Memorandum submitted by A+ Education Ltd
1. This evidence is provided by A+ Education Ltd.
We will answer the Education Select Committee's questions
with particular reference to Early Years education and care. A+
Education Ltd is the leading UK authority on the Environment Rating
Scales (ECERS, ITERS and others), supporting over 40 Local Authorities
and many practitioners across England in using the scales for
quality improvement. We have conducted over 1,500 quality audits
of Early Years settings in England over the last four years, using
these internationally-recognised and research-validated tools.
2. The purpose of inspection (relating not only
to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under
Ofsted's remit).
The purpose of inspection should be to ensure the
quality of provision offered to all children. Self-evaluation
should be at the heart of the improvement process.
3. The impact of the inspection process on school
improvement.
We believe that the Ofsted regulatory framework has
had a positive impact overall. The recent focus on self-evaluation
(e.g. the SEF) is very positive. However, we believe that the
mechanisms should be reviewed to ensure that all work carried
out in preparing for Ofsted (including self-evaluation) serves
a valid and useful purpose. Settings and schools currently spend
a large amount of time preparing for inspections, and completing
the self-evaluation form. Any moves which can help to reduce the
burden - for example, focusing on 'improving' rather than on 'proving'
- would be welcomed.
4. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its
work.
The quality of provision over the past years has
undoubtedly improved, and we believe that Ofsted inspections have
contributed to this. In particular, the bar has been raised at
the bottom end. Reports from settings on the experience of inspections
also appear to have been more positive in recent years. Inspectors
seem to be taking greater account of other sources of information
- for example, gathering the views of children and parents, and
taking greater account of Local Authority data/support ratings
for settings. In our view these are moves to be welcomed. However,
there remain a number of problems, including:
— The
knowledge of Ofsted inspectors, particularly in relation to Early
Years. In our experience, many Ofsted inspectors lack specialist
knowledge in the areas of child development and what constitutes
developmentally-appropriate practice. Knowledge of the Early Years
Foundation Stage amongst inspectors also seems variable. A properly
trained and qualified workforce is essential if Early Years inspections
are to be valuable in raising quality. This relates not only to
the recommendations of the reports themselves, but also to the
extent to which settings and schools respect the judgements made.
If practitioners working with young children do not feel that
inspectors have a sound knowledge of early years practice, they
will be less likely to value the conclusions and recommendations
made. On a related issue, we believe that all those responsible
for inspecting schools should have a teaching background (ideally
qualified teacher status).
— Lack
of consistency in judgements. The focus and conclusions of the
reports appear to vary enormously depending on the inspector.
— Despite
an overall reduction in the number of very poor settings, there
are many settings we visit which have been graded as satisfactory
(or higher) by Ofsted around which we have had serious concerns.
5. The consistency and quality of inspection teams
in the Ofsted inspection process.
See point 4 above.
6. The weight given to different factors within
the inspection process
Having both the welfare requirements and learning
and development requirements together in one framework gives the
right message i.e. that education and care cannot be separated
and that both are equally important to give children the best
start in life. However, we believe that Ofsted inspections should
separate the two more significantly than they do currently. In
our experience, Ofsted inspectors give settings inadequate or
satisfactory judgements more easily in relation to the welfare
requirements because these are more straightforward areas to assess
than the learning and development requirements (particularly where
inspectors are not knowledgeable about Early Years). Although
the welfare requirements are obviously essential, this can sometimes
result in a setting doing very good work in terms of developing
children's learning getting the message that they are inadequate
overall.
7. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings
and services to support children's learning and welfare is best
conducted by a single inspectorate.
We believe that the regulatory function should continue
at a national level for providers of Early Years education and
care. Having one EYFS and inspection framework for both settings
and schools is positive. Requirements for some providers (for
example childminders) could be reviewed to ensure they are not
too onerous in terms of paperwork. Inspections can also be burdensome
for out-of-school providers catering for small numbers of children
under five. However in some cases it would appear to be the way
in which different Ofsted inspectors interpret the EYFS that can
cause difficulties (e.g. in relation to the amount of planning
and paperwork required).
8. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability
mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy
We have not responded to this item because the question
is unclear.
9. Research evidence.
The Environment Rating Scales include the ECERS (Early
Childhood Environmental Rating Scale), the UK curricular extension
to the ECERS (the ECERS-E) and the ITERS (Infant and Toddler Environmental
Rating Scale). They form a set of standardised quality assessment
tools, used in many countries around the world for research and
developing practice. They provide a measurable 'profile' of quality
in Early Years settings across a number of different dimensions
of quality and have been shown in many research studies, both
in the UK and elsewhere, to be reliable, valid and strongly related
to children's developmental outcomes[64].
Hopkin et al (2010) carried out a comparison of Ofsted
gradings and ECERS assessments as part of the MOPSU[65]
study, comparing quality data from 255
childcare settings collected as part of the Millennium Cohort
Study (MCS) and Ofsted quality ratings from their most recent
inspection report prior to the introduction of the EYFS. The MSC
study measured quality using the ECERS-E and selected sub-scales
from the ECERS-R. Hopkin et al found significant but weak correlations
between the ECERS-R, the ECERS-E and the Ofsted gradings, ranging
from 0.15 to 0.27[66].
They give several suggestions as to the reason for these weak
relationships, including methodological reasons (e.g. the length
of time between the Ofsted report and the MCS quality observation)
and differences in scope between the two measures. Nonetheless,
they consider the lack of apparent relationship to be surprising.
The authors also explored the relationships between
Ofsted, ECERS and a variety of child outcome measures used in
the MCS study[67].
While relationships were found between the ECERS scales and a
number of the outcome measures, Ofsted inspection judgements did
not predict any of the outcome measures. They conclude that "it
is unclear from this analysis as to what aspects of quality Ofsted
judgements reflect".
We have applied for funding to extend and improve
on the Hopkin study in three specific ways:
— Firstly,
we plan to use the whole of the ECERS-R (i.e. all seven subscales)
to provide a more complete analysis, as well as extending the
remit to include a measure of quality for children under the age
of three years (the ITERS). As in the Hopkin study, we will also
use the curricular extension to the ECERS-R (the ECERS-E).
— Secondly,
we plan to limit the time between Ofsted visits and ECERS/ITERS
assessments to six months, which is generally considered to be
the "shelf-life" of an ECERS assessment. The Hopkin
study used inspection reports from the full 2005 to 2008 cycle.
The MSC quality study gathered data between March and October
2005. It is therefore possible that the time between the Ofsted
the ECERS assessment in a setting could be more than two years.
Quality is not static over long periods of time, and can vary
with changes in staffing and other influences. Reducing the time
between the observation and inspection dates will therefore ensure
that the quality being measured is comparable.
— Thirdly,
we propose to include inspection reports post 2008, thus bringing
the comparison up to date to include the EYFS inspection regime
and providing current information for the proposed review of the
inspection framework (as well as the EYFS review). We will aim
to carry out separate comparisons for inspections pre and post
2008, but this will depend on the numbers in each group within
the sample.
We have access to a very large sample of ECERS/ITERS
quality audits (up to 2,000), providing low-cost access to a large
amount of existing data. These have been carried out by trained
observers, with rigorous reliability standards. We are therefore
confident that the data is reliable and robust.
Our research question will be:
— What
are the key differences in content and scope between Ofsted and
ECERS/ITERS quality ratings and what can the comparison tell us
about what Ofsted reports measure?
We hope that this data will be available, should
a wider review of the Ofsted framework be commissioned. The research
would have the specific aim of informing policy development in
the field, and providing recommendations as to how the UK regulatory
and quality monitoring frameworks could be improved.
October 2010
64 Sylva et al (2004), Burchinal et al (2002), Pesiner-Feinberg
and Burchinal (1997) Back
65
Hopkin, R., Wilkinson, D., Stokes, L. (2010). Quality, Outcomes
and Costs In Early Years Education.Report to: Office for National
Statistics. The research forms part of the 'Measuring Outcomes
for Public Service Users' (MOPSU) project. Back
66
0 would indicate no association between the two measures and one
is a perfect correlation. Back
67
Three assessments based on the British Ability Scales, a difficulties
and a prosocial behaviour score from the Goodman Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire, and Foundation Stage Profile Assessments Back
| 
