establishments may come across in obtaining level 9 staff. One suggestion to address this was for the deployment of peripatetic lead practitioners in rural areas (Rep, Rep, Rep).

Several consultees felt that although the level of qualification may be appropriate in some settings, it was not suitable for all. For example, achievement of the qualification was considered too onerous a task for people working part-time during term time only ( LA). Likewise, some respondents questioned the applicability of level 9 in an out of school care setting or for childminders. One respondent explained how many lead practitioners in smaller settings become "accidental managers" by default ( TP). In their case, the consultee argued that a staged progression to level 9 should be allowed.

Others agreed that the introduction of level 9 should not take place over the shorter or medium term (Rep, Rep, Rep). A few felt that the qualifications' goal posts seemed to be continually moving ( CP, CP). One consultee questioned the necessity of level 9 when " children are here to play not to be a doctor or dentist" ( CProv). Finally, one view was that the move towards higher qualifications discriminated against the older worker who may not have enough work years left to make it worthwhile to begin to study ( CProv).

6.3.2 Arguments in Favour of a Qualification Higher than Level 9

A common argument was that the early years and childcare workforce should be brought into line with teachers and other related professionals in terms of qualifications, and therefore, there was a strong case for increasing the level of qualification to level 10. One consultee remarked:

" We believe that working with young children is an important profession and that this should be reflected in equality of status with other professions" ( TP)

Many consultees agreed that whilst level 9 might suffice at present, in the longer-term this should be increased in order to gain parity with other professionals, and to accommodate those with ability who wished to gain an honours or masters degree. One view was that level 11 should be set for those leading in the sector such as childcare partnership managers ( TP).

A recurring theme was that whatever level was agreed, the situation should be reviewed within a set number of years.

6.3.3 Arguments against Setting the Qualifications Level any Higher

A small number of respondents spelled out why they considered it not appropriate to set a qualifications level higher than level 9. One view was that this would create problems associated with funding the training and rewarding the achievement of the qualification ( LA). Another comment was that any higher levels would simply put people off ( LA). Finally, a call was made for sensitivity and practicality in setting the level of qualification - with level 9 considered high enough ( CP).

6.3.4 Potential Content of Level 9

Participants in the workshops provided views on what they saw as important components of the level 9 qualification. Overall, a balance was envisaged between a prescription of core elements which were common to all areas of work with children, along with bespoke and flexible aspects which met the particular interests and gaps in knowledge of the practitioner. A recurring comment was that emphasis should be placed on leadership skills in level 9. Other suggested components of level 9 included:

Interestingly, many of these items overlap with those identified by individual childcare workers as training gaps between the training they initially undertook and the work they now carry out in the workplace (see Section 6.6, Table 11 below).

6.4 VIEWS OF CHILDCARE WORKERS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR SCQF LEVEL 9 QUALIFICATION FOR MANAGERS AND LEAD PRACTITIONERS

As described in the introductory chapters above, separate sets of consultation questions were directed at childminders and at childcare workers respectively. One of the questions posed for childcare workers is directly relevant to a discussion on the proposal to introduce a SCQF Level 9 qualification for managers and lead practitioners, therefore the responses to that question are analysed here.

The consultation for childcare workers stated:

Research indicates that children do better in early primary school when the early years and childcare service they attend is led by a manager or lead practitioner who is qualified to degree level, for example a teacher (although this person doesn't necessarily have to be a teacher).

The Review proposes that managers and lead practitioners should be qualified to SCQF Level 9 (equivalent to an ordinary degree). This might be a new qualification which provides a mix of theory and practical experience and which would build on existing qualifications, e.g. HNCs or SVQs. The Review anticipated that any changes would take place over a number of years.

The consultation for childcare workers asked:

IS AN SCQF LEVEL 9 (ORDINARY DEGREE EQUIVALENT) QUALIFICATION FOR MANAGERS AND LEAD PRACTITIONERS HIGH ENOUGH? YES? NO?

Most (98%) of the two hundred and one childcare workers who responded to the consultation addressed this question. Their responses are summarised in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Summary of Responses of Childcare Workers on Whether SCQF Level 9 is High Enough for Managers and Lead Practitioners

( NB Please treat these figures with caution - see below)

NB Percentages may not add to 100% exactly due to rounding

Taken at face value, these results would appear to support those of the respondents to the main consultation in that a clear majority of consultees indicated that SCQF level 9 is high enough for managers and lead practitioners. However, on closer inspection, many of the comments which accompanied the workforce responses demonstrated that those who provided a "yes" response comprised a mix of respondents who agreed with introducing a level 9 requirement, and those who considered this to be too high. For the latter, the question did not provide any tick box for this option, thus contributing to the confusion. In addition, those responding with "no" included consultees who thought level 9 was too high and those who considered it to be too low.

It is suggested therefore that the quantitative findings from this question should be treated with much caution. However, the commentary which accompanied the responses provides more informative feedback on respondents' views.

6.4.1 Benefits Associated with SCQF Level 9 for Managers and Lead Practitioners

Although it was difficult to quantify the degree of support in favour of the introduction of a level 9 requirement for managers and lead practitioners, it was clear that many members of the childcare workforce welcomed this proposal for a number of reasons. These are summarised below:

• Makes the profession comparable with other professions
• Will promote the status of the profession
• Ensures that children are being cared for by qualified people
• In keeping with the demands of the job
• Best to have as wide a knowledge of child development as possible
• Ensures knowledge base kept up-to-date
• Helps to build on people's existing skills

One comment was particularly pertinent:

" The early years' workforce is a vital component of child development and I believe this new qualification will raise the bar"

Another consultee remarked:

" I feel that it is just the same as putting your children into a school with unqualified teachers….. level of knowledge and practical skills are paramount in childcare settings"

A view to emerge from the workshops fitted with these sentiments. It was argued that personal choice in whether or not to take such qualifications has no place in a regulated profession and gaining work-based qualifications should be relatively straightforward for those with experience.

A few respondents suggested that the level of qualification should be at honours rather than ordinary degree level in order to give the pre-school sector the status they thought it deserves and also to equip managers and lead practitioners with the expertise required. One supporter of making level 9 a minimum qualification argued:

" Managers need to be experts in child development, able to share their knowledge and experience with parents, staff and peers"

Many consultees qualified their response with conditions. Most common amongst these was that the requirement for an academic qualification should be balanced with the need for experience amongst managers and lead practitioners. One comment summed up the views of many:

" Nursery life would be a shambles if the manager was only appointed if they have a degree. You need experience or training in this field to get a real feel of the job, not a degree!"

Others cautioned that care should be taken to ensure that the level 9 qualification was robust enough not to be looked down upon as a second rate degree. Support was expressed by some on the condition that achievement of the higher qualification could be rewarded financially. Another view was that existing qualifications must be taken into account in working towards the new award.

A few consultees warned that the level of qualification required should not exceed level 9 as the funding was not likely to be forthcoming to remunerate those qualified, and also that this would be out of step with primary school heads, many of whom were not educated to honours degree level.

6.4.2 Arguments Against Introducing SCQF Level 9 for Managers and Lead Practitioners

Two main arguments dominated the responses:

• Experience should count for more than paper qualifications
• The proposal will impact disproportionately on smaller settings and voluntary/private establishments particularly in terms of higher salaries to be paid, possibly leading to an exodus of staff from these settings or the closure of some of these establishments

Examples of arguments relating to the first of these were:

The views of many participants who attended the workshops supported those above. Some participants felt that the proposals placed too much emphasis on paper qualifications at the expense of valuing experience. One participant described how people were feeling unnerved that despite their experience, a new person might displace them in their job because they were more qualified on paper. One participant posed the question of who should be trusted with children most - a person with years of experience, or someone new to the profession but with all the relevant certificates? Another argued that qualifications did not necessarily make a person do their job better.

In relation to the second argument, many individual workers considered that level 9 appeared too high a level for settings such as playgroups, crèches, small nurseries and out of school care establishments. One consultee argued:

" It is totally unfair and unrealistic to expect playgroup leaders, out of school club co- ordinators etc to undertake this level of qualification. These posts are part-time and poorly paid"

Another consultee summed up the views of many:

" As the manager of the organisation I think that financially we would not be able to train our staff, logistically we would never get anyone through it, and if we did, who once qualified to SCQF level 9 is going to stay in a role paying what we do for 16-25 hours per week?"

The possible exodus of qualified staff from the voluntary and private sectors and indeed, from the profession, was raised repeatedly as a concern by childcare workers. Others expressed concern that what they saw as the moving qualification goal posts may change again:

"…concerned that the continual moving of goal posts will both deter people from entering the profession and positively discourage people like myself from staying within it"

"…concerned that the extra qualifications we have taken will not be enough. The goalposts are constantly changing and new improved qualifications are brought out"

" I completed my SVQ4 as initially requested for managers just to find that you have moved the goal posts again and that 30 years experience plus a level 8 is not now good enough"

Participants at the workshops also raised as a possibility the potential movement of staff out of the profession. It was suggested that level 9 could be used as a " stepping stone" out of the profession and into more financially rewarding employment such as teaching. In particular, the absence of financial reward and promotion prospects on gaining level 9 were seen as de-motivating to workers who, on qualifying, would take their skills elsewhere.

It was clear that some consultees interpreted the proposal as perhaps criticising the current quality of management in childcare establishments. A few posed the (rhetorical) question: was the Scottish Executive suggesting that nursery settings are not being managed properly at present?

A few respondents argued that educating children was not within the remit of the childcare workforce, making the need for higher qualifications unnecessary:

"We are not educating but providing a safe and fun environment for the children"

Other respondents queried who will pay for training people to level 9, for providing staff cover whilst people trained, and for the increased salaries which they considered would be required to reward the achievement of the qualification.

6.5 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ( CPD)

Both the main consultation and the consultation for individual childcare workers contained questions aimed at seeking views on aspects of CPD as part of the workforce's portfolio of qualifications, training and development. An analysis of responses is below, commencing with those to the main consultation.

The main consultation stated:

Our model envisages that a worker with the potential to do so should be able to progress through a career structure that encourages increasing responsibility, and that process would be supported with qualifications. It builds on the principle established with SSSC registration, that continuous professional development ( CPD) is a fundamental part of working in the sector - a sector which will continue to evolve to meet the needs of children and families in the future. So, a support worker should be able to increase their skills and knowledge through CPD and build on their existing qualifications to allow them to take on increasing responsibility and progress to being a practitioner, or beyond.

6.5.1 The main consultation asked:

Q10: MANY WORKERS WILL DEVELOP THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE THROUGH CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT FEATURES OF A CPD FRAMEWORK FOR THE EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE WORKFORCE?

In total, 90% of respondents to the main consultation addressed this question. Their responses were categorised into a number of broad features which are summarised in Table 9 in order from most frequently to least frequently mentioned.

Table 9: Suggested Features of a CPD Framework

* As in all consultations, a degree of judgement is sometimes required by the researcher in allocating responses to selected categories. Therefore, these quantitative findings should be taken as indicative rather than absolute.

Amongst those who recommended that CPD be underpinned by adequate funding, a few consultees stressed what they saw as the importance of the Workforce Development Fund. Another argued:

" A single training budget which can be used to deliver training to all staff in all sectors….would make the biggest impact here" ( CP)

Of the minority of respondents who proffered views on the content of a future CPD programme, most stipulated a mix of theory and practical elements. Others recommended the opportunity to reflect on practice. Finally, some consultees suggested that there could be value in learning from other relevant frameworks such as that developed by McCrone for teachers.

6.5.2 The consultation aimed at members of the childcare workforce stated:

Whilst working in early years and childcare it is important to reflect on your practice and to continue to learn and develop your skills.

The childcare workforce consultation asked:

DOES YOUR EMPLOYER SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ( CPD)?

The importance of employer support as an element of an effective CPD framework had been highlighted by several respondents to the main consultation (see section 6.5.1 above). The consultation aimed at members of the workforce focused on this issue and asked for examples of where employer support had been provided, and if this had not been forthcoming in the past, what might help in the future.

Overall, 96% of respondents to the childcare workforce consultation questions addressed this question, with the vast majority (95%) reporting that their employer supported their CPD. Of the remaining ten consultees, five considered that their employer both helped and did not help them in their CPD, whilst five stated that they did not receive any help from their employers regarding their CPD.

The examples of employer support provided by respondents fell into five groups:

• General support
• Practical support
• Advice and guidance
• Empowering and facilitating
• Direct provision of CPD

Many respondents described how their employer provided general support by showing an interest in their development, offering broad encouragement to pursue a programme of CPD and encouraging dissemination and feedback from courses amongst staff. Others outlined the nature of more practical support given by their employer such as allowing time off for attendance at courses, permitting time at home to study, and providing funding for training, books, videos etc. (with some establishments having dedicated training budgets).

Some consultees valued the advice and guidance provided by their employer regarding their CPD. Some employers were pro-active in identifying suitable CPD opportunities and communicating these to staff. Many respondents described a programme of regular meetings with staff in their establishment at which their employer discussed staff training needs, appraised their progress and helped them to identify appropriate avenues for their CPD. (The importance of individualised CPD programmes and ensuring CPD is focused and meaningful were indeed identified as key elements of a CPD framework by respondents to the main consultation.)

Other members of the childcare workforce welcomed the way their employer facilitated their progress and empowered them to take responsibility for their own CPD. Some reported having libraries and up-to-date resource materials within their workplace establishment. Others described how their employer had equipped the workplace with IT systems and permitted access to the internet to enable them to undertake research and learning on-line and also to keep electronic records of their CPD portfolio. Some employers were reported as allowing staff a wide choice over which courses and learning opportunities they wished to pursue.

Finally, some employers were clearly offering in-house training, some bringing in trainers to carry this out. There were several reports of regular, sometimes weekly, after-hours staff training sessions.

Twenty-four respondents (including many who considered that their employer supported their CPD) identified factors which might provide them with more support. Responses were dominated by recommendations for increased funding for training and for supply staff to cover in the absence of staff away at training. Calls were also made for study time away from work to be paid; for more e-learning opportunities to make learning more cost effective; and for committee and board members to be made more aware of the need for CPD and the support they could provide to staff.

6.6 TRAINING GAPS

The childcare workforce consultation provided more evidence to help steer future formal and informal training and learning by asking consultees about perceived training gaps.

The childcare workforce consultation stated:

Over the years the roles and responsibilities of the early years and childcare worker have steadily evolved and continue to change. The Review found that many of the tasks and jobs carried out across the sector are similar, even though there are currently a huge range of different job titles. As our understanding of the needs of children and young people expands, the workforce who cares for those children need to become more adaptable, flexible and skilled in order to deliver the best service possible.

The childcare workforce consultation asked:

IN YOUR ROLE AS AN EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE WORKER, ARE THERE ANY TRAINING GAPS BETWEEN WHAT YOU WERE INITIALLY TRAINED TO DO AND THE WORK YOU NOW CARRY OUT IN THE WORKPLACE? YES/NO? WHAT ARE THOSE GAPS?

Overall, 91% of those who responded to the childcare workforce consultation questions addressed this question. Their responses are summarised in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Summary of Views on Whether Training Gaps Exist

NB Percentages may not add to 100% exactly due to rounding

Respondents were relatively evenly split between those who could identify training gaps between their initial training and the work they now carried out and those who did not perceive there to be any significant gaps in their training. However, many of the comments provided suggest that several respondents who stated that no gaps existed had done so on account of their having addressed these gaps themselves with further targeted training over the years. Also, each respondent's length of time in service was not recorded on their submission so it is not known, for example, whether respondents reporting no gaps tend to be those who have recently trained.

Some consultees considered that it was inevitable that gaps in training would emerge as new practices emerge, legislation changes and more is expected of the workforce. One view was:

"There will always be gaps because learning is never static"

Others remarked that emerging gaps can always be filled with training. One comment was:

" The training which we received initially differs greatly from the reality of the present job…however, the gaps have been filled by authority courses and courses in-service staff have chosen to do to develop their professionalism"

According to a one consultee it was up to the individual worker to keep their training up-to-date, with another arguing that initial training should be seen as simply a base from which to launch a lifelong learning process. Another view was that emerging gaps could often be filled with hands on experience rather than training.

Many respondents identified specific gaps in their training. These have been quantified to provide a rough guide to prevalence amongst the responses. The results are provided in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Gaps Identified in Initial Training

* As in all consultations, a degree of judgement is sometimes required by the researcher in allocating responses to selected categories. Therefore, these quantitative findings should be taken as indicative rather than absolute.

It can be seen that a wide range of gaps in initial training were identified by respondents, with five key areas (at the top of the table) raised repeatedly by consultees. Other remarked that gaps such as dealing with multi-cultural issues and IT skills, may gain in prominence as ethnicity profiles change and technology develops.

6.7 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• Almost all of those who provided a view on the proposed single qualifications framework expressed some degree of support.
• Of particular attraction to consultees was the notion of core units with additional, more specialist modules, to plug gaps and add to knowledge. Also welcomed was the recognition of prior learning and the flexibility which the proposals offered to those pursuing qualifications.
• The majority of childminders (62%) who responded to the childminders' consultation questions considered it very important or important to have qualifications that are on par with the rest of the early years and childcare workforce.
• Of the sizeable minority (38%) of childminders who did not consider parity of qualifications important, a common argument was that experience counts for more than qualifications.
• Seventy-two per cent of childminders who provided a view stated that they would undertake training and learning if it was recognised within a single qualifications and professional development framework across the whole early years and childcare sector.
• By far the most common factor identified as preventing respondents from undertaking training and learning was not having the time needed to pursue this, with 71% of those who responded raising this as an issue.
• A recurring comment from childminders and workshop participants was that flexible patterns of delivering training and learning (e.g. evening or weekend courses) would help childminders start or continue their learning and development. Another common view was that financial help with attendance at courses would be beneficial.
• Of those respondents to the main consultation who provided a clear view, most (60%) considered that services should be led by SCQF level 9, although sizeable minorities thought that this was too high a level (22%) or not high enough (18%).
• The most common argument against introducing level 9 was that pay would not be able to rise in accordance with the increased qualifications gained.
• A common view was that the introduction of level 9 may be more of a challenge for the voluntary and private sector workforce in that facilitating training, and financially rewarding qualifications, could create difficulties.
• Another recurring view was that the workforce should be brought in line with teachers and other related professionals, with a strong case for increasing the qualification to level 10.
• There were mixed views amongst individual childcare workers on the proposal to raise the qualification level. Whilst many supported the proposal in order to increase the professionalism and status of the workforce, others considered that experience should count for more than paper qualifications and that the proposal would impact disproportionately on smaller settings and voluntary/private establishments, possibly leading to an exodus of staff from these.
• The feature most commonly identified as important to a CPD framework was a varied delivery of formats to accommodate a range of learning styles.
• The vast majority (95%) of individual childcare workers who provided a view stated that their employer supported them in their CPD, usually by providing general support, advice and guidance.
• Individual childcare workers were relatively evenly split between those who did not perceive there to be any significant gaps in their training (53%), and those who could identify training gaps between their initial training and the work they now carried out (46%).
• The gaps in training most commonly identified were:
• • dealing with parents; report writing/assessments/observations;
  • managerial skills;
  • administration; and
  • dealing with children with special needs.