Early Childhood Studies - Essay Example

Early Childhood Studies Early Childhood Studies Introduction According to Simpson p. 269), of late, there have been unparalleled development in early years education, as well as care services, in a number of European nations. Until the past 10 years, in the United Kingdom, early years’ service did not have any kind of government financial aid or policy direction. However, during the 90’s, politically, the early years increasingly turned into a more famous policy issue leading to prominent publications such as Every Child Matters (2003) (Simpson 2010, p. 269). In Europe, professionalisation of early years’ labour forces has become a main priority plus there has been a surge of this policy across borders. Early Years Professional Status is significant to these enhancements in England (Simpson 2010, p. 269). In what is considered as a conventionally ‘split’ early years workforce, EYPS wanted to provide a path for those from a childcare setting to advance their position to teaching experts. According to Lloyd & Hallet (2010, p. 75), the strategies and policies used to professionalise the early childhood labour force in England have great consequences on training, employment conditions and pay, the precise body of knowledge, as well as the professional character of the early years experts, who are the mark of these enhancements. This paper will criticise the two articles provided and present a critical reflection on issues around professionalism in Early Years and evaluate why these are crucial for Early Years Practitioners. In essence, it will evaluate the changes currently taking place in Early Childhood and the implications these have on own work in Early Years and in a professional context. Review of the Two Articles The concepts of professionalisation and professionalism have become ever-present and are utilised in many workplaces and occupations (Simpson 2010, p. 270). Definitions of the terms, however, are still being contested. Nevertheless, there is some agreement concerning how the two names are different. Professionalism is about the orientations and dispositions of individual professionals and professional groups to their work and status (Simpson 2010, p. 270). Professionalisation, on the other hand, refers to the changes, which takes place before members of a job becomes professionals and take a level of control over the practical aspects of their occupation (Simpson 2010, p. 270). In the early years, professionalisation is not typified by the ‘licensed autonomy’ of careers such as law and medicine, but instead is in a form explained as ‘mediative’ (Simpson 2010, p. 270). In the early years, the process is a proper example of the fresh kind of professionalisation being supported by regimes. It stressed increased state participation, accountability plus performance targets over an earlier type of professionalisation that was distinguished by collegial relations and autonomy (Simpson 2010, p. 271). Using this type of professionalisation from the early years, governments are trying to enhance the position of people working in the sector. It anticipates taking down the hierarchical character of the early childhood labour forces – ‘functioning with pre-school students must have as much condition as a job as educating children in schools’ (Simpson 2010, p. 271). However, fears on the government’s participation and its likelihood for decreasing ‘space’ for expert autonomy have been brought up (Simpson 2010, p. 271). Traditionally, United Kingdom’s early childhood learning, as well as care system, has had divides between childcare for the children of working parents, early childhood learning, and childcare offered as an element of child welfare services (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 76). Until the changes initiated by the British Labour administration, after 1997, these issues were not just echoed in administrative responsibilities at the local and central government level, and supported by different laws, but also in the early childhood labour force itself. In addition, early education services and childhood care were divided between services for children aged below three and for those aged from three to five (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 76). Early childhood educators who had degree qualifications were responsible for the delivery of early childhood teaching in state-supported and, at times, in private for-profit, as well as not-for-profit kindergartens and lessons for children aged between three to five, whereas a range of mainly unqualified (without a university degree) early childhood teachers were either working in childcare institutions in state-supported, community and private day kindergartens or as childminders offering family-based to only younger children childcare (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 77). Since the early 60s, parent-led recreational playgroups, filled mainly by parent volunteers, had created another characteristic element of the British early childhood service scheme. In spite of the variety of early childhood provision and diversity in the early childhood labour force, up to the late 90s children and parents were not granted a real option of provision, as prevalence and distribution were locally decided (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 77), with early childhood provision conventionally echoing social stratification and more widespread in Labour local authorities. Early years’ labour force policy together with its status, in the United Kingdom, for a long period echoed public perceptions towards the duty of early years’ teachers (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 77). Having been publicly constructed as being mainly about ‘caring’ and ‘minding’, in comparison to the duty of early years’ practitioners, this role only slowly came to be considered as skilled and accountable, particularly after the passing of the 1989 Children Act (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 77). Even though, collaborations among the different types of teachers in and across various early childhood settings are known as multiprofessional exchanges, a gap in professionalism debatably still exists with regards to the early years teachers in such multiprofessional partnerships (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 77). Finally, their position did not meet criteria like certification by a professional institution, graduate status, as well as formal pay structures. The entire situation circulating the early childhood care together with education system, as well as the people working in it, faced significant change after the Labour government took charge after nearly two decades of Conservative rule. The government’s National Childcare Strategy tackled inequalities of access, even though Lloyd & Hallet (2010, p. 77) demonstrate the failure of such regulations to eradicate the social stratification of early education and childcare. The approach ushered in real administrative amendments at local and central government level, and also supported much greater coordination between the three strings of early childhood provision. Issues Around Own Professionalism in Early Years The issues surrounding professionalism in early years are many. For example it is difficult to create an early years Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) training programme with QTS as the only graduate requirement for those labouring in educational institutions with children from three to six years (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 79). This might make it difficult to guarantee equality across all age groups. Also, due to requiring the QTS as the graduate need, it is difficult for educators to develop proper standards, which will fully incorporate appropriate education and care for toddlers, babies and other young children (Simpson 2010, p. 275). Children growth across the full age range comprising of attachment theories are also undermined. Another issue is the statutory requirements for qualifications, which are connected to the EYFS Framework. An affiliate of staff with Early Years QTS is forced to lead practice in alls settings whether big or small, even though childminders and small settings normally have shared management (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 79). Also, not every mechanisms made are transparent as the rule stipulates. Qualifications such as NVQ, EYPS, as well as early years teachers have to be readily met with the principle of new early years educator (Simpson 2010, p. 275). Another issue is that the local interdisciplinary communities that have been developed have not been doing their jobs effectively as needed. They were meant to work with colleagues across a wide range of setting, such as health and social services, in order to maintain the most prominent practice with regards to health, inclusion, pedagogy, cross cultural perspective and leadership. This will eventually benefit the child. Also, professionalism in early years lacks proper standards for professional development. Practitioners should develop interprofessional working in continuing professional development (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 79). It is difficult for practitioners to make clear the needed content, as well as teaching of pre-early years programs for 16-year-olds in colleges or high schools, as well as the minimum standards to move forward into level three courses in early childhood care and education. The next issue is inequality in income, as well as working conditions between educators in schools plus those in early years’ fields, including PVI – private, voluntary and independent – sectors. This is a key enticement and also problem, which helps in attracting some, but keep others away, from the early years labour forces. The issues concerning leadership in early years practice is that it is not well defined. Both Lloyd & Hallet (2010, p. 79) and Simpson (2010, p. 275) discussed the many studies that have researched leadership as a ‘micro concept’– evaluating leaders themselves or the environments wherein they work, instead of viewing leadership as only a cultural system. Leadership is a significant element of quality in early childhood provision. However, leadership perception of workers in the early childhood field nationally and globally is always reported to be uncertain. Leadership is considered to be multifaceted (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 79). Leadership is also, fairly unfamiliar in early childhood. Another issue is that leadership is considered to be an ‘accidental’ instead of a reasoned idea (Simpson 2010, p. 276). There is no research activity and leadership development in early childhood. Finally, the changeover to a leadership role is challenging and isolating to early years teachers. The Changes Currently Taking Place in Early Childhood and the Implications These Have On Own Work In Early Years and in a Professional Context The changes that are taking place in early childhood are many. Unlike in the past where parents used to believe that they should fully be involved in their children’s growth, today, parents believe in a more fully-day and even full year services for improving their children’s education (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 82). When asked, they say that they want their children to do well. Today, there is a raise in programs planned to offer families with parenting skills, child development information and learning activities, which will assist them get their children prepared for school (Simpson 2010, p. 279). Working with such parents to assist them get prepare children for school and learning is a vital and increasing part of early childhood services. For example, the CCEP Program in Florida is intended to assist workers meet their child care needs of their labour force. Early childhood practitioners now have to respect that they have to educate the whole child—physical, emotional, social, as well as cognitive aspects (Simpson 2010, p. 279). Nevertheless, another feature, the spiritual aspect, has not gotten much attention. A new trend is a bigger emphasis on endorsing children’s spiritual development through character and moral education (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 82). This is also a part left to be played by early childhood practitioners (Simpson 2010, p. 279). Finally, more and more early childhood programs are looking for ways to improve their efficiency by assisting children gain the literacy and cognitive skills they require to do well in school and life (Lloyd & Hallet 2010, p. 83). Early childhood practitioners are being forced to turn to technology as a method of attaining such goals. Conclusion This paper has offered a critical analysis of the two articles provided and presented a critical reflection on issues around professionalism in Early Years and evaluated why these are crucial for Early Years Practitioners (EYPs). In England, professionalisation in the early years (and beyond) concerns a procedure and appearance. These two reveal the day to day experiences and reality of EYPs in a context where efforts to professionalise the early years are coming up without considerable ‘fundamental re-structuring of the labour force.’ Pushed by central government, the brining in of EYPS in theory permits those from a childcare environment during the split early years labour force to enhance their position and status. However, the reason for the different roles suggests that a hierarchical labour force remains plain. There had not been a considerable change in membership, power dynamics and principles of the society of practice to which the Early Years Practitioners belonged. Therefore, these findings cast suspicion on the potential of Early Years Practitioners and those attaining the status to create change in the early years’ labour force. They disclose how previous biases of opportunity and condition across the labour force might be perpetuated – particularly where the people acquiring the status work with qualified teachers. References Hallet, E & Lloyd, E 2010, Professionalising the Early Childhood Workforce in England: Work In Progress or Missed Opportunity? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood vo. 11, no. 1, pp. 75-88. Simpson, D 2010, Becoming Professional? Exploring Early Years Professional Status and Its Implications for Workforce Reform in England, Journal of Early Childhood Research vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 269-281. Read More