Status Without Substance? Early Years QTS, Safeguarding and Developmental Science

, ,

·

Protect & Teach CIC – briefing for parents, governors, designated safeguarding leads, early years practitioners and MPs (England Only)

The DfE consultation Shaping the future of early years teaching closes at 23:59 on 24 September 2026.

Raising early years teachers to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) is welcome; but only if the core knowledge framework is grounded in child development and safeguarding, not one-sided advocacy. School nurseries and Reception already sit within settings where school political-impartiality duties apply; QTS is a route by which more early years specialists may work as qualified teachers within those settings, not the legal trigger of the duties themselves.

What DfE is Proposing

England is deciding how the next generation of early years teachers will be trained, assessed and recognised. The Department for Education (DfE) proposes that early years initial teacher training (EYITT) should lead to QTS, with Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS) phased out.

The consultation document notes that only 47% of private and voluntary settings and 16% of childminders currently have an early years teacher (EYT). DfE aims to more than double funded EYITT places by 2028, has raised provider funding from £7,000 to £9,535 per trainee, and is rolling out an Early Years Teacher Degree Apprenticeship.

The wider reform programme also includes free online early years safeguarding training developed by DfE in collaboration with the NSPCC, now available through the current EYFS guidance. Ministerial material also references making Ofsted the prescribed whistleblowing body for early years, and a digital devices/CCTV safeguarding review.

Deadline: respond online before 24 September 2026, 23:59

Protect & Teach encourages readers to submit a response. Companion model answers are published alongside this briefing.

Shared reforms (both options)

Both options in the consultation would:

  • make new EY teacher training lead to QTS;
  • phase out EYTS for new trainees;
  • create a clearer “core body of professional early years knowledge” intended, over time, to feed into other EY qualifications;
  • consider conversion routes for existing EYTS/EYPS holders;
  • explore induction, mentoring and cross-setting placements (PVI and school-based EY);
  • sit alongside wider ambitions (more funded places, degree apprenticeship, safeguarding package).

Option 1: Specialist Early Years Route

  • Bespoke Early Years Core Content Framework (EYCCF).
  • Assessment against the Early Years Teachers’ Standards.
  • Secondary legislation to recognise the route as leading to QTS.
  • Strongest case for deep 0–5 pedagogy and babies/young-children expertise.
  • DfE’s stated concern is that Option 1 does not solve the lack of early years training for school teachers and preserves a separate system.

Option 2: Fold Early Years into the Schools Framework

  • Add EY content into the existing Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF).
  • Assessment against the Teachers’ Standards, leading directly to QTS.
  • Could strengthen EY understanding among primary trainees and simplify status; DfE notes pressure on curriculum time and a risk that specialist 0–5 depth is diluted.

Protect & Teach’s position: Prefer Option 1, or a carefully designed hybrid that keeps deep 0–5 expertise and requires explicit political-impartiality, safeguarding and external-materials scrutiny in any “core body of knowledge”, mentoring and third-party training.

What The Law Already Requires

Education Act 1996, sections 406 and 407

In maintained schools in England:

  • s.406 requires local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject.
  • s.407 requires them to take reasonably practicable steps so that, where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention, pupils receive a balanced presentation of opposing views.

Most academies have a funding-agreement clause requiring adherence to equivalent provisions. Independent schools are subject to related expectations under the Independent School Standards. These are school duties; they attach to the setting and its governance, not to QTS as a personal status in isolation.

DfE *Political impartiality in schools* guidance (updated March 2025)

The guidance (substantive content from 2022; March 2025 update removed a ministerial foreword) clarifies that:

  • “Partisan” is wider than party politics. A view does not have to be associated with a political party to be partisan. The DfE guidance, drawing on Dimmock, explains the term broadly as meaning one-sided. Political views promoted by campaign groups, lobby organisations, charities or other external bodies can therefore fall within the impartiality framework where they concern a political issue. Charitable status, educational branding or describing material as “awareness raising” does not, by itself, make the underlying position politically neutral.
  • “Balanced” does not mean giving every possible view equal airtime. Schools are expected to take a fair and dispassionate approach when political issues are taught. That means pupils should not be presented with one contested political position as though it were the only legitimate or established view. At the same time, balance does not require teachers to give equal weight to misinformation, demonstrably false claims or every fringe position. What is required will depend on the issue, the context and what is reasonably practicable.
  • Age and developmental understanding matter. The way a political or contested issue is approached must be appropriate to pupils’ age, developmental stage and existing knowledge. This is particularly important with younger children, who may have much less capacity to recognise that a statement represents a particular viewpoint, distinguish fact from opinion or critically evaluate competing claims.
  • Schools remain responsible for external organisations and resources. Bringing in a charity, campaign organisation, speaker or externally produced teaching resource does not transfer the school’s responsibilities to that organisation. Schools should consider the organisation’s purpose, published positions and the content of materials before using them, and should ensure that external resources do not result in partisan political views being promoted to pupils or political issues being presented in an unbalanced way.
  • Teachers’ own beliefs must not exploit pupils’ vulnerability. The Teachers’ Standards require teachers to ensure that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways that exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law. Professional authority matters here: children may reasonably understand what a trusted teacher tells them to be factual or authoritative. That makes a clear distinction between teaching about a contested issue and encouraging pupils to adopt a particular position especially important.

Fact about scope: DfE’s Political impartiality in schools guidance states that it does not apply to standalone early years settings. School-based nursery and Reception provision, however, operates within schools that are subject to statutory or equivalent requirements concerning political impartiality. Those duties arise from the legal framework governing the school; they do not arise simply because an individual practitioner holds QTS.

The distinction matters for this consultation. If early years initial teacher training is to lead to QTS and enable more early years specialists to work as qualified teachers within schools, their professional preparation should include a clear understanding of the political-impartiality framework in which those schools operate.

EYFS and Keeping Children Safe in Education

The EYFS statutory framework (group and school-based) sets learning and development expectations and safeguarding and welfare requirements, including designated safeguarding lead (DSL) arrangements and safeguarding training, rooted in the Childcare Act 2006 framework.

For children aged 0–5 in school-based nurseries and Reception classes, DfE expressly states in KCSIE 2026 that section 3 of the EYFS statutory framework should be read alongside Keeping Children Safe in Education. These safeguarding requirements arise from the applicable statutory and regulatory frameworks, not from an individual’s QTS status.

Protect & Teach’s position is that professional knowledge for adults working with children aged 0–5 should prioritise safeguarding, careful observation, child development and established evidence. At this developmental stage, children should not be taught contested political or ideological propositions at all, whether those propositions concern identity or any other political or social controversy.

Early years education should provide children with secure developmental foundations, rather than asking them to understand, adopt or navigate contested adult belief systems.

Cass Review relevance should not be overstated

The Cass Review concerned NHS gender services for children and young people, not the EYFS or early years teacher training, so it should not be presented as an authority governing early years education. Its findings are nevertheless relevant to understanding the importance of developmentally informed, evidence-based responses when adults interpret children’s distress or behaviour.

The Review recommended a holistic assessment of children and young people presenting with gender-related distress, including consideration of mental health, neurodevelopmental conditions and other factors that may contribute to a child’s presentation. It recommended established evidence-based approaches for associated distress and co-occurring conditions rather than assuming that one explanation accounts for a child’s difficulties. NHS England’s implementation of the Review also adopted a more cautious approach to social transition, particularly for younger children, and recognises social transition as an active intervention that may have significant effects on psychological functioning and longer-term outcomes.

The relevance to this consultation is therefore limited but important, and illustrates a broader safeguarding principle: a child’s words, behaviour or distress should not be prematurely interpreted through a predetermined identity framework without considering development, individual circumstances and other possible needs. For early years professionals, Cass is best understood as adjacent clinical evidence supporting caution about adult assumptions and premature certainty, rather than as a framework for early years education itself.

Protect & Teach’s analysis

Protect & Teach’s assessment: Raising the professional status of early years teachers is welcome, but status alone is not enough. Without a clear, evidence-based foundation for what practitioners are taught, there is a risk of “status without substance”: a respected professional qualification without sufficient assurance that its core content equips adults to safeguard, understand and teach the youngest children.

This matters beyond the new qualification itself. DfE proposes that the core body of professional early years knowledge could, over time, inform other early years qualifications. What is included in that core, and the standard of evidence required for inclusion, could therefore influence practice across the wider early years workforce.

Protect & Teach considers that professional “best practice” should be grounded in established evidence. Contested social or political propositions should not acquire professional authority simply by appearing in training frameworks, teaching resources or third-party materials.

What should the core contain?

If DfE creates a shared core of professional early years knowledge, Protect & Teach considers the following essential:

  1. Safeguarding first: Practitioners need a strong working knowledge of how to recognise and respond to abuse, neglect, grooming and other risks; when and how to involve the designated safeguarding lead (DSL); and how safeguarding responsibilities operate across agencies. Training should clearly explain the relevant requirements of the EYFS, Working Together to Safeguard Children and, in school settings, Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE).
  2. A strong grounding in child development: Early years professionals need to understand typical and atypical development from birth to five, including cognitive development, language and communication, attachment, emotional regulation, self-regulation and executive function. They should be able to recognise possible indicators of SEND or other additional needs while avoiding the opposite danger of pathologising ordinary variations in childhood development and behaviour. Crucially, “age appropriate” must mean more than translating an adult concept into child-friendly language. It requires consideration of what a child at a particular developmental stage is actually capable of understanding, evaluating and placing in context. This is not a new principle. Piaget and Inhelder’s foundational work on cognitive development described early childhood as a period in which symbolic thought and language develop before the more flexible logical and abstract reasoning associated with later development. Subsequent developmental research has refined aspects of Piaget’s stage model and demonstrated some abilities earlier than his original experiments suggested. That does not remove the underlying developmental principle: children’s capacities for reasoning, perspective-taking, cognitive flexibility and evaluating complex information develop progressively. Contemporary evidence continues to demonstrate the development during the early years of self-regulation and executive functions involved in attention, working memory and flexible thinking. Current DfE guidance similarly treats development in broad ages and stages, emphasises individual variation and professional judgement, and recognises the extraordinary amount of development occurring between birth and five. For Protect & Teach, the consequence is important: developmental appropriateness concerns the substance of what is being taught, not merely the vocabulary used to teach it. Simplifying the language of a complex adult proposition does not necessarily make the underlying concept developmentally appropriate for a three-, four- or five-year-old.
  3. Developmentally appropriate, factual teaching: Very young children need clear, concrete and age-appropriate information. Where questions concerning bodies, biological sex or identity arise, practitioners should be equipped to distinguish established knowledge and biological fact from contested social or political propositions and respond in a way appropriate to the child’s age and developmental understanding. Children aged 0–5 should not be expected to understand, adopt or navigate contested adult political or ideological positions. Children aged 0–5 should not be expected to understand, adopt or navigate contested adult political or ideological positions. Calling material “age appropriate” does not resolve that concern if the underlying concept itself requires levels of abstraction, perspective-taking or critical evaluation that very young children are still developing.
  4. Careful responses to distress or behaviour: A young child’s words or behaviour can have many possible explanations. Practitioners should be trained to listen, observe and safeguard before reaching conclusions, involve parents or carers appropriately, and seek educational, developmental or clinical assessment where necessary. Training should not encourage practitioners to treat social transition, identity labelling or any other predetermined interpretation as the automatic explanation for, or response to, a very young child’s distress or behaviour.
  5. Understanding political impartiality: Early years teachers who work in schools should understand the political-impartiality framework operating within those schools, including the duties under sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, what DfE means by “partisan” and “balanced”, the importance of age and developmental understanding, and the Teachers’ Standards requirement concerning the exploitation of pupils’ vulnerability. Training should also explain the limits of that framework accurately. DfE’s political-impartiality guidance excludes standalone early years settings, while school-based nursery and Reception provision operates within schools subject to the relevant school duties.
  6. Proper scrutiny of external resources and training: A resource should not be assumed to be authoritative simply because it comes from a charity, campaign organisation, professional body or training provider. The same applies to CPD packages, mentoring resources and free or low-cost training materials. Providers should ask: What is the evidence? Who produced the material? What position does the organisation take? Are facts, professional consensus and contested propositions clearly distinguished? Third-party materials should be subject to the same standards of evidence and scrutiny as formal training content.
  7. Clear meaning when we talk about “inclusion” and “belonging” Inclusion matters. Children with SEND should receive appropriate support; children should be protected from discrimination; and every child should be able to participate safely in early years education. However, broad terms such as “inclusion” and “belonging” need clear definitions. They should not become a route through which contested propositions about identity or other adult political and social controversies are introduced to children who are not developmentally equipped to evaluate them. An early years framework should therefore define inclusion through equal access, non-discrimination, appropriate support, safeguarding and the individual needs of the child, grounded in evidence rather than advocacy.

Substance must come with status

QTS could bring greater professional recognition to early years teaching. Protect & Teach supports that ambition. But raising the status of the qualification must be accompanied by equal attention to what future early years teachers are actually taught.

For children in the first five years of life, the foundations should be clear: safeguarding, child development, careful observation, factual knowledge and evidence-led professional judgement.

Status matters. Substance matters more.

Protect & Teach Guide to Responding
DfE consultation: Shaping the future of early years teaching

Closes: 23:59 on 24 September 2026

The Department for Education is consulting on major changes to the way early years teachers are trained and recognised in England, including proposals for future early years teacher training to lead to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). Protect & Teach welcomes the aim of raising the status of early years teaching. Our concern is equally about what future early years teachers are taught.

We believe the professional core should be firmly grounded in:

  • safeguarding;
  • child development and developmental science;
  • age-appropriate practice;
  • early identification of SEND and additional needs;
  • factual, evidence-led teaching;
  • careful observation and exploratory responses to children’s distress or behaviour;
  • appropriate scrutiny of external resources and training; and
  • an accurate understanding of political impartiality where practitioners work in schools.

This guide provides suggested answers, not instructions. Please read each consultation question and adapt the wording to reflect your own views and experience.

Before you start

You do not need to copy every model answer word for word. Personal responses and professional experience can be particularly valuable. Where a question allows free text, you can use our model wording as a starting point and shorten or adapt it.

  • About you: Questions 1–6

Complete these questions according to your own circumstances.

THE MAIN QUESTIONS

Q7: 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?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Strongly agree

What this question is really about: Should there be a clearer shared understanding of what good early years practice looks like?

Model answer

We strongly agree that a shared understanding of effective early years practice could improve quality, provided it is genuinely evidence-based. The professional foundation should include child development, language and communication, safeguarding, observation, SEND, attachment, and developmentally appropriate practice. “Age appropriate” should mean more than expressing an adult concept in child-friendly language. Training should consider what children at different developmental stages are actually capable of understanding and evaluating. A common professional foundation should therefore distinguish established evidence from contested social or political propositions and should equip practitioners to respond to children according to their age, development and individual needs.

Q8: 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?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Strongly agree

Why this matters: DfE proposes that the professional core could eventually influence other early years qualifications. What begins at graduate level could therefore shape training more widely.

Model answer

We strongly agree, provided the common core has a clear evidential threshold. If a framework eventually influences qualifications at different levels, it is particularly important that professional “best practice” is based on robust developmental, educational and safeguarding evidence. The core should strengthen understanding of child development, safeguarding, SEND, language and communication, observation and appropriate responses to children’s individual needs. Contested social or political propositions should not acquire professional authority simply because they appear in training materials or professional frameworks.

Q9: 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?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Strongly favour

This is one of the most important questions.
Model answer

We strongly favour an evidence-backed core body of early years professional knowledge. It should include: child development from birth to five; safeguarding and EYFS welfare requirements; language and communication; developmental observation; early identification of SEND and additional needs; developmentally appropriate factual teaching; careful and exploratory responses to distress or behaviour; partnership with parents and carers; multi-agency working; and scrutiny of external training and resources. The framework should state clearly how evidence is assessed. Materials produced by charities, campaign organisations, professional bodies or commercial training providers should not automatically be treated as authoritative. Where claims are contested, they should not be presented as established professional knowledge without a sufficiently robust evidence base.

Q10: Do you think that early years teachers should have the same teaching status as school teachers?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Yes

Model answer

Yes. Early years teaching requires substantial specialist knowledge and professional skill. Giving appropriately trained early years teachers QTS would recognise that expertise and improve professional mobility. However, parity of status should not mean losing specialist 0–5 knowledge. QTS should be accompanied by rigorous early years training in child development, safeguarding and developmentally appropriate practice. Higher status should come with strong professional substance.

Q11: To what extent do you favour or oppose early years initial teacher training leading to QTS?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Strongly favour

Model answer

We strongly favour EYITT leading to QTS, provided the specialist nature of early years training is retained. The reform offers an opportunity to improve professional recognition and career pathways while bringing greater early years expertise into schools. It should not result in specialist knowledge about babies and young children being diluted within generic teacher training. Early years QTS should represent genuine expertise in the development, safeguarding and education of children from birth to five.

OPTION 1: SPECIALIST EARLY YEARS ROUTE

Q12: 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?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Strongly favour

Model answer

We strongly favour retaining specialist Early Years Teachers’ Standards for the early years route to QTS. Children from birth to five require specialist knowledge of development, communication, observation, care, safeguarding and partnership with families. The standards should be updated where necessary and aligned with appropriate professional-conduct expectations for QTS, but early years specialism should not be lost simply to create administrative uniformity.

Q13: To what extent do you agree that an early years core content framework should include early years evidence-based practice only?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Strongly agree

Model answer

We strongly agree. Birth to five is a distinctive developmental period, not simply an earlier version of Key Stage 1. The core should therefore concentrate on evidence concerning babies and young children, including cognitive, language, social and emotional development; safeguarding; observation; SEND; self-regulation; attachment and developmentally appropriate teaching. Knowledge about transition into school is useful, but it should supplement rather than displace specialist 0–5 expertise.

Q14: To what extent do you agree that an early years core content framework should include early years and key stage one evidence-based practice?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Neutral

Model answer

Some Key Stage 1 knowledge would be useful, particularly to support children’s transition into Reception and Year 1 and understanding of early literacy and school systems. However, it should remain proportionate. We favour a deep early years core with a concise transition component, rather than giving Key Stage 1 equal weight and reducing the time available for specialist birth-to-five development and pedagogy.

OPTION 2: USING THE EXISTING SCHOOL FRAMEWORK

Q15: 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?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Somewhat oppose

Model answer

We somewhat oppose using the Teachers’ Standards alone. They provide important professional expectations for teachers, but they cannot substitute for standards specifically designed around children from birth to five. If the Teachers’ Standards form part of the final model, mandatory early-years-specific assessment requirements should remain so that QTS does not inadvertently dilute specialist expertise. Option 2 seems simple, but sends the wrong message about what skills are important in relation to early years.

Q16: To what extent do you favour or oppose more early years teaching content in the ITTECF?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Somewhat favour

Model answer

We somewhat favour strengthening early years and child-development content within the ITTECF. Primary teachers would benefit from greater understanding of child development, early identification of need and the foundations established during the early years. However, improving early years knowledge for other teachers does not require abolishing specialist early years training. We therefore support both stronger early years content within the ITTECF and a specialist early years framework.

THE BIG CHOICE: Section two: Proposals for where an EY framework should sit. Overall question.

As the benefits and limitations to both options are finely balanced, we would like your view on where the potential new core body of early years professional knowledge would be most beneficial.

Q17: 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 (provide further details below)

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Option 1: a standalone Early Years Core Content Framework

Why? It gives the greatest protection to specialist birth-to-five expertise.

Model answer

We prefer Option 1: a standalone Early Years Core Content Framework, assessed against specialist Early Years Teachers’ Standards and leading to QTS. Children from birth to five have distinctive developmental and safeguarding needs. Their teachers require deep expertise that risks being diluted within a framework designed to cover much wider age ranges. We recognise the benefit of improving early years knowledge among primary teachers. This could be achieved by adding a defined child-development and early-identification component to primary teacher training without abandoning a specialist early years framework. Our preferred model is therefore effectively: specialist EY framework + QTS + stronger early years knowledge for other relevant teachers.

Q18: Are there any particular equality implications associated with these proposals?

Please provide details.

Protect & Teach’s suggested Model answer

Well-designed reform could have positive equality implications by improving early identification of SEND and disability, strengthening developmental support, and equipping early years teachers to meet individual needs. There are also risks. Equality and inclusion should mean non-discrimination, equal access, appropriate support and safeguarding for every child. They should not be interpreted as requiring practitioners to introduce contested social or political propositions to children. The framework should recognise sex and disability accurately within the Equality Act 2010 and ensure that safeguarding and reasonable adjustments are not weakened by unclear terminology or one-size-fits-all approaches. Equality analysis should consider developmental age, SEND and disability, sex, safeguarding, parental involvement and the evidence base for training content. Equality should support each child’s needs without replacing developmental or safeguarding judgement with predetermined assumptions.

Q19: Would EYTS/EYPS holders need additional support before teaching different key stages?

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Yes

Model answer

Well-designed reform could have positive equality implications by improving early identification of SEND and disability, strengthening language and developmental support, and ensuring that early years teachers are better equipped to meet individual needs. There are also risks. Equality and inclusion should mean non-discrimination, equal access, appropriate support and safeguarding for every child. They should not be interpreted as requiring practitioners to introduce contested social or political propositions to children aged 0–5. The framework should recognise sex and disability accurately within the Equality Act 2010 and ensure that safeguarding and reasonable adjustments are not weakened by unclear terminology or one-size-fits-all approaches. Equality should support each child’s needs without replacing developmental or safeguarding judgement with predetermined assumptions.

Q20: What do you think conversion from EYTS/EYPS to QTS should look like?

Please provide details.

Q20 is one of the important ones, because this determines whether existing EYTS/EYPS holders are genuinely recognised or effectively required to retrain.

Protect & Teach’s suggested Model answer:

Conversion should follow a recognition-plus-bridging model, not require experienced EYTS/EYPS holders to retrain from scratch. Existing qualifications, professional experience and demonstrated competence should first be mapped against the requirements for QTS. Any additional training should then address genuine gaps relevant to the roles teachers intend to undertake; school statutory frameworks, safeguarding, Teachers’ Standards, curriculum and assessment, and later key-stage knowledge where required. Assessment should normally take place in age-appropriate early years/Reception contexts. Placements with older pupils should be required only where necessary to demonstrate competence for an intended wider teaching role. Conversion content should meet the same evidence, child-development and safeguarding standards as new training. The process should recognise existing expertise, be proportionate and accessible, while ensuring QTS represents genuine competence for the intended age range.

21. To what extent do you agree that early years teachers working in PVIs should follow a similar induction programme to those in schools?

(Required)

Protect & Teach’s suggested answer:

Agree

Why? Early years teachers in private, voluntary and independent settings should have access to structured induction, mentoring, professional development and protected development time.

Q22: 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.

No free-text response for this question

Protect & Teach’s Suggested ranking

  1. Time out of room for ECTs and mentors
  2. Mentor support for ECTs
  3. A training programme for new mentors

The survey asks you to rank only three options, so no ranking is entered for:

  • induction tutor support for ECTs;
  • regular progress reviews and two formal assessments.

Why these three? Good mentoring needs both skilled people and time. A programme can look excellent on paper, but without trained mentors and protected time it is difficult to turn it into better practice with children.

Q23: 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.

Please provide details.

Protect & Teach’s suggested Model answer:

The principal barriers are staffing ratios, funding and protected time. Smaller PVIs may find it particularly difficult to release an ECT and experienced mentor from the room simultaneously without additional staffing costs. Some settings may also lack suitably experienced mentors or the leadership capacity to administer a school-style induction programme. Policy should therefore fund protected time for ECTs and mentors, provide accessible high-quality mentor training, and allow smaller settings to use shared, cluster or hub-based mentoring where appropriate. Quality matters as much as access. Induction should be appropriate to early years, grounded in child development, safeguarding and robust evidence, rather than simply importing school-based models. DfE should set clear quality criteria for externally produced training and resources, including those supplied by third parties. Induction should support better practice with children, not become an underfunded administrative burden.

Q24: 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.

Please provide details.

Protect & Teach’s suggested Model answer:

High-quality mentoring requires more than appointing a named mentor. Key barriers in PVIs include limited protected time, staffing ratios, shortages of experienced mentors, funding pressures and inconsistent access to mentor training. Smaller settings may have no suitably qualified colleague available on site. Policy should fund mentor release time and training and enable shared, cluster or hub-based mentoring where appropriate. Mentors should understand the distinctive nature of 0–5 practice, including child development, observation, safeguarding, SEND, relationships and continuous provision, rather than simply applying school lesson-based models. Mentoring is also a route through which professional practice and assumptions are transmitted. Mentor training and materials should therefore be evidence-based and quality-assured, with appropriate scrutiny of external or third-party resources.
Good mentoring needs time, expertise and evidence, not simply another administrative requirement.

That last paragraph is particularly relevant to our wider argument: mentoring isn’t neutral plumbing. If DfE is creating a professional knowledge framework, what mentors subsequently reinforce with new teachers matters too.

Q25: 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.

Please provide details.

Protect & Teach’s suggested Model answer:

We support meaningful cross-setting training across PVI and school-based early years provision. It can broaden trainees’ understanding of different pedagogical approaches, safeguarding contexts and operational models, strengthen collaboration between sectors, and improve continuity for children moving into Reception. A mandate must provide substantive experience rather than token visits. Challenges include placement capacity, availability of suitably trained mentors, staffing pressures, travel and additional costs, particularly in areas with fewer participating settings. DfE should set clear minimum expectations while allowing flexibility in placement organisation. Each placement should include induction, safeguarding arrangements, observation and supervised practice. Cross-setting training should broaden specialist 0–5 expertise, not dilute it, all placement settings and training materials should meet the same standards of child development, safeguarding and evidence-led practice.

Before you press Submit

Read through your response once more and check that it reflects your own views and experience.

In particular:

  • make sure your personal or organisational details are correct;
  • adapt the model wording rather than feeling you must copy it exactly;
  • add relevant professional or parental experience where you have it;
  • check that your selected answers match your written comments; and
  • submit before 23:59 on 24 September 2026.
Protect & Teach’s overall position is straightforward:

Raise the status of early years teachers; but protect the specialist knowledge required to understand, safeguard and teach children from birth to five. Professional status matters. What we teach the professionals who care for our youngest children matters even more.

Glossary

Consultation
The process of obtaining comments, views and responses from relevant sources for the purpose of reaching a well-informed and fair decision.

CPD
Continuing Professional Development refers to the ongoing learning and development activities that professionals undertake to improve their skills, knowledge and practice throughout their careers.

ECTE
The Early Career Teacher Entitlement is a two-year programme designed to support teachers at the start of their careers by developing their professional skills and helping them meet the Teachers’ Standards.

EYFS framework
The Early Years Foundation Stage framework is the legal framework that sets out how young children in England should be cared for, taught, and supported in their development from birth to age 5.

EYITT
Early Years Initial Teacher Training.

EYT
An early years teacher is someone who teaches young children and babies. Early years teachers have either Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS), Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) or Qualified Teacher Status (QTS).

EYPS
Early Years Professional Status is EYTS’ predecessor.

EYTDA
The Early Years Teacher Degree Apprenticeship (EYTDA) is a new program designed to build a highly skilled early years workforce. Launching in September 2026, this apprenticeship enables trainees to earn while they learn, culminating in a Level 6 qualification and Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS).

EYTS
Early Years Teacher Status is a specialist professional status for graduates who want to work with young children from birth to age 5 in early years settings.

Golden thread
A joined-up, evidence-based pathway into teaching and across teaching careers. It starts with Initial Teacher Training (ITT), through to the Early Career Framework (ECF) in the first 2 years of teaching and then into National Professional Qualifications (NPQs).

ITT
Initial Teacher Training.

ITTECF
The Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework sets out the core knowledge, skills, and behaviours that teachers in England should develop during both initial teacher training (ITT), before gaining QTS, and their early career teacher (ECT) induction in the first two years of teaching. It is structured around the Teachers’ Standards and provides evidence-based guidance.

NPQs
National Professional Qualifications are recognised professional development programmes for teachers and school leaders in England.

PVIs
Private, Voluntary and Independent providers.

TDA
Teaching degree apprenticeship.

TRA
Teaching Regulation Agency.

QTS
Qualified Teacher Status is the professional qualification required to teach in local authority maintained schools and special schools in England. From September 2027 it will also be a requirement for teachers in most primary and secondary academies.

Sources

Share this:

, ,