This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
This module will explore the changing features of different Early Years settings, working with other professional and the skills and the core skills of those workers. It will look at the policies and legislation affecting Early Years Practitioners and the beliefs and values that ensure quality childcare. It will also include observations and problems created by working within the current guidelines.
Historically homes had no appliances so a woman's occupation was chores and childcare, other family members lived locally and helped. With increasing school leaving age and new appliances women could fill freed time with jobs and increased income meant more appliances. Government policy supported women working; they had careers, luxuries became necessities, families dispersed moving to the work and alternative childcare was sought. This led to more childcare requirements providing parental peace of mind rather than education and preparation for life.
It became clear that the quality provided was diverse and various programmes were introduced through law, policy and consultation to meet the growing needs of parents and their children.
The Children Act 1989 provided legislation for under-eights, introducing quality standards for all children's services using a registration and an annual inspection (reports to be made available to parents) system maintained by local authorities. In addition they had to carry out checks on over eighteen year olds who came into contact with the children, ensure that the premises used were suitable and set staff: child ratios. Activities had to be planned and children helped to get the most out of them.
Failings of this Act were that it did not allow enforcement to see children considered at risk, provided insufficient emergency protection, allowed inappropriate Care Orders so that a child could be taken into care unchallenged. It did allow children and their families to be heard but this was seen a problem as it removed Local Authorities autonomy.
The first Special Educational Needs Code of Practice was seen in 1994, this defined the roll of the SENCO (Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator) appointed for each setting.
In 1997 the new Labour Government had stated in their manifesto: 
Previously there had been no measurable standards and establishments worked alone. Investment introduced the National Childcare Strategy (1998) providing more affordable, quality childcare places so parents could work knowing that their children were safe and well looked after. Additionally more training was to be made available and accommodate free childcare places for three year olds childminders could become accredited. Early Learning Goals replaced Desirable Outcomes within the Foundation Stage.
Sure Start Local Programmes were an initiative started in 1997 to give every child the best start to achieved their full potential, initially 250 centres were opened to support parents, identified as living in disadvantaged areas, with early education (from birth to four), childcare and health. In 2004 Sure Start Local Programmes and Neighbourhood Nurseries became Sure Start Children's Centres and they are now accessible to every district. They are now meant to be self-maintained this has not happened and funding has been cut. They advertise themselves as: 
The social expectation is that parents should return to work and that the care given will be children the best start possible. This implies that wrap around childcare is best for children but ignores possible developmental problems such as not providing secure attachment, although a key worker is provided, the hours that the centres are open means that they work shifts.
More importantly they have failed be accessible to those who most need them as their qualities are recognised by the 'middle classes'. 
The green paper, Every Child Matters (ECM) (2003), resulted from the Laming Report, highlighted poor communication and lack of information sharing between agencies' particularly health and education, when protecting children. It focused on five outcomes: 
Children's Act 2004 provided the legislation enforcing local authorities and central government to meet the requirements of ECM particularly regarding multi-disciplinary working. 
Public outcry to the anti-smacking clause resulted in inclusion of a definition of smacking. The new appointment of Children's Commissioner lacked power and this continues to cause concern. One agency had to be in overall control; Local Authorities appointed but other agencies felt marginalised. There was valid concern about data sharing as there have been several occasions when data has been made visible on the internet.
After consultation ECM: The Next Step (2004) stated that aged five children should reach the end of the foundation stage so be ready for school narrowing the gap in the 20% most disadvantaged. ECM: Change for Children covered inclusion for special needs.
Although the Childcare Act 2006 states that local authorities have to provide information, advice and help for children up to 20 years, it was also given a duty to give childcare providers information, advice and training, to ensure that all areas had sufficient childcare to meet parental demand and to have a duty to improve the five ECM outcomes. Childcare providers in Hampshire work within this authority's interpretation of the act. 
The Act introduced inspection and regulation for childcare providers. It merged Birth to Three and the Foundation Stage into the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) with the expectation of providing high standards of early education from birth to five. All childcare settings, caring for children under 8, had to be on the Ofsted Childcare Register (unless exempt) and had to meet minimal requirements.
Multi-agency consultation was a pivotal to ECM but practitioners continued to rely upon previous assessments and each practitioner assessed the child within their particular remit no-one looked at the child as a whole leading to multiple assessments' resulting in wasted money and frustration for all parties; Common Assessment Framework (CAF) (2007) corrected this were
EYFS under review extend Test 5 year olds! Education.gov.uk
The current government agree that every child should fulfil their full potential but feel that the key to parental background. They acknowledge that without good quality childcare this is less likely to be met. They cite that 
However when education ends the economy has to be in a position to meets the expectations of these children.
They commissioned a report from Leon Feinstein which illustrated that early intervention was needed with information as much as 40 years old so not taking into account the impact modern practice.
They have promised to fund early learning and childcare for 20,000 most disadvantage two year olds and extend free childcare (EYE) to three year olds. Most of the 5% that do not currently access EYE come from disadvantaged families. With the help of more Health Visitors Sure Starts remit will be to attract people.
Although the many changes in law and policy since 1989, were needed it would have been better if they had been proactive or put into place after consultation with end users (practitioners, parents and children) not just 'experts'. Funding has given choices to the poorest and means all practitioners have access to training both required and of choice.
Childcare workers need to have  . Additionally they must enjoy being with children, care about them, listen to them, stimulating and extending their imagination, helping them learn as individuals, encourage them and watch and record their growth.
Many workers bad life experience, repressed not want children to do same and cope with it not end up like me.
Empathy certain type of person
EYFS anti petition can remove parent choice.
Term time Only.
Language migratory workers.
Working tax credits - grandparents same house / vouchers.
Social Services Childminder previous or present considered for day care.
Child led has to be right for every child but they are still kept with peer groups maybe should be more flexable only allow so far behind then special school.
Special schools train some children to expect something they can never achieve not for real life. No jobs for them , was factory - repetitive or farm - H&S felt part community valued. No community loss family values breakup not near relatives.
Many legislation to quick plg holes look good n Ot though through researched. BUT NEEDED