Abstract
Since 2006, UK policy has identified a professionalisation agenda for staff working in early childhood education and care settings. This has included the development of graduate leaders with a specific purpose to lead improvements in these settings by leading change, and hence improving outcomes for children. This article reports on findings from one research project, carried out in the East of England. The impact of professional development on the graduate leaders is explored through a mixed methods study from the practitioners’ perspective. Findings are described under the theme of the value of formal professional development opportunities, including improved awareness of role, improved confidence and empowerment within role. The article closes with a consideration of the current status of graduate leaders within the early childhood education and care workforce, and the challenges faced in the changing policy landscape for the professionalisation of this workforce.
Introduction
In 2006, Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) was introduced in the UK as a means of leading change in early childhood settings and improving outcomes for children (CWDC, 2006, now replaced by the Teaching Agency). Although not a qualification in its own right (CWDC, 2006), EYPS was awarded to graduates after a period of specific preparation in leading and managing change in early childhood settings and satisfactory assessment against 39 standards, thus producing graduate leaders. This paper reports findings from a study of these graduate leaders. The status has recently been replaced by a new one, the Early Years Teacher, with the standards and admission requirements aligned to those of Primary School Teaching.
Several authors (Adams, 2008; McGillivray, 2008; Osgood, 2009) have written about the professionalisation of the early childhood workforce, examining the impact and the issues raised by graduate leader status. This paper examines the existing literature, before presenting new data from a funded project determining the graduate leaders’ views of their impact at the time the study took place in 2012.
Literature/background
Studies highlight the politics embedded in the graduate leader role, including the policy changes for the early childhood workforce in the UK over recent years. However, studies also emphasise the notion of developing professionalism, comparing the role to that of the teacher and questioning whether the early childhood workforce are involved in informing the nature of the professional role of the early childhood worker.
Discussion of the politicised nature of the early childhood workforce is undertaken by Osgood (2009) in her critical discourse analysis. Developing a graduate workforce within this sector suggests the importance the UK government attach to child development in the first years of life. However, the ‘low pay and poor working conditions’ (Osgood, 2009: 743) despite the increasingly well qualified workforce are highlighted. To date there has been no change to improve pay and conditions despite the new Early Years Teacher qualification. The paper by Osgood (2009) identifies the negative perception that can be construed from highlighting the skill and motivation of a graduate workforce. A negative image of those early childhood workers who are not graduates could occur. The majority of early childhood workers are relatively unqualified in this field, often going into the role initially to meet their own needs in supporting their own children or to integrate their lives (McGillivray, 2008; Wright, 2011), and even recent changes identify Early Years Educator, a level 3 qualification, as the minimum standard for the sector.
In her discussion of the debate between imposing professionalism and generating professionalism from within the workforce, Miller (2008) describes on the one hand the imposed standards and regulations coming from government and policy initiatives, and on the other hand the development of professionally autonomous individuals who can lead change in their own profession. The impact on the workforce of the large number of policy initiatives is discussed by McGillivray (2008). Using work by Tucker (1999), McGillivray identifies the complexity of the professionalisation of the early childhood workforce and the importance of members of that workforce having a voice in the professionalisation agenda if it is to be successful. However, many of the recommendations from the sector were not included in the change in policy in the recent move to Early Years Teacher status (Nutbrown, 2012).
Status for early childhood workers, or rather lack of it, was the emphasis of a paper by Hargreaves and Hopper (2006). Extracting data from a national study funded by the DfES (Department for Education and Skills), comparisons were made between primary and secondary school teachers’ sense of status and the sense of status of 146 early childhood workers who described themselves as early years teachers. Results indicate that early years teachers considered they had a low status in the general public’s eye, even when they personally took pride in and were highly capable in their work. However, the early years teachers also believed that they were held in high regard by those people with whom they regularly came into contact, for example parents.
Professionalism was investigated by Adams (2008) through her study of 35 students and recent graduates of an undergraduate degree in Early Childhood Studies in Scotland. Some of the analysis clearly shows the emerging professionalism of the participants, their skills and knowledge and their ability to be reflective and use evidence in making judgements. However, the study also indicated the lack of understanding of the role of the graduate leader outside the early childhood sector, and further identified that this is not helped by the language used in naming these professionals. That is, the term ‘Early Years Professional’ (EYP) did not carry with it any concept that can be immediately understood by the public.
The UK national study by Hadfield et al. (2011, 2012) discusses some of the ways in which EYPS affected the individual practitioner, improving confidence in their role, giving a greater sense of professionalism, and giving greater credibility with colleagues. This study also identifies the extent to which EYPs undertake continuing professional development (CPD) and lead on this for staff in their settings, although the study has not fully reported on the effectiveness of this CPD.
It is clear from the literature presented that there are concerns about the professionalisation of the early childhood workforce. Despite the energy and ability of the graduate leaders, the role of these graduate leaders in the early childhood setting was still largely unknown and lacking in status when the EYPS was replaced by the Early Years Teacher.
Methods
This paper includes data from part of a three year study to determine the impact of EYPS on outcomes for children in one UK county. The study was partly funded by the Essex County Council, which invests considerably in their early childhood workforce through the provision of CPD at many levels.
The study included: surveys of EYPs and those they work with; focus group analysis; analysis of individual interviews; and analysis of documents (Davis and Capes, 2013). The initial survey results and focus group results are included here. Questionnaires were sent to the early childhood workforce in one UK county. Fifty two responses were obtained detailing views about the role of the EYP and perceived difficulties with the role. The sample included 35 EYPs and 17 staff who worked with the EYPs. To obtain richer data, focus groups of EYPs explored the role of the EYP and its challenges in more depth. Ethical approval for the study was obtained prior to data collection. The focus groups were digitally recorded and the record transcribed verbatim for manual thematic analysis.
Findings and discussion
Responses from the questionnaire showed that the early childhood workforce strongly believed that the graduate leader role was important to children and to their parents. All responses received on this topic were positive. While this is not surprising, it is nevertheless reassuring to consider that the workforce appeared to value this leadership role. Some of the specific outcomes related to children resulting from the EYP role are reported elsewhere (Davis and Barry, 2012).
Asked to identify any difficulties with the role of the EYP, responses were mixed. Where the EYP was a manager, there were no reported difficulties. In those cases where the EYP was not a manager in the setting, some challenges were reported in achieving changes which had been identified as necessary by the EYP. Those who were not EYPs themselves were particularly emphatic that the EYP would find making changes difficult unless they were also the manager in the work setting.
Rich data was obtained from the focus groups, elaborating on the themes identified in the questionnaires and raising other issues, and these findings are described thematically below.
The value of EYPS
All participants spoke very positively about the value of the EYPS. Analysis identified three main categories related to the theme of ‘value’.
Awareness
There was increased awareness of what they, as individual practitioners, were doing. Participants reported more ‘joined up’ thinking in their practice. They described becoming more aware of the impact of both their actions and their omissions. Part of this increased awareness was because they were better able to reflect on their activities and their workplace settings. This sense of being able to reflect on and in practice was part of the training for EYPs (Whalley et al., 2008), but has not been widely reported in the studies about the value of EYPS. There seems to be relatively limited work on understanding how EYPs make use of reflection to effect change in early childhood settings.
Confidence
Participants identified the increased confidence they had as a result of obtaining EYPS, and the confirmation they received that the professional practice being undertaken was making a positive contribution to children: ‘On the pathway for the EYP I…it boosts your confidence…I came away thinking I yeah, do do it right!’
The confidence extended to obtaining training and resources or changing practice. Examples of the EYP recognising the need to change practice and having the confidence to follow this through were given: ‘…and you have the confidence to argue for it in your setting as well…’.
The confidence also extended to advice given to parents: ‘…making parents think about what they do…giving them good ideas to try at home…’.
This increase in confidence concurs with the findings of Hadfield et al. (2012) that 80% of EYPs considered that gaining EYPS had increased their confidence. Results in the current study give examples of how this confidence is demonstrated through confirmation of existing good practice, putting changes in place in the workplace, and communicating with parents.
Empowerment
A third category within the overall theme of valuing the graduate leader role was the empowerment that came from others recognising the level of knowledge and skills within the EYP: ‘…and you went on an EYP course and actually people were interested in your knowledge and thought you had skills and knowledge that were important’.
The personal credibility that EYPS gave to the role enabled further development. One participant stated that ‘…it started a positive spiral…’.
This then had impact on positively influencing other members of the workforce. The increase in credibility with colleagues is supported by Hadfield et al. (2012), but the examples from the current study add a stronger dimension to that credibility, showing not just a change in the behaviour of the workforce towards the EYP, but also the stronger sense of authority and autonomy from within the EYP. The EYP participants in this study identified that they had moved from knowing what they could do to improve the work setting, to taking autonomous decisions and making these changes instead of just deliberating about possibilities.
Knowledge and EYPS
Overall the participants considered that they personally valued their role as an EYP and believed EYPS influenced their practice. However, participants reported that becoming an EYP had not given them new knowledge per se, but had provided them with reflective skills to reinforce and use that knowledge. This may be due to the seniority and experience of the participants in this study prior to undertaking EYPS. There appeared to be an enabling element to the EYPS, where the skills gained through EYPS enabled existing knowledge to be more effectively used. This may of course be fully bound into the increased confidence the graduate leader status gave and may link to the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge widely reported in the literature about adult learning (Eraut, 2004). Perhaps early childhood workers have tacit knowledge, which they are unable to formally expound, but only develop explicit knowledge as a result of the confidence or empowerment of the EYPS. Explicit knowledge enables the individual to explain their knowledge to others and to provide a rationale for actions based on this knowledge.
Our participants reported gaining new knowledge after becoming graduate leaders through participation in the CPD programme within the county: ‘since then [EYPS] through CPD I have just learned so much’. ‘…I have learned about movement play, about outside play…’.
This new practical knowledge, through CPD, was highly valued by participants. Furthermore, confidence in role is identified as growing even more as the EYP takes up CPD opportunities. This sense of the graduate leader being the starting point for further development has not yet been explored in the literature. The positive value placed by the graduate leaders on CPD came across very strongly. The work by Hadfield et al. (2012) reports a 98% involvement of EYPs with CPD, with 46% of the EYPs stating that the CPD was always relevant to their work. Further exploration of the content or value of the CPD has not yet been reported in relation to the development of professionalism after graduate leader status has been achieved.
The lack of understanding of EYPS
Responses showed that the role of the EYP was not understood by teachers or parents: ‘[speaking of parents]…they won’t even know what it means…’, but the participants also discussed the difficulty of explaining the role: ‘How would you? [explain to parents what EYPS is]…it isn’t anything, it’s a status, it can be anything and everything…’.
The confusion that existed where the person with the higher professional status (EYPS) was not the manager added to the difficulty in understanding and explaining the role: ‘…the EYP might be more qualified than the manager and the manager’s really uncomfortable with that’.
This was not saying that the EYP could not do the job of leading, but that their role in leading change did not carry with it the managerial authority which would have made it easier for them to do this. Hadfield et al. (2012) found that 55% of the participants in their samples were owners, managers or deputy managers, leaving 45% in roles which would require some negotiation with management to effect change.
Responses included comparisons of EYPS to the word ‘teacher’. All participants stated that ‘teacher’ had meaning with the public, whereas ‘EYPS is not out there’. The change in title from ‘professional’ to ‘teacher’ since 2013 is expected to positively impact on understanding of the role both within and outside the sector.
Status of EYPs
There was a strong sense that the EYPs did not in fact have ‘status’ beyond their setting. Schools, employers and government bodies did not seem to give the role recognition: ‘…they [my employers] are not even aware of what an EYP does…’; ‘…schools in particular, I don’t think they [recognise EYPS]…’; ‘…even in my inspection recently, Ofsted were not interested [in EYPS]…’. The low status afforded to the early childhood workforce in general, as well as to the EYPS, was identified.
In addition, the difficulty in measuring some of the competencies of the workforce was identified: ‘…[the] pastoral or nurturing side…is not assessed’.
The value of the contribution made by unqualified early childhood staff was recognised, as was the acknowledgement that many do not want to obtain graduate leader status: ‘…academically they may not be great, but they are fantastic with the children…’; ‘…excellent practitioners, who just don’t want to spend time studying…’.
These findings link closely to the work of Osgood (2009) in her discussion of the lack of the means to measure the nurturing and caring aspects of the early years’ practitioner. If we do not have the means to measure such things effectively, they appear to have less value. Perhaps it is this lack of real understanding of how to distinguish those with strong nurturing and caring abilities, fundamental attributes of the practitioners, which perpetuates the sense of low status. This low status afforded to the early childhood workforce reinforces the findings of Hargreaves and Hopper (2006).
To contrast with this, the participants volunteered the positive status they considered that the local authority gave to the role.
Conclusion – implications for leadership and management
Graduate leader status, in this case EYPS, has had a positive impact on professionalising the early childhood workforce. Despite being largely imposed by policy, professionalisation within the workforce is strong through the initial preparation of the graduate leader and subsequent CPD. With the change to Early Years Teacher, the drive to empower early childhood leaders must continue by acknowledging and building on the strength of EYPS. The findings from this study demonstrate that, for these participants, the EYPS provided them with confidence, credibility and a greater awareness of their role, starting a positive spiral of leadership within settings. The confidence is the boosting force which triggers action for change, giving authority to use existing knowledge. The value of reflection in and on practice by these graduate leaders, to enhance their effectiveness in role, is clearly demonstrated. The very strong views expressed on the positive value of CPD in improving knowledge after gaining graduate leader status are previously unreported, suggesting a need for a CPD framework for the leader beyond graduate status.
With the range of studies which demonstrate the value of graduate leaders in early childhood settings, there have been very positive steps forward in the professionalisation of the workforce. There is now a need to ensure that we continue to include the aspects of EYPS valued by these leaders in the new Early Years Teacher role, to continue to drive forward improved opportunities for children through effective leadership.
Footnotes
Funding
This study was partly funded by Essex County Council.