The role and performance of Ofsted

Memorandum submitted by Essex County Council Early Years and Childcare

1. What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit) To ensure children are safe, well cared for by suitable people, that minimum standards are met by providers, that the users/public have confidence in providers and that they are suitable and meeting the  minimum standards. That children receive the best possible care and learning environment possible. Consistent framework which ensures that all settings inspected are challenged to improve.

2. The impact of the inspection process on school improvement. Inspection should identify what needs to be done to bring about improvement, what is done well and how the standards are met. It should ensure that good schools do not get complacent. It should give parents a clear understanding of standards within the school.

3. The performance of Ofsted in carrying out its work. Within EY inspections we have seen great variation between individual inspectors and a lack of consistency which has resulted in some settings being given an inadequate judgement and an action by one inspector and another inspector allowing the setting time to address the issue before the end of the inspection and therefore getting a satisfactory/ good judgement. Teams must have experience and specialism, in many cases EY settings on school sites have been inspected by school inspectors, often not experienced in Early Years. Settings on school sites have often reported to the LA that they feel that they were inspected as an add on, and have felt cheated by the process and unable, sometimes due to very short time inspectors are within the setting, to showcase their setting to the inspector. Often recommendations are not taken from the EYFS Statutory framework. The range of documentation available to support practitioners in what Ofsted are looking for has been really beneficial to settings. The evaluation schedule for school inspections does not mention out of school provision and therefore it is not surprising that the vast majority do not factor these settings into their inspection programme. As schools must ensure the core offer is met it is important that inspectors should also be checking this provision for quality. Unfortunately regular meetings with EY inspectors and the LA are no longer taking place, these were a valuable forum to exchange skills, knowledge and information, we feel that these have been a great loss and would like to see these reinstated. When as a LA we have had to make a complaint about a setting to Ofsted, we have sometimes found that these are not taken seriously. Also we have concerns that when a setting moves to a school site, the inspection is under the timeframe of the school – which could mean a setting has a new registration, and consequently no last inspection report available for parents, and may have to wait for 3 years or more to be inspected.

4. The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process. As above there has been great consistency between EY inspections especially when a setting is inspected by a school inspector. Also the length of time spent in settings is often very different, and this can affect the final judgement when not all areas are looked at.

5. The weight given to different factors within the inspection process. When an EY setting has children under 3 years old, there is too little focus within the report on outcomes and provision specifically for this age group.

6. Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate. As long as specialism is kept, e.g. EY inspectors.

7. The role of Ofsted in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy. Ofsted need to ensure that children are receiving high quality care and education.

October 2010