MAY 2013
INTRODUCTION
1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to Ofsted’s proposals on the future inspection arrangements for non-domestic early education and childcare provision.
2. It is unclear why child-minder provision has been excluded from the consultation, as HMCI’s most recent Annual Report reported that this sector had demonstrated the slowest pace of improvement. Furthermore, HMCI’s comments to the media at the launch of this consultation[1], where he suggested that it was cost rather than any other reason which had influenced this decision, is unacceptable.
3. There is no point in providing public funding for a significant proportion of early years providers if they are to be subject to different definitions of quality. Parents should have the right to expect comparable standards in whichever type of early years provision they chose to use. Unless Ofsted intends to launch a consultation on inspection of child-minders in the very near future, which would include the newly proposed child-minder agencies, the relevant proposals should have been issued concurrently with this consultation document.
4. Notwithstanding its longstanding opposition to the Ofsted model of inspection, the NUT’s comments on the proposed changes to early years inspection are set out below.
Introduce a single judgement of ‘requires improvement’ to replace the current ‘satisfactory’ judgement
5. The NUT does not agree that replacing ‘satisfactory’ with ‘requires improvement’ “will raise expectations of weaker providers, whilst providing an incentive for more rapid improvement” (paragraph 16). Providers do not generally set out to offer poor quality provision deliberately, it is a usually a result of lack of support and/ or investment. The ‘incentive’ for providers should surely be offering the best possible provision for children and their parents, not avoidance of punitive Ofsted measures.
- It is obvious that this proposal aims to bring early years inspection in line with that for schools and colleges, where the term ‘requires improvement’ is already in use. In all cases, the NUT believes this is a perversion of the English language and of common sense, as ‘satisfactory’ is widely defined as ‘fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect’ (Oxford English Dictionary).
- In addition, research by the Daycare Trust and Oxford University in 2012[2] showed that Ofsted grades do not always correspond with internationally recognised quality measures such as the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, so an Ofsted rating of ‘good’ does not necessarily mean that provision is good in all respects, only those which Ofsted chooses to prioritise. The research report concluded:
“…our findings strongly indicate a need to supplement the (Ofsted) regulatory process with additional measures to provide a broader and deeper picture of quality, and warn against over-reliance on what is by nature a relatively blunt instrument.”
- Combined with the fact that the Ofsted inspection framework and its definitions of “quality” changes so frequently and that the inspectors who use the framework are themselves not infallible and are subject to the same variation in quality as settings themselves, there can be very little confidence that this proposal will lead to the improvements expected in the consultation document.
Introduce re-inspection of early years non-domestic settings graded as ‘requires improvement’ within two years: they will have a maximum of four years to become good.
- Although the NUT supports Ofsted’s view that “the quality of early years provision is very important in helping to provide this firm foundation (future personal and academic success)” it does not believe that this proposal has been constructed with any consideration of its practical consequences. From September 2013, the entitlement to free early years education for all disadvantaged two year olds will make it extremely difficult to ensure that there are sufficient high quality places available in disadvantaged area and that these are taken up by the target group. Neither of these is the case currently, but both are essential if the country is serious about narrowing the achievement gap between the most and least disadvantaged youngsters.
- Ofsted has reported previously, via HMCI’s most recent Annual Report, that disadvantaged children are more likely to attend some of the poorest quality provision. According to Ofsted’s proposals, settings will be re-inspected after two years and given four years to become ‘good’ or face the possibility of having their registration cancelled. Some children will therefore spend all of their time with the provider whilst the ‘requires improvement’ designation applies, so this proposal is hardly likely to benefit them.
- In addition, some providers may choose to close voluntarily rather than wait to be forced to close, or may relocate to a less challenging area where it is easier to score well on Ofsted’s criteria relating to children’s outcomes. Disadvantaged parents are less likely to travel to place their children in early years settings beyond their local area, therefore this proposal could mean, in the longer term, fewer disadvantaged children attending provision to which they are entitled.
- Settings which need to improve their quality may be the only settings available for disadvantaged children – is it better that they attend this, rather than none at all, if there is no alternative high quality provision available in their area? This is the conundrum which lies at the heart of early years policy making. Until it is addressed, Ofsted’s proposals are more likely to hinder rather than help move towards a position of equity of access to high quality provision for all young children.
An early years non-domestic setting can only be judged as ‘requires improvement’ on two consecutive inspections before the provider is likely to be deemed ‘inadequate’
- The NUT does not agree that re-inspection alone, whether it is more rigorous or more frequent, will bring about improvement. What is missing from this section, and indeed from the entire consultation document, is any mention of support for settings to facilitate improvement. This is particularly pertinent given the proposals made by the Government in More Great Childcare, but not referred to here, that Ofsted would take over existing support functions from local authorities. Settings which receive little or no useful support would be bound to fail.
- LAs’ greater in-depth knowledge of local provision, gained through regular and on-going engagement with providers, has been the most important source of support for settings under the current arrangements. The NUT believes this should continue, as local authority early years advisor support has been invaluable for all types of provider and deserves more credit for raising standards in early years provision than it has been given.
Where any inadequate early years setting has failed to improve sufficiently and is still judged to be inadequate when re-inspected, it is likely that we may take steps to cancel that setting’s registration
- As stated above in response to a previous proposal, the NUT is not an apologist for poor quality provision but has real concerns about the impact on patterns of provision in the most deprived localities in particular as a result of cancellation of a setting’s registration. It also believes that the likelihood of providers simply re-opening in a different area and/or under a different name is extremely high. These are the issues which Ofsted needs to get to grips with, rather than simply ratcheting up expectations without any consideration of how they will affect children, parents, settings and those who work in them.
- The NUT questions the evidence provided in the consultation document to support this proposal, that “a higher proportion of settings have been judged to be inadequate than previously” (paragraph 25). This is the result of yet more changes to the inspection framework, rather than a straightforward comparison of like with like. In addition, the most recent HMCI Annual Report on early years said that there had been an increase from 65 to 74 per cent in the proportion of settings which were rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ since the Early Years Foundation Stage was introduced in 2008. It seems that Ofsted’s independence and reporting ‘without fear or favour’ does not extend to the presentation of its own data.
- The NUT supports the provision within paragraph 28, that HMCI should be able to take immediate action, up to cancellation of registration and prosecution, where safeguarding and children’s safety are threatened.
OTHER ISSUES
- Although views are not sought on the proposal to have a four year re-inspection cycle for ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ settings, the NUT believes that this is not helpful to overall efforts to improve quality in the early years. Four years is a long time and a lot can happen, in particular, staff turnover which may have a direct effect on quality. It is obvious that this proposal also had its origins in the school inspection framework, but unlike schools, it is unclear what kind of data or other means of monitoring Ofsted would use, or even if there would be a desk-based analysis of performance which might trigger an earlier inspection. Much more information is needed on this important aspect of the proposed package of changes to inspection arrangements.
- As noted earlier in this response, there is virtually no acknowledgement that the proposals outlined in More Great Childcare are being developed concurrently and will have a significant impact on early years inspection. If the support role of local authorities is removed and given to Ofsted, we need to know in what ways the inspection and support functions will be integrated and the extent of any separation between the two, given the high potential for conflict of interest. We also need to know what kinds of support will be available, in the current context of public sector spending cuts and their impact on access to training especially.
- Any inspection system can only be as good as the quality of its inspectors. The most productive form of inspection is undoubtedly one in which the inspector understands the processes at work and there is a clear link to advice. Those being inspected must have confidence in and be able to respect the judgements being made. Where such understanding, dialogue and trust are not present, inspectors’ judgements may lack relevance or credibility. The composition of inspection teams must, therefore, be suitable, that is, the qualifications, training and experience of the inspectors themselves must be appropriate to the early years provision being inspected.
NUT RESP-GOOD EARLY YEARS PROVISION FOR ALL (MAY 13)_KDH 13 May 2013
Created: 1 May 2013/KDR&SA
[1] http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1076991/watchdog-excludes-childminders-inspection-reform
[2] http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/data/files/Research/Early_Years_Quality_-_Research_Brief.pdf