Memorandum submitted by Kidsunlimited
1. kidsunlimited has contact with Ofsted
solely as the regulator of Early Years Education and Childcare,
The company is of course aware that Ofsted's remit is very much
broader than this, but we have felt it right to confine our remarks
to those areas where we have direct experience. The questions
therefore which concern school improvement, though important,
are beyond our immediate expertise.
THE PURPOSE
OF INSPECTION
2. Inspection is, from our point of view, necessarily
an aspect of regulation. Its prime purpose, therefore, is to check
that minimum standards of acceptability, as set down in the Children
Act 2004, its amendment in the Children Act 2006 and in Every
Child Matters, are met, and to inform action where they are not
met. Through public reporting, inspection provides assurance to
parents and others that children are safe, happy, healthy, purposefully
involved, and developing as they should across the six areas of
the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). However, we believe that
Ofsted has rightly interpreted its remit more broadly than this.
Inspection and the reporting of inspection should lead to improvement,
both by informing action in the particular settings and across
the system, by stimulating public debate and informing policy
development. More broadly still, inspection can and should assist
improvement by adding to the corpus of reference amongst professional
practitioners and by helping to define best practice.
THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFSTED
IN CARRYING
OUT ITS
WORK
3. Overall, our view is that Ofsted has been
a far more effective instrument for promoting improvement in Early
Years and Childcare than the system which preceded it. Ofsted
has a large and complex remit, and its regulatory task is very
large. Inevitably, there have been some aspects of its performance
which have occasionally given us some cause for concern, but any
such concerns need to be set against our general view that it
provides an authoritative and broadly secure regulatory oversight
that commands public confidence and sets essential benchmarks
for our industry. The Ofsted grade is an indispensable yardstick
for our company and all our competitors; we do not always agree
with the grade, and we think there is too much variability in
judgements, but we always think that the grade is vitally important.
The public acknowledgement of quality by an esteemed national
body, as well as informing parents, adds an important element
of aspiration to our work as a company, and to the work of key
individuals, notably our nursery managers. A judgement of "good"
or "outstanding" is a real cause of rejoicing and ensures
that quality is always at the centre of our concerns.
4. The authoritative sanction of Ofsted is, therefore,
a central focus and driving force for our work and our progress
as a company. Almost equally influential and authoritative are
Ofsted's publications, such as the summary report issued in 2008;
the 20 questions for proprietors are the basis of much of our
training and of our quality assurance, alongside the Framework
itself.
5. Our detailed contacts with Ofsted are, of
course, very frequent. At the level of regional liaison, they
work very well, and our contacts with the most senior management,
though much less frequent, are invariably conducted with impeccable
professional courtesy and in a reasonable spirit. This exemplary
approach does not always percolate down to the level of the inspectors
who actually conduct the visits. According to our database, 45
visits have been conducted during the current cycle. In only two
instances have we lodged a formal complaint; in one of those instances,
the inspection was declared null and void, because of potential
connection on the part of one of the inspectors; in the other,
a discrepancy of evidence between the inspector and the nursery
staff could not be resolved, and the complaint was not upheld.
However, the matter was dealt with in a thorough and courteous
manner (Annex A).
6. This does not seem to us in itself to be evidence
of unacceptable performance: two complaints from 45 inspections
is surely reasonable. However, as we indicate below, we found
a number of judgements debatable, or even idiosyncratic. There
are other aspects of Ofsted's performance which cause us some
difficulty. For example, eight of our settings were not inspected
within the three-year deadline (Annex B). Moreover,
it is sometimes difficult when contacting the administration offices
to find an official sufficiently knowledgeable to deal with the
query. In these ways and others, Ofsted gives the impression of
an organisation struggling to meet its targets, with perhaps too
large and complex a remit.
THE CONSISTENCY
AND QUALITY
OF INSPECTION
TEAMS IN
THE OFSTED
INSPECTION PROCESS
7. On this, the only reasonable reply at this
stage is, surely, wait and see. At the time of writing, the transfer
of responsibility to the privatised inspection providers is not
yet a month old. We are not aware of any immediate dislocation
in the system, though we hear disquieting rumours that one of
the providers is experiencing some difficulty. At present, the
hope must be that Ofsted is more effective in exercising regulatory
authority over the providers than it always was as a direct employer
of inspectors. We have already referred to the fact that the inspections
are behind schedule.
8. We also regret to have to point to considerable
variations in judgement. These have by no means always been to
our disadvantage; as often as not, we believe that our nurseries
have been graded too generously. In a sense, this is more difficult
to deal with, because it is unpredictable, than a consistently
over-severe evaluation. The notion of consistency between "teams"
does not of course necessarily apply where visits may be carried
out by a single inspector. In these cases in particular we have
found, not only broad discrepancies with our own judgements, but
also rather improbable changes between visits to the same nursery
by different inspectors. Ofsted has certainly not, in our view,
cracked the problem of achieving consistency of judgements nationally;
we do not of course in any way suggest that quality assurance
of a dispersed field force is an easy or trivial matter. We do,
though, look for some improvement here.
9. Ofsted has, rightly of course, a Code of Conduct
which all inspectors should follow. We have found that individuals
tend to interpret it in rather different ways. Most engage with
our staff in a courteous and professional way; some are more aloof
and authoritarian. A few go so far as to make acerbic comments
about nursery chains, or to refuse to speak to our staff. This
is not merely disquieting for our employees; it reduces the effectiveness
of the inspection by eliminating opportunities for professional
dialogue.
THE WEIGHT
GIVEN TO
DIFFERENT FACTORS
WITHIN THE
INSPECTION PROCESS
10. In broad terms, we have no quarrel with this.
The elements included in the framework, we feel, reflect very
well the issues that are likely to concern most parents and decision-makers
at all levels. More emphasis has been given to safeguarding in
recent years and months, but this perhaps inevitably reflects
well-publicised concerns. On balance we take a positive view of
that increased emphasis; we do, however, wish to continue to see
our nurseries as educational organisations. We are occasionally
troubled by the interpretation of "Working in Partnership
with Others", though we fully recognise the importance of
the criterion. We merely question whether it is reasonable to
downgrade a nursery for not making contact with a school where
the school is some distance away and the logistical challenges
are likely to outweigh the potential benefits.
WHETHER THE
INSPECTION OF
ALL ORGANISATIONS,
SETTINGS AND
SERVICES TO
SUPPORT CHILDREN'S
LEARNING AND
WELFARE IS
BEST CONDUCTED
BY A
SINGLE INSPECTORATE
11. This is a matter about which we have very
significant concerns. The remit of Ofsted has grown very rapidly
over the last decade and more, causing the organisation to go
through repeated changes in size and shape. Exposure to constant
change, coupled with regular (and inevitable) constraints on resources,
is inevitably traumatic. In many ways, Ofsted appears to us to
be an organisation exhibiting significant stress, with a top management
struggling to cope with the whole range of issues within its remit
and with the difficult problem of managing a dispersed and diverse
workforce with a view to achieving consistency. As will be seen
from what we have written above, we are not wholly convinced that
Ofsted has quality assurance systems of the necessary power to
bring about success in this task, or that any singe organisation
could have. There is, therefore, an argument for rationalizing
its remit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
12. 12.1 That Ofsted should bear heavily
on the private inspection providers to achieve significantly enhanced
consistency in the behaviour and judgement of inspectors countrywide;
in particular that it give adequate attention to recruitment and
training.
12.2 That the breadth of Ofsted's
remit should be re-considered. Some thought might, for example,
be given to splitting off its purely schools functions from other
aspects of the current remit.
12.3 That Ofsted should make every effort to
complete the current inspection cycle and to make up the existing
backlog of inspections.
October 2010
Annex A
| Inspection date |
Nursery | Ofsted Reference
| Nature of complaint |
| 03/02/10 | Milton Park | CAS124254
| Kidsunlimited considered that one of the inspectors potentially had a conflict of interest as they unsuccessfully applied for a job with Kidsunlimited;evidence presented at the end of the inspection was both incorrect and insufficient to substantiate the outcome of the report; evidence presented by the inspectors was contradictory and did not match the Ofsted criteria for inadequate judgements; the opportunity to present written evidence and information to support the actions and results of the nursery care and education was denied.
Ofsted Investigation Outcome
Due to an inspector's conflict of interest the inspection was declared 'null and void' and other issues to be considered as part of a re-inspection.
Milton Park was then reinspected 21/07/10 and graded as Outstanding.
|
| 08/10/09 | Cambridge Science Park
| 221633, letter dated 23/10/09
0910-173
| Concerns were raised regarding the way the inspection was conducted. This complaint was not upheld.
|
Annex B
| URN | Nursery |
Inspection Date | Type
| Period between inspections/since last inspection
* taken from 1st August following date of previous inspection
|
| Ladbroke Grove | 17/07/06
| Care & Ed | 3 years 7 months
|
| Ladbroke Grove | 23/03/10
| EYFS | |
| — | Lynda Ellis | 13/12/05
| Care & Ed | 3 years 4 months
|
| 300748 | Lynda Ellis | 30/12/09
| EYFS | |
| — | Macintosh | 16/02/06
| Care & Ed | 3 years 3 months
|
| — | Macintosh | 09/11/09
| EYFS | |
| EY225148 | North Cheam | 23/11/06
| Care & Ed | 3 years 1 month
|
| EY336120 | North Cheam | 20/09/10
| EYFS | |
| — | Stourton | 23/02/04
| Old | 3 years 3 months |
| 319379 | Stourton | 07/11/07
| Care & Ed | |
| — | Summerfields | 04/12/03
| Old | 3 years 1 month |
| 305347 | Summerfields | 26/09/07
| Care & Ed | |
| — | Wolfson | 06/07/05
| Care & Ed | 3 years 2 months
|
| EY301066 | Wolfson | 15/10/08
| EYFS | |
| — | Woodlands | 09/03/04
| Old | 3 years 7 months |
| 256850 | Woodlands | 11/03/08
| Care & Ed | |
|
