Ofsted: ‘Sole arbiter of quality’

Back in 2013 a document was published by the Department for Education in England. It was called More great childcare: Raising quality and giving parents more choice. Under the, then, Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare in England – Liz Truss, the driving force of the remit of this document was based on this premise –

We have a good tradition of early education in England, and some fine examples of excellent practice. But we should be prepared to encourage all providers to learn from the best, and learn from effective practice in other countries.

This is a laudable intent, but it is now 10 years on. 

What, if anything, has happened?

At a time when so much is in the press about Ofsted, and their apparent lack of informed, pedagogical knowledge of teaching and what learning looks like particularly in early childhood education and care (ECEC), it is an interesting time to revisit the points made in 2013.

A significant point here is that the title of the document includes the word ‘Childcare’ but not ‘Education’. If we see this false dichotomy as at the heart of the problem, then what has happened over the last 10 years could be seen to make sense.

With a remit to reflect on how to build on excellent practice, and reflect on learning from best practice in other countries, the focus of the 2013 document is on qualifications and ratios – yet more problematic thinking that is headline news again. But the standout line is –

We believe Ofsted should become the sole arbiter of quality in the early years, focused on identifying under-performance.

This is a huge responsibility

In 2011, 2 years before the document More Great Childcare was published, Dame Clare Tickell wrote an independent report called The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning. This was an independent review of the introduction of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) in 2008, and was addressed to the Minister of State for Children and Families.  In the review Dame Clare Tickell wrote –

My terms of reference were clear that I should ensure that my review was evidence-led, building on what works well in the current EYFS, and improving those areas that are causing problems.

Her comment on Ofsted runs –

5.20: I also believe that Ofsted’s role in improving quality across the early years sector should not only be acknowledged but also built upon, for example by providing a clear definition of what satisfactory, good and outstanding practice is, with examples of what this looks like in different settings. In raising quality, Ofsted also needs to consider the skills of early years inspectors.

She goes on to say –

I recommend that Ofsted reviews the training, capacity and capability of the current early years inspectorate and existing guidance to inspectors, with a view to setting clear minimum requirements for all early years inspectors in terms of experience, skills and qualifications.

Fast forward to 2023

Whilst we would all agree that it is important to have a method of the quality assurance so that the practice and provision in ECEC is the best it can possibly be, we still do not have a well-informed body to do this. In fact, we seem to get further away from this point.

There is an increasing divide in the world of ECEC in England. Over my years working in the sector I have noticed it develop. It is now fuelled by social media, but it remains rooted in a persistent lack of understanding of child development and a knowledge of the pedagogy of ECEC. Why is this? Why is it that, the more that we learn about how children develop both neurologically and physically, the criteria against which practice and provision is judged gets increasingly narrow and does not acknowledge what current research tells us? Or even what a wealth of historical research tells us. 

The false dichotomy between education and care

The Ofsted inspection process in England first began in 1992, and has consistently divided opinion ever since. On the one hand it is a good idea that we have a quality assurance body across the education sector. Including the non-maintained sector. This, however, is where the issue lies. The false dichotomy between education and care. This has resulted in a two-tier inspection framework which, despite Ofsted’s insistence that they only inspect against the Statutory Framework for the EYFS, means that school based EYFS provision is inspected against a different set of criteria from provision based in all other settings. 

As an inspection body, Ofsted are driven by the education system and results that are quantifiable. In other words, a school-based model. This does not sit easily with the developmental approach that is required in ECEC and has become a relentless drive in Nursery and Reception towards reading and writing that must be taught in a very specific way. 

So what do we do? The way forward is ultimately to have a complete and independent review of the inspection process and framework. For which we can but hope. In the meantime however, we can make the best of a bad job in these ways –

• By knowing our Statutory Framework inside out and back to front. Ofsted say that they inspect against it, it applies to children from birth to five, and these children are in Reception classes too.
• By knowing the Inspection Frameworks inside out and back to front so that we can question and discuss in an informed way
• Most importantly we must be knowledgeable about child development, physically and in neuroscience, and how this has to be the root of our pedagogy.

Until we have an inspectorate that really understands ECEC, then it is up to us to keep them informed. I have recently taken to calling the fourth ‘Overarching Principle’ from the Statutory Framework ‘Development and Learning’, rather than as it is written the other way round.

Without healthy development, there cannot be effective learning. For a body to be the sole arbiter of quality, then it must understand this.