The Early Years Professional (EYP) was an unprecedented imposed professional status and role by Government; it was controversial and not widely welcomed.
The actual pilot for EYPS started in September 2006, quickly followed by roll-out in January 2007, and involved very small numbers. The intention was that there would be an EYP in every setting by 2010, though this was quickly changed to 2015 when it became apparent that there were insufficient people with the prerequisite qualifications. This target was compromised further with the change of government in 2010 and the apparent ‘disappearance’ from the directives about this deadline.
The notion of ‘equivalency’ is key, as the LSE research points out, but ‘equivalency’ does not mean that EYPS and QTS were the same; if they were, why not have one status for those who work with children in the age period 0-8 –if we had done this, maybe some of the issues we face now would not exist.
The use of the term was meant to indicate that EYPS had the same graduate entry requirements. However, the new EYPs attracted none of the professional ‘privileges’ ascribed to the teaching profession, such as graduate pay, pension rights, conditions of service, public recognition and public sector employment.
The situation was further complicated by a lack of clarification about the relationship between the EYP and the Early Years Teacher by Government. What is important to realise is that they are different, with different standards to meet. At that stage the EYP was a ‘leader’ and ‘change agent’, they were a new integrated professional that had to navigate across the multi-professional and multi-agency nature of the wider children’s workforce in order to improve outcomes for all children. Their skills involve them in much more than early learning. Like those that have come afterwards, they had to know about child development, safeguarding, the impact of early trauma, attachment, health and well-being, anti-discriminatory practice, leadership and working with others and families. They have to be skilled at working with children and adults and understanding how to manage a range of transitional periods, as well leading practice.
However, given the rapid developments in the early years at the time EYPS was introduced, it is not surprising that this level of understanding about the role and responsibilities appeared invisible in some areas of the early years, and the changes were almost unnoticed in the wider children’s workforce. In fact we are still fighting to redress this. Moreover, with continual policy changes, it is easy for the historical context and understanding of the professionalisation of the early years workforce to be misunderstood.
Therefore it is important to note that you had to be a graduate to achieve EYPS, and the training reflected this. It was not a three-year programme like the undergraduate degree leading to QTS; it was a post-graduate profession programme leading to a professional status, not a qualification. Furthermore, the early years graduate workforce cannot bear the responsibility for a gap remaining between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers. It is far more complex than that; it is a problem for our policy-makers and society as a whole that requires intervention across the life course.
As the EYFS states: ‘Children learn best when they are healthy, safe and secure, when their individual needs are met, and when they have positive relationships with the adults caring for them.’We know that in 2016 the quality of early years provision improved, according to Ofsted criteria, research and our collective practice wisdom. We also know, as the LSE paper rightly highlights, that measuring quality is challenging and the impact on later attainment is still unclear.
However, what we do know is that the conception to the age of two is extremely significant for later life outcomes, so we need to rethink how we intervene in ‘very’ early years and support our youngest children and families. Without a radical and brave approach for the children born today, we know that the disadvantage gap will be maintained and arguably, in times of uncertainty, higher thresholds for intervention and reduced provision, the situation will only worsen.