This consultation seeks views on proposed changes to the career and qualification pathways for early years teaching.
Our response to this consultation has been developed by members and Fellows of the English Association, led by Dr Megan Dixon and including Kirstie Hewett, Dr Megan Murray-Pepper, Joanne Beer, and Philip McCahill. Our detailed response covers areas relevant to the mission of the EA. You may wish to read our response alongside the consultation document.
The English Association is the national subject association for English literature, language, and creative writing across primary, secondary, further and higher education. Founded in 1906, we bring together individuals and organisations from all sectors and all areas of English studies. Through our publications, events, and networks, we initiate dialogue, distribute and enhance knowledge, and celebrate and strengthen the discipline. We have an engaged membership of over 2,000 education experts, ranging from primary and early years through secondary and further education to higher education; our publications reach tens of thousands of readers in schools, libraries, and universities all over the world.
To what extent do you agree that further developing a common understanding of what works well for teaching young children and babies would improve the quality of early years teaching?
Strongly agree
A stronger shared understanding of evidence-informed early years practice has the potential to improve both the consistency and quality of provision. However, this should not become a prescriptive list of techniques. The greatest benefit would come from articulating the underlying principles of effective pedagogy, enabling practitioners to exercise professional judgement in response to children’s interests, needs and contexts. Research is continually developing and we are learning more and more about how early years learn and develop so a common understanding of the complexities and nuances of child development is important along with a flexible mindset that is willing to listen to research as it emerges. The framework should support a deep understanding of child development, language, relationships, play, inclusion and curriculum design, alongside critical engagement with emerging evidence rather than presenting research as fixed or unquestionable.
Over time, the content would feed into other EY qualifications. To what extent do you agree that having a common understanding of what works well for teaching young children and babies would improve the quality of early years practice for all levels of EY qualifications?
Strongly agree
A shared professional knowledge base would strengthen coherence across qualifications and support clearer progression throughout the workforce. This would help establish common professional language and expectations while recognising that different roles require increasing levels of expertise. It would also strengthen the perception of how important early years are, rather than being an ‘easy option’ in education. Care should be taken to ensure that qualifications build progressively rather than simply repeating the same content at different levels. Opportunities for ongoing professional learning, mentoring and reflection are likely to be as important as initial training in developing expertise. It is important that regular CPD is provided to provide equity and quality of education.
To what extent do you favour or oppose the introduction of an evidence backed core body of early years professional knowledge that, in future, all early years training must follow?
Somewhat favour
We support the development of an evidence-informed professional knowledge framework provided it is viewed as a foundation rather than a curriculum. Like the ITTECF, it should represent a minimum entitlement, allowing providers to develop coherent, research-informed programmes that reflect current evidence and local context.
The framework should promote professional enquiry, critical engagement with research and thoughtful pedagogical decision-making rather than compliance with prescribed practices. Care should be taken that it is not a restrictive structure that does not allow for adaptation from new research and context.
Any framework should recognise the distinctive nature of early years pedagogy and avoid positioning it simply as preparation for school.
Do you think that early years teachers should have the same teaching status as school teachers?
Yes
The current distinction between EYTS and QTS unintentionally reinforces the perception that early years teaching is somehow less professional, despite requiring highly specialised knowledge of child development, learning, assessment and pedagogy. Granting QTS would appropriately recognise this expertise and improve career mobility, recruitment and retention.
To what extent do you favour or oppose early years initial teacher training leading to QTS?
Strongly favour
Providing a route to QTS for those specialising in early years is an important step towards recognising the complexity and importance of the profession. The reform should ensure that early years specialists retain their distinctive expertise while benefiting from greater professional recognition, career flexibility and access to induction and professional development.
To what extent do you favour or oppose early years teachers demonstrating how they meet the early years Teachers’ standards rather than the Teachers’ standards in order to gain QTS?
Somewhat favour
Early years teachers should continue to demonstrate the Early Years Teacher Standards, as these better reflect the specialist knowledge required for teaching babies and young children. However, they should also be able to demonstrate the Teachers Standards. QTS should recognise and accommodate the distinctive pedagogical expertise of early years practitioners.
To what extent do you agree that an early years core content framework should include early years evidence-based practice only?
Strongly disagree
An early years framework should reflect early years evidence and pedagogy, but should not exist in complete isolation from Key Stage 1 or Key Stage 2. Understanding children’s progression beyond Reception supports curriculum continuity and smoother transitions. The framework should therefore include appropriate reference to progression into Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 without allowing later curriculum expectations to dominate early years practice.
To what extent do you agree that an early years core content framework should include early years and key stage one evidence-based practice?
Strongly agree
Children’s development does not stop at the Reception boundary. A framework that acknowledges the progression from early years into Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 is more likely to promote curriculum continuity and reduce unnecessary discontinuities in children’s educational experiences. This should not dilute early years pedagogy but strengthen understanding across phases.
To what extent do you favour or oppose early years teachers having to demonstrate how they meet the Teachers’ standards rather than the Early years teachers’ standards in order to gain QTS?
Somewhat oppose
While a common language within the teaching profession is desirable, the current Teachers’ Standards were not written with early years pedagogy at their heart. They risk underrepresenting areas such as child development, play, observation, relationships, communication and responsive teaching. If this option is pursued, the Teachers’ Standards would require significant revision to ensure that early years expertise is fully represented rather than subsumed within a school-focused model.
To what extent do you favour or oppose more early years teaching content in the ITTECF?
Strongly favour
All teachers would benefit from a stronger understanding of child development and early learning. Increasing early years content within the ITTECF would strengthen transition into Reception and Key Stage 1, improve understanding of early identification of SEND and promote greater appreciation of early years pedagogy throughout the profession. However, this should enhance rather than replace phase-specific content.
Do you think the core body of early years professional knowledge would be more beneficial as:
option 1: a stand alone early years core content framework and a separate EY system
option 2: a part of the ITTECF with a combined teacher development landscape
an alternative option
Rather than choosing between complete separation or complete integration, we would favour a hybrid approach. Early years teachers should gain QTS and share a common professional entitlement alongside other teachers, while retaining a distinct Early Years Core Content Framework and Early Years Teacher Standards. This would provide parity of professional status without losing the specialist knowledge that makes early years teaching unique. The shared elements should promote continuity across phases, while specialist content ensures that early years pedagogy remains central rather than becoming a simplified version of primary education.
Are there any particular equality implications associated with these proposals?
The proposals have the potential to improve equity by raising the status of early years teaching and increasing access to high-quality professional learning. However, care should be taken that reforms do not disadvantage practitioners working in private, voluntary and independent settings through increased costs, reduced access to mentoring or limited release time for professional development. Particular consideration should also be given to rural settings, childminders and practitioners supporting children with SEND, ensuring that any new expectations are matched by appropriate funding and implementation support.
Do you think those who currently hold EYTS/EYPS require further support to effectively teach different key stages in schools?
No
Existing EYTS and EYPS holders already possess specialist expertise in early years pedagogy. Conversion to QTS should recognise this rather than requiring unnecessary retraining. Where practitioners wish to teach beyond the early years phase, additional phase-specific professional learning should be available and completed prior to starting with in other phases, but this should not be assumed necessary for everyone.
What do you think conversion from EYTS/EYPS to QTS should look like?
Conversion should be straightforward, recognising prior professional learning and experience. Existing EYTS and EYPS holders should certainly not be required to repeat initial teacher training. Instead, a recognition process could include a declaration of professional practice alongside a short programme introducing any areas unique to QTS, particularly where practitioners intend to work beyond the early years phase. The process should be proportionate, accessible and nationally consistent.
To what extent do you agree that early years teachers working in PVIs should follow a similar induction programme to those in schools?
Strongly agree
High-quality induction is associated with improved teacher confidence, retention and professional practice regardless of setting. Early years teachers working in PVIs deserve the same structured support as colleagues in schools. Any induction programme should, however, reflect the realities of PVI settings and be appropriately funded to ensure release time for mentors and new teachers.
Which elements of ECTE school induction do you think would be the most beneficial to supporting EY teachers practice in PVIs? Select the 3 most beneficial, with 1 rating highest.
mentor support for ECTs = 1
time out of room for ECTs and mentors = 2
a training programme for new mentors = 3
These three elements are most consistently supported by research on effective professional development. They enable reflection, coaching, observation and sustained professional growth rather than relying on one-off training events.
We invite respondents to share their views and experiences of the specific barriers or constraints that may affect the provision of high-quality induction in PVIs, as well as any considerations that should inform future policy or support.
Experience suggests that the main barriers within the PVI sector are likely to be capacity, funding and time. Many settings operate with small staff teams, making it difficult to provide release time for mentors and new teachers. Any induction programme will need to be appropriately funded, proportionate and flexible to avoid placing additional pressure on settings.
Induction should reflect the distinctive nature of early years pedagogy, including child development, observation, play, communication, relationships, curriculum design and partnership with families. Professional learning should include mentoring, coaching, collaborative reflection and opportunities to observe expert practice.
It is essential to ensure equitable access across different types of provision, including small settings, childminders and rural providers. Induction should be viewed as the beginning of a coherent continuum of professional learning, rather than as a one-off programme.
We invite respondents to share their views and experiences of the specific barriers or constraints that may affect the provision of high-quality mentoring in PVIs, as well as any considerations that should inform future policy or support.
High-quality mentoring requires significant investment if it is to be effective. Effective mentoring is a skilled professional practice with mentors needing training, time to observe practice, opportunities for professional dialogue and coaching, and access to evidence-informed resources. Mentoring should support the development of professional judgement rather than compliance with prescribed approaches. Experience suggests that the greatest barriers within the PVI sector are limited staffing capacity, insufficient protected time, financial constraints and the absence of experienced mentors who have themselves received high-quality mentor training. Without these conditions, mentoring risks becoming informal advice or operational support rather than sustained professional learning. A coherent mentoring programme should form part of a broader continuum of professional learning that extends beyond induction and supports practitioners to develop expertise throughout their careers.
We welcome views on the value and the challenges of mandating cross-setting training and how it might best be implemented to strengthen practice and collaboration across the early years system.
The nature of the Early Years sector makes this proposal challenging, yet essential. EYTs must develop a deep understanding of the different types of provision available across the sector and how high- quality practice can be established in each. Without this inequality is likely to develop with standards varying across settings. It may result in difficulties in placing and supporting children with SEND effectively.
