A Man in Child Care

In these times of reduce, reuse, recycle, I wonder what scope there is for harnessing all the keyboard strokes, discussion and polemic currently issuing from an affronted Early Years sector in response to the many and varied government proposals for change?

The patronising, dictatorial and paternalistic tone of the government pronouncements; the ill judged comparisons with continental Europe; the apparent proposed shift towards structured “teaching”; the disregard of expert opinion and research, coupled with a perceived lack of dialogue, have lead to angst amongst the disgruntled workforce, parents and interested parties, with battle lines being drawn, entrenchment and  passionate rhetoric.

The arguments on both sides have been tabled and publicised with extensive commentary in the media. It has generated significant sustained activity on social media, including  e-petitions, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin and numerous blogs (including this one). I don’t propose to go over them again here.

What I am advocating, as has been recently proposed by June O’Sullivan, Jennie Johnson and others, is that rather than defend ourselves against the attacks on the quality of and outcomes from child care and development services in this country,  we already have the evidence of all the excellent practice in the UK and the many thousands of committed colleagues who  provide effective care to successive generations of our children.

Our destiny is in our own hands. It is time to ‘accentuate the positives’ as the song goes and play the politicians and journalists at their own game. We in Early Years, are by nature I believe,  an optimistic, upbeat and confident bunch, as so we should be. We understand the responsibility, importance and privilege of our roles and the potentially tragic consequences of failing our children – where would the country be if we all went on strike?

It is important to have a balanced discussion that acknowledges the issues and challenges and is honest enough to identify the shortcomings of the current system. After all, I am sure that what everyone wants is the best for all our children. The debate is – just what is the best for them and how to achieve it?

There is validity to the principles that underlie the current proposals – no one would argue against cheaper childcare; higher wages and improved status for staff; high quality care, interactions and child development and practitioners who have a deep understanding of child development theory and practice, and appropriately resourced environments. We need to challenge and address poor practice in our country not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What appears to be being presented are the extremes of total anarchy versus a completely structured and adult directed regime.There is clearly a place for adult directed activities and there are times when children can be cared for in larger groups and when structured activities are appropriate. Children do benefit from boundaries and a degree of “school readiness” eg socialisation, independence skills and the ability to follow instructions (could we call this life readiness?). But the model choices should not be everyone sat at desks in large structured groups or alternatively all charging round the place aimlessly. To my mind, neither are good practice.

Our challenge is to clearly show what good practice is and to present the evidence for it in the current system

This is not a time to be faint hearted or defeatist.

Let’s come out fighting!

I came across my last appraisal from IBM, from 10 years ago, which I formatted as a poem. Having received the highest performance rating for 4 years on the trot, I came up against the quota system and an idiot for a manager (in my humble opinion!). I left and went into childcare, the rest is history! (IBM’s loss was Paint Pot’s gain – again, in my humble opinion!)

A lack of hard-edged leadership

and assertiveness,

out of the box thinking

and active driving forward,

coupled with a failure to identify

and articulate a clear high level

vision for how this could work –

all of which means, I’m afraid,

that I have rated you

one of the lowest performers.

I understand that you are clearly

disappointed by this rating.

There are no concerns whatsoever

over your trustworthiness

nor your technical ability.

I do hope given time that you will feel able to reflect

constructively on this feedback

as it does provide you with an opportunity

to learn and grow.

What I find so dispiriting about our country’s form of democracy is the realisation that policy is being formulated and implemented on the whim of individual politicians. Thus, we are currently living through the enactment of Michael Gove’s vision for education in the UK.

Similarly, we were headed down the LibDem branch of the coalition’s concept of early years care and education under Sarah Teather, a goal that seemed to be going in a direction based on consultation and the views of practitioners.

Governments have commissioned worthwhile reviews into practice. These have been led by respected individuals. They have involved research, consultation and evaluation. In the main, their  recommendations have been well received -

The EYFS review under Claire Tickell resulted in what is generally accepted as a more focused curriculum, with its emphasis on the key development areas; Cathy Nutbrown’s report emphasised the importance of qualified and knowledgeable staff in the Early Years sector; both the Allen report on early intervention and the Field report on poverty have highlighted the need for high quality care in the early years.

And now we have Liz Truss’s policy making on the hoof, where under the guise of the Childcare Commission, all of this expertise, consultation and analysis is being ignored, seemingly based on her own personal feelings about the high cost of childcare.

I have yet to hear a childcare practitioner who supports increasing the ratios. No provider, commentator or indeed parent has welcomed the proposals. No one that I have heard or read has stated that care quality will not be reduced following the proposed increased number of children per adult.

Common sense suggests that with only 1 brain, 2 hands, 2 eyes and 2 ears, there is a finite number of interactions 1 adult can have with children, regardless of the individual’s qualification level. He/she can only change 1 nappy at a time; engage in conversation with 1 toddler at a time and sustain shared thinking with 1, possibly 2-3 individuals at any one time.

The qualitative nature of these interactions may vary dependent on the knowledge and skill level of the practitioner but the quantity of interactions is dependent on the physical limitations of the ability of 1 human being to communicate with others.

So when did we give Elizabeth Truss a mandate to change the ratios unilaterally?

When did we, as a nation, take this decision for the good of our children?

When were we offered a debate on the options available to us and a chance to vote for our preference?

Did I miss something?