Workforce Strategy – Case Study 1

(Full Day Nursery)

Does your setting/provision actively support practitioners career progression?

Yes, our expectation that people will progress in their careers is made clear from when we employ them, it is noted in the employee handbook and in our policies/procedures.

We now do a significantly increased amount of in-house training as little is available elsewhere. This includes training for the whole staff team together every other month as well as other training for specific staff members on topics identified via our self-assessment and through staff observation, supervision and appraisal. Recent in house training has included using open ended questions, creativity and displays, ECAT moderation, Forest School Level 2 and 3, various safeguarding sessions. External training includes having a member of staff trained as an Early Language Lead Practitioner (ELKLAN), first aid, outdoor first aid, ‘WriteDance’ and Makaton.

We also access/support our staff to access higher level training e.g. EYP/T, foundation degrees, degrees, masters. We offer time out of the setting to do this and mentors in the setting to support them/proofread work. For example, last year two of our staff achieved a foundation degree and two of our staff are just completing their EYT (in addition to the numerous EYP/Ts we already have (approx. six already plus these two). We also provide a library of relevant books for staff to borrow.

Is there a clear career path in your setting that enables keen and able staff to progress?

I wouldn’t say there is a clear path- it depends on the individual staff member, what they want to do, and what we identify as development areas through our coaching and mentoring systems.

Do you have some good practice examples to share on supporting staff to progress?

We’ve found that the EYT which 2 staff have just undertaken has developed their skills considerably, although it has been a huge time commitment and quite awkward to cover their lengthy placements elsewhere. We’ve used the money to purchase tablets to make video observations of these 2 staff; which we have now also started doing for other staff in addition to written observations. They have been assisting with parent workshops as part of their EYT.

The member of staff trained as an ELLP (via Forest Way) has really developed significantly as a result, she now assists other settings and confidently makes presentations to 30+ staff members here. She is now leading on ECAT assessment and action plans, which has taken some of the load off our SENCO. She has been involved in setting up social communication groups and creating leaflets for parents based around this.

Our Forest School leaders have significantly developed their practice as a result of qualifying. 2 of them(we have about 10) are about to lead a parent workshop based around forest school, something they wouldn’t have felt confident to lead previously.

On the whole, higher level qualifications, although requiring lots of time and money, have contributed a great deal to our setting, as our staff team is a major part of why our setting is how it is.

If not, what do you think the gaps are? E.g. provision of appropriate qualifications at various levels, type of job roles in your setting/the sector

The Level 3 NVQ doesn’t seem to have much substance to it. It’s now much harder for people to access training that isn’t expensive. Some training we’d like seems hard to find /access at a reasonable price e.g. yoga, Makaton. Increasing levels of qualification, while great for the quality of the setting and what we offer children, are a concern in view of the proposed 30 hours funding and the new living wage. Although almost all of our staff were already above the new living wage, as this increases over the next few years it will pose a problem, because the lower qualified and paid staff will have significant increases, which means the higher qualified staff will need to be increased to remain above them. With the current/expected funding level this won’t be sustainable, so there is pressure to have lower qualified/younger staff - hence our focus on staff CPD in recent years will have done us no favours from a sustainability point of view.