Publication date
Author
"The only way forward is via collective action with all stakeholders pulling in the same direction leaving the divisive and toxic rhetoric of recent times behind."
Over recent months there has been an ever-growing number of headlines concerning Ofsted and its role within the education sector, with the spotlight of the ‘mainstream’ media focusing on the inspectorate after the tragic death of headteacher Ruth Perry in January 2023.
In December 2023 a coroner ruled Perry’s suicide was ‘”contributed to by an Ofsted inspection carried out in November 2022” at the school that she led,’ (Adams, 2023).
Ofsted’s subsequent response to the coroner’s report by then Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman was to pause inspections for schools (not childminders or early years settings) whilst urgent training for its lead inspectors on dealing with anxiety and understanding when to pause inspections was carried out. This pause, again only applying to schools, was further extended in January 2024 by the new Chief Inspector Sir Martyn Oliver until the ‘initial training has been put in place,’ (Adams, 2024). Oliver also announced Ofsted would launch an inquiry into the role the inspectorate played in Ruth Perry’s death.
Whilst it is important to acknowledge the opportunity for accountability and reflection these decisions provide, we must also loudly ask the question echoed by many other organisations as to why the pause to inspections only includes schools? Is it not fair to say the anxiety caused and pressure felt before, during and often after inspections impacts everyone who experiences them, not just those who work in schools?
I fear the continued belittling of the ‘non-school’ parts of the education sector by Ofsted adds more fuel to the already at times toxic debate about Ofsted’s role and what the future should hold for them.
Equally however, this narrative does not come at a surprise. A number of leading voices in education often point out that the sector is guilty of making choices which further widen the gap between it and what is widely considered to be more ‘formal’ education: such as schools. For example, Jan Dubiel often reiterates (including at both the Nursery World Show 2023 and The Voice of Early Childhood conference 2023) his belief that while the phrase ‘childcare’ continues to be used to describe certain parts of the sector, it will never be taken seriously.
I do see his point. ‘Childcare’ and ‘school’ can mean two very different things to people. The word education is synonymous with schools for example. The two words are so deeply intertwined the connection cannot be ignored. Whereas ‘childcare’ clearly insinuates that it is a ‘caring’ role rather than an ‘educational’ one. This narrative is further pushed by the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) own wording chosen to explain the 15/30 hour funding parents can access. It repeatedly refers to it as ‘free childcare’ rather than education, thus further embedding the perception that children who access the ‘free’ hours are doing so to be ‘cared’ for rather than educated during this time. There is a potential solution being using already in some circles however – early childhood education and care (ECEC). This term can be seen often used in academia and internationally in an attempt to encompass the education and the care side which many see as vital to working with young children. I would argue however, this is mainly in those specific domains and it does not permeate outside of this environment in the same way as other terminology.
It could also be argued that the longer the marked difference in terminology is allowed to persist the more disengaged early years becomes from the rest of the education sector, and arguably the more Ofsted and other stakeholders could be justified in their active choices to treat us differently.
I’m not sure I fully understand this part and the above, I think I know what you’re saying but can you try rephrase here/make it clearer?
Is a line being crossed?
I first began to write this piece in early December 2023 around the time the coroner’s report on Ruth Perry’s death was released. I decided to do this in response to a range of posts on social media by leading voices from the early childhood sector who were using their platform to suggest that Ofsted should be ‘banned’ or ‘uninvited’ from speaking at events held by the sector. This was, at least in part, a response to allegations that the DfE have monitored social media posts by a range of early years specialists, keeping files on them (Fazackerley, 2023a). These files have then been used to silence these voices and deny them the right to speak at events by persuading organisers to cancel such speakers or by pulling the support for them entirely.
A report in the Observer newspaper in November 2023 (Fazackerley, 2023b) following on from their initial investigation into the attempted silencing of early years specialists found that the DfE had created guidance specifically for ‘vetting speakers at its stronger practice hubs.’ It said that any individual who had criticised the DfE or its policies are ‘unlikely to be appropriate’ to speak at the hubs. The guidance even went on to recommend officials searched through social media and online records up to five years previous via an online search engine. Let me be clear for a second – this behaviour by the DfE, Ofsted and any other organisation who attempt to silence the voices of their critics or pressure other organisers or individuals to change the content of their materials to suit a certain narrative is dangerous. This behaviour is reminiscent of authoritarian governments who engage in censorship rather than promoting the freedom of speech and democracy educators are expected to champion through the Fundamental British Values and the values Rishi Sunak, (the current UK Prime Minister) cited when he stood outside Downing Street to make a speech about protecting democracy on Friday 1st March 2024.
Do we disengage with Ofsted and the DfE?
I personally find the rhetoric encouraging people to disengage with Ofsted and the DfE more broadly to be divisive and extremely unhelpful, almost click bait like in its desire to provoke a response from those reading and potentially build momentum for a ‘grassroots’ movement whilst also not sharing the end goal of any such movement.
It is important to note that I also have frustrations with Ofsted and the DfE, more recently the failure to treat the early years sector equally by also suspending inspections as mentioned above. Despite this, my viewpoint largely remains the same, I do not believe we should in return attempt to silence Ofsted and the DfE and disengage from collaborating with them. Such an approach will not lead to change or improved outcomes for the workforce, children or their families.
As an example let’s consider some scenarios… say as a sector we do make the decision to disengage from Ofsted and the DfE and we do deny them a platform at events/conferences, what happens next?
Are we simply going to be inspected and regulated by an entity which is not motivated to show clear accountability? An inspectorate who could then justifiably self-evaluate and bring in changes where no voices from the ‘grassroots’ of the sector have been consulted?
Another alternative could be to refuse inspectors access to our settings – are we going to do that? No of course we cannot legally do this, and beside the legalities, it would be highly unprofessional to do so.
Where does the line of disengagement get drawn?
One of the values that underpins my practice is ensuring all children feel that their voice is heard, therefore it would be hypocritical if I were to advocate for anyone to have their voice taken away. When views are shared that we disagree with, it is the opportunity to engage with these individuals or organisations and ask them to consider the opposing views. Simply shutting down dialogue leads to more division and will ultimately only harm all stakeholders in the longer term, whether these are the professionals in the sector or the children and their families.
What should we do?
Throughout this piece, I have chosen my words carefully. The use of the word ‘we’ emphasises the need for this to be a whole sector approach. A collaboration of all the moving parts within early childhood brought together to achieve a common goal: ensuring the best possible outcomes for children and their families as well as the professionals involved too.
Whether you believe Ofsted is ‘fit-for-purpose’ or that it requires ‘root and branch reform’ the truth remains the same. The only way forward is via collective action with all stakeholders pulling in the same direction leaving the divisive and toxic rhetoric of recent times behind.
The DfE must always remain a key voice for the future of early childhood and Ofsted is here to stay for the foreseeable future whilst there remains no credible alternative on the table. Accountability matters for all.
Key takeaways
- Early years settings are often not seen and respected through an educational lens in comparison to schools.
- In recent years the rhetoric around involvement with Ofsted and the DfE has become much more divisive.
- The way in which the DfE have been engaging with the sector by banning early years specialists from speaking at events is inappropriate and the silencing of voices goes against Fundamental British Values.
- Disengaging with the DfE and Ofsted is not a helpful solution to having the early years’s sector’s voices being heard.
Critical considerations
- Can change for the better really be achieved by silencing the voices of key stakeholders?
- How can we ensure that the early years sector gets the respect it deserves? What actionable steps can we all try to take in advocating for our sector, no matter how small?
- Do we need to unpick the language we use? Is the term ‘childcare’ representative enough of early years? Are we fuelling the lack of respect for our work by not changing our language?
Would you like to share your voice with Ofsted?
HMI Chief Ofsted Inspector Sir Martyn Oliver announced that ‘…I want any future changes we make to be developed with input from all of you. I don’t believe it’s the job of a Chief Inspector to impose their own views or cause frequent disruption to the sectors we regulate,’ (Ofsted, 2024. My priorities for the early years sector).
Ofsted will be launching the ‘Big Listen’ to hear voices from the sector, but we don’t know what this will look like yet. So through our advocacy focus at The Voice of Early Childhood (TVOEC) we are collating the early years community’s voices. Do you have something to share with Ofsted?
Fill in the below form and we will share your voice with Ofsted through either the TVOEC podcast if they agree to come on as a guest, through an open letter or other ways – whatever is most appropriate.
References
Adams, R. 2023. Ofsted inspection contributed to headteacher’s suicide, coroner rules. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/dec/07/ofsted-inspection-contributed-to-headteacher-suicide-ruth-perry-coroner-rules. Date accessed: 2nd March 2024
Adams, R. 2024. Ofsted bows to pressure and halts inspections after Ruth Perry’s suicide
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/02/ofsted-bows-to-pressure-and-halts-inspections-after-ruth-perrys-suicide. Date accessed: 2nd March 2024
Fazackerley, A. 2023a. Revealed: UK government keeping files on education critics’ social media activity. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/30/revealed-uk-government-keeping-files-on-education-critics-social-media-activity. Date accessed: 2nd March b2024
Fazackerley, A. 2023b. ‘Shocking’ scale of UK government’s secret files on critics revealed. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/shocking-scale-of-uk-governments-secret-files-on-critics-revealed. Date accessed: 2nd March 2024
About the author
Watch the full podcast episode
You might also be interested in...
