Key Findings and the Implication for Policy and Practice

I argue that the findings present a reimagined vision of early years student-practitioners incongruent with the deficit discourse in policy, the media and the literature (DfE, 2013; McDowall Clark and Baylis, 2012; BBC, 2008;Osgood, 2007; Alexander, 2002;).The findings show the young, developing practitioners as motivated, dedicated, knowledgeable and

136 passionate about their contribution to children’s learning and development. The study adds to the body of knowledge about ECEC qualifications and professionalisation of the ECEC workforce (Brock, 2012; Nutbrown, 2012a; Osgood, 2007). The professionalisation agenda is focused on the existing workforce and graduate student-practitioners. In contrast this study explored the preceding stage, before employment and offers insight in to what and how the student-practitioners learn as they progress through their course, using the model of the Three Dimensions of the Developing Practitioner (figure 5.3).

A key finding of this study is that the qualification stands as a proxy for what the student- practitioners know and is a catalyst for their personal and professional development. The findings demonstrate that the transformation from student to practitioner is different for each participant. I introduced the metaphor of alchemy to represent the inexplicable and diverse transformations of the student-practitioners as they engaged with their learning, academic and practical

The findings show that the student-practitioners’ transformations are at different stages at the end of their course; they are a work in progress. This notion of a work in progress challenges the expectation that the newly qualified practitioners are work-ready. It indicates the need for a supported, transition period to prepare students for taking responsibility of being in sole charge of children’s care learning and development. I offer two solutions to this problem. One is to rethink the way the qualification is structured and emulate the Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) model. In this model, student teachers take over the responsibility for a class in increments, progressing to a full timetable at the end of the course. This could ameliorate the shock of taking on responsibility and prepare them for the documentation and paperwork. An alternative approach could be a transition or probation year, in which newly qualified

practitioners work alongside experienced practitioners and gradually take over the

responsibilities. The ideal situation, which is well documented in the literature (Nutbrown, 2013; Eisenstadt, et al,, 2013; Sylva, et al., 2010; 2004) is for a graduate-led practice with Level 3 practitioners in a supporting role which could eliminate the ‘shock’ of the responsibility for Level 3 practitioners.

These findings make a strong case for a fully qualified, minimum Level 3 workforce, as recommended in the Nutbrown Review (2012b). The knowledge, skills and experience the participants develop during their course provide a positive step towards improving the quality of ECEC provision. I believe that the evidence shows that if practitioners are qualified before being employed they are more confident, knowledgeable and capable, therefore contribute more effectively to the quality of the provision, leading to improved outcomes for children. The

137 findings only consider the full time, National Diploma level qualifications, that include 750 hours of assessed placement in a variety of settings and underpinning theoretical knowledge. Therefore a comparison cannot be made between these findings and other types of qualification for example NVQs or other competency based qualifications. This type of robust qualification was recognised as a measure of quality by stakeholders in the Nutbrown Review (2012b) and the findings indicate that there is much to be gained by practitioners engaging with this type of learning experience. This would require a change to the EYFS (DfE, 2014a) regulation, requiring all practitioners counting in the adult to child staff ratio to have a full and relevant Level 3 qualification (NCTL, 2014).

The findings also showed a disconnect between the language of the qualification and the language of professional practice. The newly qualified practitioners conflated supervision with reflective practice. Amelia, Chloe and Sharn recounted meetings with their supervisors when asked about reflecting on their practice. They discussed evaluating activities and rehearsing responses for Ofsted. However throughout the interviews they shared many examples of

reflective practice, for example, Sharn’s thoughtful reflection on the impact of a staff change for the babies in her setting. Another example of the language used by the learning provider and the language used in the setting is that of assessment. Student-practitioners were very familiar with observations yet they did not see observation as an assessment tool. This disconnect has implications for awarding bodies in construction of the qualification and for learning providers to ensure they use a shared language to aid the transition from student to practitioner.

The findings show student-practitioners value the vocational qualification in preparing them for employment. Several respondents had come to the National Diploma course after first doing A- levels. The research indicates that this was due to the low value placed on vocational learning by schools, parents and the general public (Wolf, 2011; Cooke & Lawton, 2008). There is a need to improve the status of vocational courses to be of equal value to academic study. In addition, careers advice needs to reflect the positive aspects of vocational learning for all students, rather than perpetuating the low-value image by referring those with low academic achievements to vocational courses.

An emerging issue for consideration is how the newly qualified practitioners’ agency is constrained by policy. The practitioners in this study appear, as yet, unaware of how their practice is shaped by political ideology and Governmentality (Schwandt, 2000). While they may not consciously challenge, there is evidence of some newly qualified practitioners beginning to, for example Chloe’s awareness of the inappropriate literacy activities and Sharn’s advocacy for her babies. Powell and Goouch (2012) noted, that for the baby room practitioners in their study,

138 ‘the busy-ness of their daily lives leaves very few ‘cracks’ within which political dialogue and challenge can flourish’ (p.123). Participating in professional development provides a vehicle for early years practitioners to engage in critical dialogue and to critically reflect on their practice. When given the space to do so, the quality of practice improves and also the practitioners sense of agency (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). This was particularly evident in Basford’s (2016) study on assessment practices. Through dialogic interaction, the Early Childhood Studies graduates began to question assessment policy and practice. Similarly, Chalke’s (2015) Foundation Degree graduates found the process of engaging in higher education provided that critically reflective thinking space. In Grenier’s (2013) work on developing practitioners’ observation skills, it was the professional dialogue that enhanced the practice. To ensure ECEC practitioners continue their learning journey, finding a space for dialogic interaction, for example through communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) where practitioners have the opportunity to critically reflect on their practice, current research and policy direction is essential. This has implications for employers to fund time away from the children and for policy makers to establish a regulatory body that requires continuing professional development, as in the Nursing profession. Learning providers could engage with their alumni to create a community of practice and practitioners should commit to engaging with continuing professional development.

The placement experience is a vital component of the qualification in the transformation, and preparation of students for employment in the ECEC sector (Nutbrown, 2012b; Urban, Vandenbroeck, Van Laere, Lazzari and Peeters, 2012; Reccia and Minsun, 2010). Through placement they develop their confidence and acquire practical skills, as well as understanding how the workplace functions. They understand the importance of reliability, how to develop relationships with children and colleagues and how to communicate. The findings in this study offer examples of students’ motivation increasing when in a quality environment, for example Lee’s developing confidence in her school placement and Amelia’s recognition of the good example set by the practitioners in her setting. Since starting this study, I have moved from the college to work at a University. I realise now that it is not necessarily the level of qualification a student is engaged with. These basics are learnt through a Level 3 National Diploma and are an excellent foundation on which to build practice. These basics need to be in place whether studying a Level 3 or higher education.

In the next section I reflect on the research process and consider the limitations of the study and make recommendations for further research.

139