Memorandum submitted by National Day Nurseries
Association
ABOUT THE
NATIONAL DAY
NURSERIES ASSOCIATION
(NDNA)
1. Background on regulation and inspection of
the nursery sector
2. Evidence and key considerations:
— What
the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools
but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted's
remit).
— The
impact of the inspection process on school improvement.
— The
performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work.
— The
consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection
process.
— The
weight given to different factors within the inspection process.
— Whether
inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support
children's learning and welfare is best conducted by a single
inspectorate.
Please note that throughout this response we have
focused on the day nursery sector.
1. ABOUT THE
NATIONAL DAY
NURSERIES ASSOCIATION
(NDNA)
National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) is a national
charity representing children's day nurseries across the UK, giving
them information, training and support, so they can provide the
best possible care to young children. NDNA is the voice of the
day nursery sector, an integral part of the lives of 600,000 children
and their families. NDNA works with local and national government
to develop an environment in which quality early years education
and care can flourish. For more information please visit our website
at www.ndna.org.uk
2. BACKGROUND
ON REGULATION
AND INSPECTION
OF THE
NURSERY SECTOR
2.1 England's 14,000 day nurseries have been
required to be registered and inspected by Ofsted since 2001.
Since 2008, Ofsted has inspected against the Early Years Foundation
Stage, the regulatory and quality framework for the provision
of learning, development and care for children between birth and
the end of the academic year in which they turn five. Latest figures
available for the "childcare on non-domestic premises"
category, which includes day nurseries, show 11% achieving outstanding,
60% good, 27% satisfactory and 2% inadequate.1 There
has been an upward trend in quality over recent years, with growing
numbers of nurseries rated outstanding and good.
2.2 In September 2010, Ofsted outsourced inspection
and registration visits for early years to Prospects Services
Ltd and Tribal Group Plc. Ofsted has advised that the changes
will enable it to focus on the quality of provision in the early
years sector and that the way they inspect has not changed so
providers should not notice any difference. NDNA is monitoring
our day nursery members' experience of inspections since the change
in September and will respond accordingly if any concerns or issues
emerge regarding inspection itself and the communication surrounding
it. In the initial phase, outsourced inspections have been carried
out by two inspectors, and we welcome this approach to support
consistency.
2.3 NDNA has a constructive working relationship
with Ofsted. We represent the nursery sector at the Early Years
National Consultative Forum facilitated by Ofsted. We disseminate
information from Ofsted to the sector through our communication
channels, regularly host Ofsted speakers at our events and conferences
and provide our own publications and advice to support our members
with the inspection process. We report to Ofsted regularly on
generic issues of concern to members, discuss potential solutions
and receive signposting and advice from Ofsted in response to
members' queries about registration and inspection.
3. EVIDENCE AND
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 What the purposes of inspection should
be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings
and services under Ofsted's remit)
3.1.1 The primary purposes of inspection of early
years should be to protect children and to drive quality improvement
in provision, which in turn will support the best outcomes for
children.
3.1.2 As a bare minimum, inspection should police
compliance with the minimum welfare standards required to protect
children through provision of safe and appropriate people, practices
and environment. However, it is essential that as a nation our
ambitions extend beyond welfare compliance alone and we support
fully Ofsted's remit to drive quality improvement in provision
for children. International and UK evidence shows a clear link
between the quality of early years provision and the outcomes
for children in their early years and beyond. We believe Ofsted's
remit as set out in its Strategic Plan 2007-10 clearly reflects
these purposes.2 A single body for inspection and regulation
across early years is important to promote consistency in standards
across England and to support parents, making it easy for them
to understand how provision is inspected and make decisions about
the care of their child. However, the nature of inspection by
a national body, means it neither can nor should be the only mechanism
to drive quality improvement - please see response to 3.2 below.
3.2 The impact of the inspection process on
school improvement
3.2.1 Since the introduction of quality ratings
to Ofsted inspection there has been an upward trend in the ratings
achieved by early years providers. Latest figures available for
the "childcare on non-domestic premises" category, which
includes day nurseries, show 71% achieving good or outstanding,
27% satisfactory and 2% inadequate.1 Whilst in 2006,
in full daycare, 60% achieved good or outstanding, 36% satisfactory
and 4% inadequate.3
3.2.2 Overall our members' feedback to us is
that Ofsted has a beneficial impact on levels of quality in the
sector. However, they feel that inspection can only be a "snapshot"
at that point in time. The depth of inspection which typically
lasts one day, sometimes including time for the inspector to draft
the report, and the frequency, particularly for better quality
nurseries which may only have an inspection visit once every four
or five years, means Ofsted alone cannot drive quality improvement.
3.2.3 Early years quality improvement is driven
by local authorities, who have a remit to support and drive improvement
of maintained, private and voluntary provision in their areas.
Typically, local authorities have early years advisory staff and
mechanisms to visit, support and develop quality in early years
provision, targeting their resources on those most in need of
support, for example, where they have significant weaknesses or
particular challenges such as large numbers of children with additional
needs. As discussed below (3.4), there can be tensions and inconsistencies
between Ofsted's regulatory role and local authorities' advisory
roles, creating particular issues for private and voluntary childcare
providers.
3.2.4 There is a particular link between quality
improvement and the free early education entitlement for three
and four year olds, with local authorities increasingly including
quality factors in the formulae they use to calculate how much
funding they will give to providers of the free entitlement. There
are issues here when Ofsted ratings are included as a dominant
factor in calculating funding levels. The infrequency of inspection
means that providers can be funded at a low level that may reflect
a rating from several years ago. Our members also highlight that
a single Ofsted visit can give an inspection rating that does
not accurately reflect their provision. Equally, due to the requirement
to demonstrate "sustained improvement" it is highly
unlikely that newly-opened settings can achieve a higher than
"satisfactory" grade. It is therefore important that
local authorities use other factors here to inform funding decisions.
3.2.5 One solution proposed to us by members
for situations where a setting feels that it has made significant
improvements, but an inspection is not due for a number of years,
would be to give nurseries the option to have an early inspection
at an additional cost. Ofsted ratings are understood and used
by parents, so some nurseries would consider paying for an additional
inspection a worthwhile investment. We have proposed this idea
to Ofsted and believe it is worth consideration. Indeed, the flexibility
brought by privately-delivered outsourced inspections may make
this more achievable, without requiring additional inspection
resources to be funded by Government.
3.2.6 There is an important role for early years
quality improvement schemes in supporting settings to develop
by working towards and being assessed against specific standards.
Ofsted evidence has noted that participation in a quality improvement
scheme is linked to achieving a higher rating in inspection, with
a 12% uplift in numbers of full daycare providers achieving good
or outstanding.4 Similarly, evidence from the NDNA
scheme e-Quality Counts, shows that participating nurseries report
improvements in their Ofsted ratings. These schemes have an important
part to play, particularly at a time of public spending restraint.
3.2.7 It should be noted that the Department
for Education's contract with the Primary National Strategies
to support the Early Years Foundation Stage ends in March 2011.
There is also uncertainty over the future level of resources and
support local authorities will be able to devote to their quality
improvement role, given the current fiscal climate. As discussed
above, it would be unrealistic to expect Ofsted to be the sole
driver for quality improvement in early years provision and it
is crucial that investment continues here, to ensure the quality
gains of recent years, and consequent achievement of better outcomes
for children, are not lost.
3.2.8 We would also ask that the Committee considers
the role of inspection notice periods in determining the impact
of inspection for children, the early years workforce and for
settings.
3.2.9 The issue of notice periods for inspections
is a long-standing concern for the nursery sector. Our concerns
rest on variable practices by Ofsted in relation to the notice
period given to nursery and other "non-domestic" childcare
provision, as opposed to that given to Children's Centres and
nursery classes in primary schools. We support fully Ofsted's
principle that routine inspection should be at little or no notice
and that where there is any possible cause for concern, complaints
and enforcement visits should be at no notice. However, in practice
the only category of provision subject to routine inspection at
no notice is private and voluntary "non-domestic" childcare,
with short notice given to all other types of provision for under-fives.
3.2.10 We see no reason why "no notice"
inspection could not be applied to nursery schools and Children's
Centres. We understand there are logistical issues to overcome
regarding childminders and nursery classes in primary schools,
however, we believe these could be addressed by new inspection
planning procedures. Alternatively, it would be possible to introduce
a policy of short notice for all early years provision. We do
not believe that a level playing field here would compromise inspection,
but would support inspection to be more efficient and effective,
by enabling providers to ensure key leadership staff were available
to engage in the inspection.
3.2.11 Nurseries are largely of the opinion that
this is an equality issue, with the private and voluntary sector
being treated less favourably than the maintained sector, and
is a contributory factor to the higher proportion of outstanding
ratings attained in the maintained sector. We have raised these
concerns with Ofsted formally. We have been advised that Ofsted's
Executive Board proposes consideration to be given to inspection
notice as part of any forthcoming revisions to the inspection
framework following the current review by the Department for Education
of the Early Years Foundation Stage.
3.3 The performance of Ofsted in carrying
out its work
3.3.1 A survey of our members found that their
overall experience of inspection is generally positive, with a
majority rating the inspection process as supportive.5
3.3.2 A common concern among our members is the
level of expertise in early years of their inspector. Seventy-five
percent of our members rate inspectors "very" knowledgeable
about early years, however, a significant minority of 25% rate
inspectors "slightly" knowledgeable. 5 Given
the potential impact of inspection on their provision for children,
their staff and their businesses, early years providers should
be inspected by qualified and experienced inspectors who have
a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of child development
and early years good practice. Most inspectors are felt to comply
with this standard, however, in a significant minority, providers
feel inspectors do not reach these standards. We understand Ofsted
is moving to address this issue, and it will be important that
outsourced inspections are conducted by appropriately qualified
and experienced people.
3.3.3 With the move to outsourced inspections,
Ofsted has also introduced an opportunity for providers to feedback
on the quality of their inspection after every inspection. This
is a welcome development and we would hope to see this performance
data shared so the sector can understand and respond to the quality
of inspection it receives.
3.3.4 In 2008 Ofsted introduced a self evaluation
approach to early years inspection. The voluntary completion of
an Ofsted Self Evaluation Form (SEF) by providers has been central
to this. Whilst we welcome the move to self evaluation as a way
to support quality improvement, nurseries have reported to us
a significant level of frustration with the SEF. The main problems
are: the length, repetition and unwieldy nature of the SEF, the
usability of the web-based system that hosts each provider's SEF
and feeling the time taken to complete and update the SEF does
not have an equivalent impact on improving and developing the
nursery. This has been a common theme at our member events, conferences
and in feedback to our staff.
3.3.5 We understand that Ofsted is continuing
to make improvements to the SEF form and guidance and is surveying
good practice in self-evaluation and we have offered support and
advice here, including the opportunity to consult with our nursery
members. It is important that adjustments to the SEF process are
made so it provides a positive contribution to quality improvement,
rather than being seen as an additional administrative burden
on providers.
3.4 The consistency and quality of inspection
teams in the Ofsted inspection process
3.4.1 Feedback from our members is that overall
80% agree with their Ofsted inspection judgment, however, 20%
disagree.5 This survey evidence is supported by anecdotal
feedback to NDNA where members raise concerns with us over their
experience of inspection.
3.4.2 It is vital that there is a fair and transparent
appeals process for providers to address concerns over inspection.
As discussed above, an inspection judgment can stay with a nursery
for several years and has a major impact on the setting. Ofsted
has a clear complaints process, and there must be a balance between
protecting the rights of providers to fair inspection and avoiding
a scenario where vexatious complaints could reduce the effectiveness
of the inspection process. Areas that could be addressed include:
— Avoiding
conflicts of interest, for example, if the inspector has a past
link with an organization. This is also an issue where multi-site
nurseries have had problematic inspections and the same inspector
inspects sister nurseries.
— Communication
- we welcome Ofsted's code of conduct for inspectors and would
encourage wide communication on this to childcare providers so
they are aware of what to expect.
— Reviewing
the point at which inspection reports are published - presently
these will be published on Ofsted's website even if they are under
dispute. Nurseries disputing an inspection outcome question their
rights regarding the publication of the inspection report, particularly
if a complaint is not yet resolved. An approach is needed to balance
the risk of unfounded complaints from poor childcare providers
preventing publication of reports, with the rights of the provider
where there is a genuine cause for complaint and potential review
of the inspection. We would propose allowing for a delay in publication
or considering adding a comment to the website that shows the
report's unconfirmed status.
3.4.3 The Report of the Independent Complaints
Adjudicator for Ofsted 2009 echoes some of the points above regarding
conflicts of interest and communication.6
3.4.4 Given the role of local authorities in
supporting and driving quality in early years settings, as discussed
above (3.3), there can be a tension between local authority guidance
and Ofsted inspections which leaves nurseries in a difficult position.
When asked about consistency between Ofsted recommendations and
local authority advice, our members have mixed experiences with
inconsistencies reported: 65% agree that they got a united message
from Ofsted and the local authority, 18% disagreed and 17% didn't
know.5 Nurseries also report these issues to us anecdotally.
We have discussed these concerns with Ofsted and we understand
that a "link" inspector is being appointed for each
local authority area to liaise. We hope this will be an effective
way to address situations where significant, repeated discrepancies
arise between Ofsted and local authorities. We would also urge
that a clear process is put in place by Ofsted and local authorities
to set out how early years providers should address these conflicts
when they arise.
3.5 The weight given to different factors
within the inspection process
We believe the weighting between factors in the early
years inspection is appropriate and would not propose any major
change.
3.6 Whether inspection of all organisations,
settings and services to support children's learning and welfare
is best conducted by a single inspectorate
All settings registered under the Early Years Foundation
Stage, whether schools or early years settings, should be inspected
by a single inspectorate to ensure consistency.
October 2010
REFERENCES
1 Quality of Childcare
as at June 2010, Ofsted.
2 Raising Standards,
Improving Lives; Ofsted Strategic Plan 2007-2010.
3 Quality of Childcare
as at 30 September 2006, Ofsted.
4 Early Years:
Leading to Excellence; Ofsted 2008.
5 NDNA survey—2009.
6 Independent
Complaints Adjudicator for Ofsted—Report January 2008 to
April 2009.
| 
