The role and performance of Ofsted

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 4 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 5. 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 [1] .

Hopkin et al (2010) carried out a comparison of Ofsted gradings and ECERS assessments as part of the MOPSU [2] 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 [3] . 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. Nontheless, 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 [4] . 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 3 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 6 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