Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2006, Blaðsíða 102

102
more of a childcare and development agenda and the rigours and demands of
delivering high quality learning ex­periences supported by well qualified
educationalists (which we know are crucial to the outcomes for children agenda)
in these new services are being squeezed out quietly by omission. The only place
where the need for focused learning is highlighted in recent documentation is
with regard to literacy and numeracy through the downward move of the literacy
and numeracy strategies. We would find it hard to support this, especially with
the kind of staffing that is being envisaged. This appears to us to be profoundly
out of step with the essence of the Foundation Stage curriculum guidance.
• We find hard to justify defining a new role for local authorities as managers of
the childcare ‘market’ and actively discouraging them from providing childcare
themselves, even though historically some of the most radical and enterprising
provision has been developed by local authorities. The new Childcare act of
2006 hardly establishes a level playing field and, while we acknowledge the valu-
able contribution of all sectors, it could be viewed as a policy that favours the
private and voluntary sector over the maintained sector within the ‘market’.
• Recent guidance on the development of Children’s Centres for the 70% ‘more
advantaged’ wards appears to diminish and dilute the vision of high quality
Children’s Centres, which have high quality learning ex­periences for children
at their heart. In previous initiatives like Early Ex­cellence, the centres were
chosen on the basis of their high quality educational input for children, which
the evidence shows, resulted in significantly enhanced outcomes for children.
For us, Children’s Centres should be viewed as far more ambitious than the
mere ex­tension of Sure Start Local Programmes, but rather something that takes
from the best quality early education contex­ts (especially nursery schools and
classes, and Early Ex­cellence Centres) and embeds this with the best practice
of Sure Start programmes. We wonder why we are so reluctant to include and
promote education as a central element in the developing service in a debate
where the focus increasingly seems to be on establishing ‘childcare’, when clearly
an integrated service embodies the best of both. Even the title of the current
‘Childcare’ act indicates a continued perceived separation of these aspects of
children’s services.
• We fear that the Government will back off any commitment to the notion of
‘graduate-ness’ as the recommended standard for the majority of early years
professionals, despite the research evidence showing the benefits of this on
outcomes for children. There is an urgent need for further investment in train-
ing and qualification opportunities, and more radical work on the reshaping of
professional training for teachers, health workers and social workers to take on
multi-agency and multi-professional teamwork demands. While we agree that
the current professional models we have within the early years workforce need
reviewing and probably reshaping, we worry about the negativity within this
debate around teachers and the concept of teacher involvement in early years
services. We are also very wary about introducing the concept of pedagogue as
an appropriate or desirable way forward in creating a ‘new’ workforce.
V ið­Horf