While Ofsted has long been criticised and mistrusted, the extent to which it has recently been vilified is nothing short of shocking.
Following the suicide of head teacher Ruth Perry, after her school was downgraded from Outstanding to Inadequate, the inspectorate has been described in the media as imposing a ‘reign of terror’, its inspectors have become ‘bullies’ and its systems ‘intensely cruel’.
When we posted our own Ofsted survey (analysis, page 6) we swiftly received around 3,000 responses, and while there is plenty in the feedback to suggest that Ofsted's current style of inspection is stressful, it also provides a more balanced picture than one might have expected.
But what are the true ingredients of the current toxic situation for early years? Is it the inspection framework, the individual inspectors, or a combination of the two? Our survey suggests that the quality of inspectors is hugely variable and not all are necessarily ‘bad’ – in fact, far from it. But Ofsted's system itself is increasingly at odds with the challenges and ethos of provision – as is borne out by powerful criticism from the sector about its ‘early years reviews’ (page 39).
What providers need from an inspection regime is not the same as schools. Commonalities are shared with care home inspectorate the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which is currently overhauling its inspection regime to ‘involve providers and the public more’ in its development. A similar focus is needed for Ofsted; it should reassess what information parents want to know about early years settings – such as value for money, structure of environment, qualifications and ‘interests’ of staff. Labour has said that the inspection system ‘is high stakes for staff but low information for parents’. This point is echoed by Professor Helen Penn (page 12) and it is something that Ofsted should take heed of.
