Should your child's reception teacher have GCSE maths and English?

[mrz]

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/dfe-drops-gcse-maths-and-english-requirement-early-years-educators

Also, IMO, year round, full day childcare should be a different entity to early years education.

"I am a bit surprised they can't do maintained nursery. But as we have seen on this thread, nursery provision across the country is a mish mash."
The situation nationally is that can be employed as a TA in a nursery but not as a teacher because they don't have QTS. The qualification while being the equivalent of QTS doesn't have the same course content or the same standards. They are also paid considerably less than a QTS which is understandably a point of contention.

Also, IMO, year round, full day childcare should be a different entity to early years education.

but If a 3/4 yo is in full time childcare surely they need to be doing stuff that is expected of a pre-school? Not all the time maybe, but for at least 15 hours a week? It would be a pretty rubbish childcare that didn't ensure a child was being read stories, doing stuff to do with motor skills etc.

This is where the conflict comes in. Childcare could be bunging the child in front of a screen all day (after all that is what some parents do), but presumably no one actually thinks that is a good idea. So childcare should also be about bringing the child on and giving them experiences and helping them develop.
So childcare isn't just about keeping safe and changing nappies, it is also about early years education too.

" It would be a pretty rubbish childcare that didn't ensure a child was being read stories, doing stuff to do with motor skills etc"
Isn't that just normal things that most 3/4 year olds would do even if there wasn't a curriculum?

mrz I don't quite get your point?

Of course that is the stuff that most 3/4 yos would be doing even if there wasn't a curriculum. But surely the point of the curriculum is to ensure that no areas slip between gaps? Parents who don't like mess may well end up with a child who has missed out on craft / painting / sand etc. Some parents may feel that TV is an adequate substitute for books. Inactive parents may miss out on developing their child's gross motor skills. My (adopted) DD missed out on practically all expected early years experiences which has had a knock on effect into emerging adulthood.

If there is going to be childcare, especially if the state is going to subsidise it, surely we want it to provide a full range of experiences?

So then it becomes more than babysitting and more early years education?

(I can't work it out, are you just playing devils advocate here?)

EYFS has been around for a relatively short time in terms of education so whatever did we do before we had a birth to five curriculum?

Before the EYFS was Birth to three and the foundation stage. Before that many fewer children attended any formal setting, their early education was usually delivered by a parent or sometimes extended family. For some children that was a good thing, for some it wasn't.

We had a 3+ curriculum the foundation stage in 2000
And then we had a separate 0-3 curriculum birth to three matters running alongside it, introduced in 2002
Then in 2007 we had the EYFS which is 0-5

I would like to think that teachers teaching in reception had a good understanding of child development and realised the importance of play
Sadly it doesn't always happen
I'm all for EYTs being able to teach in reception

It was a rhetorical question

I think reception teachers should be minimum c grades in english, maths and science.

TeenAndTween, but most of places for 3/4 years olds do all sorts of stuff. Why don't they recruit somebody who is good at art, music sports etc, and also great with encouraging, understanding and developing children physically and emotionally ,rather than having basic skills in maths and English? It's far more enriching for children to have those influence in early years, since everybody learns to read and count from reception age.

Irvine Is it an either/or situation? Surely it should be both? As in look for basic qualifications & knowledge, and then if you have choice the extra stuff too?

No, I would like to have both, Teen. But it seems like English system is only looking for maths and English qualification, rather than both to me.

No Irvine the English system isn't looking for English and Maths. The prime areas in nursery and reception (across EYFS 0-5) are Language and communication, Physical development and Personal, Social and Emotional development not English or Maths. The fact that some EY settings choose to promote academic subjects has nothing to do with the system.

The English system is trying to tiptoe the balance between recruiting enough people to do the job and setting standards parents would accept for their child without paying much for it.

mrz, it's all confusing for me.
One thing I can say is that having qualification doesn't equals good practice/knowledge. My ds' yr3 teacher spoke like a teenager, every sentence going up in the end, and over use of "you know". It did have real effect on his speech. And her spelling was not so great, enough to mention that my ds corrected it in class, jokingly, at parents' eve.(pita pupil). But not get embarrassed by it was my surprise.

OddBoots - I am sure you are right.

English parents are very hung up on adult:child ratios (class sizes). Lower class sizes push up costs very quickly and the only way to control them is by recruiting lower paid (and hence less well qualified and experienced) staff.

Personally, I think the British have got this trade-off wrong and that large classes with a highly qualified staff member are the way forward.