The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 7: QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT: VIEWS FROM THE WORKSHOPS

As described in Chapter One, five workshops took place between 6 November and 4 December 2006. Participants at the workshops included early years and childcare managers, training providers, individual workers and local authority representatives. Four of the workshops took place in Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee. The remaining workshop was conducted via video-link to enable participants in remote island areas to participate more readily. In total, the workshops attracted two hundred and ten participants.

The workshops aimed to contribute to a body of expert knowledge on some of the issues emerging from the national Review of the early years and childcare workforce. They focused on the practical and day-to-day realities that workers face when trying to access qualifications. The two key questions posed for discussion at the workshops relate to issues of qualifications, training and development. The questions posed and the discussion which followed are reported below.

7.1 Q1: THE REVIEW IS SAYING WE NEED AN SCQF LEVEL 9 QUALIFICATION THAT IS DELIVERED FLEXIBLY. COMING FROM THE VIEW THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO BRING THE LEARNING TO THE LEARNER, WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD MAKE A LEVEL 9 QUALIFICATION THIS FLEXIBLE?

7.1.1 General Comments

The notion of flexible delivery was discussed, with many participants welcoming this approach and in particular the concept of bringing learning to the learner. One group considered that flexibility in this context meant placing the needs of learners and employers uppermost, rather than focusing on the needs of the training providers.

Others remarked that flexibility should allow for individual requirements to be addressed in terms of appropriate, tailored training. For example, one comment was that if someone needed to take a career break whilst training, this should be accommodated and not be considered to be a hindrance. Likewise, if someone was returning from a break, it was suggested that they may find it difficult at first to get to grips with the fast pace of change, and their training should be flexible enough to help them adapt.

A general theme to emerge from several workshops was that flexibility should entail catering for many different learning styles and a mix of various delivery modes. One group suggested it would be productive to provide a mix of on-line learning, with a centre providing further support, and mentoring going on in the workplace. Participants considered that much could be learned from the experience of local authorities in relation to flexible learning and also the practical and formal delivery of qualifications used in teaching, social work and nursing. It was suggested that childcare partnerships could provide a brokering role in facilitating arrangements for the delivery of the new award.

One overarching concern to emerge from most workshops was that practitioners in rural areas should not be disadvantaged by restricted delivery opportunities. The challenges resulting from relatively small numbers of providers and practitioners in remote areas were acknowledged, but participants emphasised that these needed to be addressed by innovative and flexible approaches to delivery involving combining remote learning with pooling resources (eg rural playgroups sharing a peripatetic manager at level 9).

A further common theme was that the timing of learning opportunities is very important. One comment was that delivery of the qualification should impact as little as possible on the daily lives of the learner. It was considered that there should be flexibility around training times. This meant offering both daytime and evening learning possibilities to meet the needs of workers with family and other commitments. A plea was made for more study time offered in term time. Despite the acknowledgement of the time input required to gain level 9, participants at one workshop argued that practitioners and employers should not push for achieving the award as quickly as possible as this would take the "joy out of learning".

7.1.2 Where Should Level 9 be Delivered?

In the Workplace

Views were sought on the delivery of the level 9 qualification in the workplace. In particular, participants were asked to consider how employers could manage time within the workplace in order to release their workers to train.

Whilst workplace routes to delivery of level 9 were broadly welcomed as bringing learning to the learner, some participants recommended a combination of workplace and other approaches such as home-based learning. One view was that level 9 delivery should be college-based rather than located in the workplace, although an argument against this was that colleges tended to be in the mould of the classroom rather than the workplace.

Many advantages to workplace delivery emerged from the workshops. This approach was viewed a practical option which combined study with day-to-day work in a convenient way. It was considered to have cost benefits, particularly within the private sector, with staff cover costs being minimised. A further benefit identified of training in-situ was that of consistent staff presence which made for more settled children.

Participants considered that studying on-site had the benefit of immediate access to relevant policy documents and plans, and fitted with the idea of mentoring and shadowing within the workplace.

One view was that some practitioners had concerns about attending colleges and would much prefer to study in a familiar setting with a training provider known to them.

Many of the workshop participants identified drawbacks to delivery within the workplace. The most common theme was that candidates had little control over the quality and the breadth of their learning experience within their particular workplace. Participants raised the question of how to ensure that work-based learning is grounded in good practice. One suggestion was that peripatetic teaching staff could make presentations to a variety of workplaces. Another was that a hub for learners (eg a "good practice centre") could provide a back-up for learners to visit and draw on good practice examples from a range of workplaces.

A recurring idea was for employees to receive short placements to other workplaces and be encouraged to learn from other organisations and management arrangements. However, one view was that this constituted "swapping staff" and was unlikely to meet with many employers' agreement. It was pointed out that people working to level 9 were largely employees and not students.

Other disadvantages to workplace delivery were identified. Some participants considered that training at work would create difficulties for the smooth running of the workplace with daily routines becoming fragmented. Others suggested that some employers would not buy in to workplace learning whilst others might not have any suitable mentors. It was considered that workplaces would need to become up-to-date with information technology to enable their employees to gain maximum benefit from workplace training.

Centre-Based Learning

Participants were asked for their views on centre-based learning as one form of remote/distance learning.

Many participants welcomed this form of delivery particularly if used in conjunction with other types such as workplace learning. It was suggested that day release could be used successfully, combined perhaps with a summer school.

Many people commented that in their view practitioners liked to come together to train. Some valued the peer support this provided and the opportunity for networking, whilst others enjoyed the classroom style offered by various colleges. It was argued that this style was time-efficient as a lot of information could be provided within a short time frame. Another comment was that learners' motivation and self-discipline could be boosted by attending a centre for learning.

The most common disadvantages associated with centre-based learning were the practical and cost implications of additional staff cover for staff in training. It was suggested that these could be so significant as to deny some potential trainees the opportunities to gain further qualifications. Both private establishments and voluntary sector organisations were cited as sometimes unprepared to allow staff to train on account of having limited funds to bring in people to cover their absences.

Ways to address staff cover were suggested. These included over-staffing with a "floating" member of staff always available to cover for others; using recently retired nursery nurses as cover; setting up "banks" of qualified relief staff; and deploying the managers of workplaces as hands-on workers when staff are attending training. However, some concern was expressed that inconsistent staffing could unsettle some children. Another worry was that although one day out of the workplace per week may seem reasonable for people working towards their level 9 qualification, stretching staff cover for them in the workplace may fall foul of the Care Commission's regulations on senior staff cover. It was also acknowledged, that any cover for staff in training would have cost implications for the employers.

Another key theme was that candidates were at the mercy of the quality of the courses offered by their college and that this could be inconsistent. There was some feeling that colleges were not as flexible in delivery as they could be and that they should be more responsive to the needs of students. For example, they could offer single units rather than whole packages of learning. However, various participants commended the flexible delivery of certain colleges with a comment made that colleges appeared to be more flexible in designing course structures than universities.

The time needed to travel to centres for training was raised as potentially problematic, particularly in remote areas. Many agreed that centre-based learning might prove to be too impractical in some locations where there may be only two to three candidates at any time. In these circumstances it was suggested that clusters of learning, bringing together learners across a wider geographical area to training delivered in community centres or schools might be helpful, although again it was acknowledged that travel time and costs would be a disadvantage for some.

One further drawback to centre-based learning was seen as the possible reluctance of some older people to train with much younger candidates.

Distance Learning

There was much support for e-learning as part of a package of flexible delivery of level 9. It was viewed as a tool to support learners rather than a solution for the problems associated with other modes of delivery.

E-learning was seen as having many advantages for practitioners. In particular it was perceived as being very learner-centred, with the candidate having control over the pace and time of learning. One comment was that it could complement a candidate's work patterns and address any potential travel problems. Others viewed e-learning as cost-effective, with successful precedents already set up by various universities.

The main drawback envisaged was possible isolation of individual learners which many participants predicted could have a negative impact on candidates' progress. Learning alone in front of a screen was seen as potentially de-motivating and too remote for some. However, there were many suggestions that individual e-learning could be successfully counter-balanced by scheduled face-to-face meetings with a tutor or other candidates, along with the opportunity for video-conferencing as appropriate. (Although it was remarked that a previous video-link to a college from remote islands e.g. Unst, had not proved to be successful.)

Other disadvantages were foreseen. A common theme was that IT might prove to be daunting for some (particularly older) candidates, with "technofear" possibly contributing to a loss of staff should delivery be by this mode. It was pointed out that IT sometimes does not work and that some people may not have access to computers. The funding needed for up-to-date IT systems was identified as a limiting factor in the development of this option.

It was considered that e-learning removed the sense of being part of a "learning community" and possibly made the task of learning seem more of a challenge by doing so. The notion of on-line forums was discussed at a few workshops as a way to address this. However, there was some feeling that people may be reluctant to become part of these, and that to be successful these needed constant monitoring and use with lecturers allocated to specific forums.

The issue of quality of learning material was raised in relation to e-learning with the view that standardisation of material would be required to ensure all candidates were accessing a similar quality of provision.

Finally, one view was that e-learning was inappropriate in the context of work involving hands-on practical experience with children.

7.1.3 Who Delivers a Level 9 Qualification?

Workshop participants were asked who could support a level 9 delivery, what they considered to be the employer's role and what the roles of HEI and FE should be.

In relation to the roles of HEI and FE, participants stated that in general these bodies needed to work together to provide a flexible course which suited the needs of the workforce. It was suggested that a closer dialogue between these learning institutions and employers might be productive in realising this aim. The involvement of childcare partnerships in facilitating closer working was also advocated.

Participants emphasised that a consistently high standard of presenter was required in order to prevent variations in quality across different locations. It was argued that colleges should not be allowed to design their own courses, but instead a national course should to be developed for all to follow.

The view of some participants was that FEs were more flexible in their approach to delivery than HEIs. One comment was that FEs tended to be more local and more accessible to the workforce than were HEIs. However, a common concern was that both FEs and HEIs might have people delivering training who have had little, if any experience of working with children aged under three years.

Participants identified many roles for employers in aiding the delivery of the level 9 qualification.

It was acknowledged that employees were more likely to take the level 9 qualification if they had the support of their employer. However, to support their employees through their training, it was emphasised that employers had to recognise the commitment and time demands associated with achieving level 9. In addition, employers needed to value the training and encourage their staff to work towards it (particularly in the case of older workers), providing a learning culture within their organisation.

Participants considered that, given the training requirements of level 9, there will need to be a shared commitment to achievement and a shared ownership of the training process between employer and employee. It was suggested that managers should have the continued learning of their staff as an integral part of their remit, with time for this factored into their daily job appropriately.

Other practical suggestions emerged from the workshops. A role was seen for employers in facilitating staff time off work to train, by providing relief staff and/or paying employees for their study time away from their workplace. One suggestion was that a set time should be allocated each week for private study although it was acknowledged that this would present a challenge in terms of funding staff to cover for this study time.

Other suggestions were that employers could assist with any fees associated with level 9; provide a financial incentive to staff for finishing the training; and instigate a formal mentoring scheme with regular reviews. One idea was for establishments to set up a library of relevant texts for staff to share.

7.2 Q2: FROM THE PRESENTATIONS THIS MORNING WE HEARD HOW WORKERS ALREADY IN THE SECTOR AND HOLDING A LEVEL 8 AWARD NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK INCREMENTALLY TO LEVEL 9. HOW DO WE ENSURE THERE ARE CLEAR PATHWAYS BETWEEN EXISTING QUALIFICATIONS AND A NEW SCQF LEVEL 9 QUALIFICATION?

7.2.1 General Comments

Many participants agreed on the need to provide a clear picture to employees on how they can move towards the level 9 qualification. There was a plea for an early indication of possible routes, entry and exit points, and a clarification of the value of awards currently held. A need to rationalise what was perceived to be the confusing array of existing qualifications was called for, one comment being that this confusion made it difficult for employers to compare the merits of different candidates. Participants wished to see a simpler framework of qualifications with clearer pathways which could be readily understood by employers, employees and voluntary management committees. Members of one workshop stressed, however, that simplicity of route structure should be balanced by robustness of the qualifications system.

A recurring theme was that members of voluntary management committees sometimes find it hard to understand issues of career pathways and qualification routes. It was suggested that they may need help with this as their support would be needed in helping employees progress to level 9. It was considered that this may present a challenge as committees tended to change on an annual basis.

The idea of a toolkit designed to help set out the new pathways was welcomed. A role was seen for a website dedicated to enabling people to evaluate their learning to date and establish where they are on-route to further qualifications. For example, people gaining level 4 need to know how they can progress to level 9. It was recognised that under the proposals there would be many different routes to the same outcome and what was seen as this "mix and match" approach was welcomed. However, participants raised the question of whether all routes to achieving awards would hold the same kudos for employers. For example, would work-based routes be seen as on par with more traditional degree routes?

The notion of a modular approach to achieving level 9 was seen as helpful. Participants envisaged "bolting on" additional modules to existing qualifications, and "filling gaps" in learning in a learner-centred approach. One group described this as a "lego-build" system which ensured relevance to the job whilst ensuring the flexibility to adapt to any change required. One suggestion was that an audit should be conducted of existing early years courses in order to identify key gaps such as management and leadership, and ensure that "top ups" are available to address these.

7.2.2 Credit Transfer

Views were sought on what we need to do to make sure there is sufficient credit transfer from existing awards into the new award, eg from VQs into a level 9 award.

There was much agreement that a robust credit transfer system should be established to enable the transfer from existing awards to the new award. To be credible, participants stressed the need for a consistent approach to credit transfer with award bodies involved in agreeing credit ratings, supported, perhaps by an advisory group. The need to benchmark any credit transfers was raised.

Some participants argued that credit transfer systems could be very complicated and cumbersome, and consideration should be given to simply starting from scratch on the qualification route. Questions were raised about how the process of accreditation would operate. Would qualifications gained many years ago be recognised? What would happen about qualifications awarded in other countries? (It was pointed out that a role has recently been established at SSSC to look at this issue and develop a framework.) Would relevant qualifications gained in other sectors be accepted?

Much discussion focused on the relevance and quality of previously gained qualifications and experience and how decisions on transferring credit would be decided. Some participants questioned the quality of some SVQs. Others argued that the previous Professional Development Award should be taken into account. Concerns were expressed that staff working within local authority settings and attending in-house training will not get credits for this. Likewise, others considered that subject-specific courses that are not accredited at present should be reviewed to ensure no one loses out if their learning is relevant to the job.

One recurring comment was that a qualification on paper should not be enough to gain credit transfer. There should also be a requirement for proof of knowledge gained from the qualification - perhaps in the form of a statement of use of the knowledge in practice.

7.2.3 Recognition of Prior Learning ( RPL)

Participants were asked to consider:

• How can we be sure that prior learning has taken place in or out of the workplace?
• Are there mechanisms already in place to assess this and are they widely used?
• How do we ensure they are robust and credible?

Whilst there was much support for the recognition of prior learning within the qualifications framework, there was less agreement on how such a system could operate. It was acknowledged that RPL was not well used at present and that workers had not been in the habit of recording previous training and relevant experience. However, taking RPL into account was considered to be good practice which had worked elsewhere (Edinburgh University and the Open University were examples given), it was seen as being cost effective and helped to avoid repetition of learning over time. One comment was that RPL was particularly welcome for workers in out-of-school settings.

Although supporting RPL, participants foresaw difficulties in operating the system in practice. It was argued that RPL was difficult to prove and evidence, with written work not always reflecting a good practical worker. Participants considered that previous qualifications were easier to recognise than previous experience. Again, the mechanisms for recognising learning gained overseas, or a long time ago were raised. One view was that competence has to be about the present, and not what people learned 10 years ago.

Many workshop participants agreed that for RPL to be credible, the system needed to be consistent, simple, clear, open and readily understandable with guidance given on what type of learning will be recognised.

Suggestions were made on how to promote a robust RPL system. It was considered that certificates of attendance were not sufficient proof of learning. Instead, candidates should complete an assignment following an event or perhaps undertake a reflective account of the experience in order to demonstrate learning. The idea of a toolkit for self-assessment was supported by some workshops, with others suggesting that workers should be encouraged to start recording learning in a systematic fashion to enable it to be taken into account at a later date.

7.2.4 Work-Based Learning

Views were sought on how work-based learning would be assessed and recorded.

Discussion focused largely on how to assess work-based learning. It was generally agreed that assessment should be undertaken largely by external assessors working to high standards. There was a feeling that a robust system of work-based learning assessment was currently lacking and that any new system should be consistent across Scotland and demand high quality of work. One comment was that standards should not be compromised simply to get sufficient people through their level 9 award. Some participants were concerned that differences in standards of training given in different establishments in different parts of the country could lead to problems with overall quality assurance.

One key barrier raised across workshops was that of ensuring that employers were able to access assessors. Some participants described previous problems with this relating to geographical location of the workplace and capacity of assessors. One group queried how assessors would be funded in future. Some ideas to address these apparent shortfalls in assessor capacity were provided. For example, the notion of a rotation of assessors shared between different establishments was suggested. It was considered that the installation of assessors working in a peripatetic manner (particularly in remote areas) would help to promote consistency and standardisation in an area.

The competence of assessors was another main topic for discussion amongst workshop participants. Many people questioned the competence of assessors and stressed that in order to be credible, assessors may need to upgrade their skills to ensure that they are able to assess work-based learning associated with level 9. It was considered that some training providers do not have assessors at the required skill level and that not all assessors are in touch with what practitioners are doing. One view was that some work-based assessors can be pressurised by certain employers to approve the learning of staff members.

There were various suggestions of mechanisms which might help work-based learning assessment. The idea of developing staff portfolios was supported. Some participants considered that written evidence of learning was important although a few others questioned the importance which should be placed on this. Other suggestions were assessment involving peer review, mentoring or review by an "expert practitioner". It was considered that an in-house assessor could run a weekly meeting in which learning could be discussed. Annual professional reviews were also raised as an option, and assessment using an apprenticeship model was mooted.

In terms of recording work-place learning, it was stressed that employees and employers need to take more ownership and maintain accurate records of formal and informal learning. It was suggested that records should be kept electronically for easy access with supporting evidence provided by, for example, digital photographs.

7.2.5 Portfolios

Participants were asked either:

Does this mean an important component of a new award is a robust portfolio based on what workers are currently doing and what they aspire to do in their workplace? What can you do to support this?

or:

During their careers workers will be doing different things, different ways at different times. How do we capture this?

The idea of employees developing portfolios of learning and experience was widely supported. Various commentators described this proposal as essential, and providing important, valuable evidence of learning. One view was that the construction of portfolios would go some way to addressing negative staff attitudes towards having to attain level 9. Another participant argued that portfolios made people think more about what they were learning, and how they were applying their knowledge. It was acknowledged, however, that a culture change would be required to promote a consistent approach to maintaining portfolios across the sector.

There were some concerns that the construction of portfolios may be a bit of a "hit or miss" affair, with some candidates finding it difficult to demonstrate evidence of learning and requiring extra time to work on their portfolio. Calls were made for national consistency in the way portfolios are to be compiled with a need to avoid requirements for huge volumes of evidence.

Participants requested that guidance on the content of portfolios is given, with training providers and SSSC involved in advising on what should be within scope.

It was considered that a system of portfolios could be supported by various means. These included the use of technology for the compilation of "electronic portfolios", with managers providing support on the development of these. The establishment of clear, consistent guidance on what to include in portfolios was also seen as important in supporting their use, along with professional mentoring.

7.3 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• A general theme to emerge from the workshops was that flexibility of delivery of level 9 should entail catering for many different learning styles and a mix of various delivery modes.
• Participants were concerned that practitioners in rural areas should not be disadvantaged by restricted delivery opportunities.
• A common theme was that the timing of learning opportunities is very important and there should be flexibility around training times.
• Workplace delivery of level 9 was viewed as a practical option which combined study with day-to-day work in a convenient way. It was seen as cost-effective and had the added benefit of ensuring a continued staff presence in the establishment.
• Centre-based learning was welcomed if combined with other types such as workplace learning. The value of peer support which this offered was welcomed although practical and cost disadvantages were raised.
• There was much support for e-learning as part of a package of flexible delivery of level 9, with this form of learning seen as very learner-centred. However, it was also envisaged as potentially isolating, daunting and de-motivating for some.
• Participants considered that HEI and FE bodies needed to work together, possibly with the help of childcare partnerships, to provide a flexible course which suited the needs of the workforce.
• Participants identified many roles for employers in aiding the delivery of the level 9 qualification. In particular, they were seen as needing to support their employees through training with a shared ownership of the training process.
• Many participants agreed on the need to provide a clear picture to employers on how they can move towards the level 9 qualification.
• There was much agreement that a robust credit transfer system should be established to enable the transfer from existing awards to the new award.
• Whilst there was much support for the recognition of prior learning within the qualifications framework, there was less agreement on how such a system could operate.
• Many workshop participants agreed that for recognition of prior learning to be credible the system needed to be consistent, simple, clear, open and readily understandable with guidance given on what type of learning will be recognised.
• It was generally agreed that assessment of work-based learning should be undertaken largely by external assessors working to high standards. However, participants felt that a robust system of work-based learning assessment was currently lacking.
• Employers' previous difficulties in accessing assessors were commonly raised. Another recurring theme was to question the competence of assessors, with many recommending that assessors refresh their skills in order to be able to assess learning associated with level 9.
• The idea of employees developing portfolios of learning and experience was widely supported.

« Previous | Contents | Next »