An incredibly difficult and turbulent time for the early years sector is covered in last year's Ofsted annual report. Not only were providers – from September 2021 to August 2022 – continuing to deal with the pandemic's aftermath, but they were battling with underfunding and severe recruitment problems, while, by the end of the academic year, the cost-of-living crisis was closing in with energy and food prices skyrocketing.
The report says that recovery from the pandemic remains ‘a work in progress’ and acknowledges that providers’ resilience is being tested. It adds that if the sector is to be strong in the face of future challenges then problems with recruiting and retaining staff must be ‘urgently addressed’. It states, ‘The early years sector is competing with, and losing out to, higher-paid or more flexible employment. Nurseries have closed because they cannot recruit or retain high-quality, qualified and experienced staff. Some have become over-reliant on apprentices to fill gaps, which has a knock-on effect on the quality of education and safeguarding.’
FALL IN GRADINGS
Ofsted returned to a full programme of inspections during the last academic year following a pause during the pandemic. An Ofsted spokesperson confirmed to Nursery World that the inspectorate is now up to date with early years inspections. ‘Our staff have worked extremely hard to catch up on the backlog of inspections from the pandemic,’ she stated. ‘In September 2022, we were delighted to have successfully met the ambitious targets we had put in place to catch up on early years inspections.’
The report found that the proportion of Early Years Register (EYR) providers judged Good or Outstanding overall has fallen by six percentage points:
- 89 per cent in 2019-20 (the last year of routine inspections before they were suspended in March 2020 due to the pandemic).
- 83 per cent in 2021-22.
- The proportion of EYR providers judged Good or Outstanding overall also fell by six percentage points:
- 85 per cent in 2019-20
- 79 per cent in 2021-22.
Children 1st, which operates 23 settings, underwent 14 Ofsted inspections in a ten-month period following the new EYFS framework being introduced in September 2021 and at the end of Covid restrictions, when founder and CEO Margaret Mason says nurseries had not had a chance to recover properly. Eight of the inspected nurseries were downgraded from Outstanding, which Mason says left staff teams ‘extremely demoralised’.
‘Currently, Ofsted acts as a demoralising force within the industry,’ she says. ‘Settings receive “Outstanding” feedback but are told they have got a Good because of a minor discrepancy; for example, a trainee apprentice will not be at the same level as other qualified or experienced staff when “quizzed” by an inspector. They are a trainee apprentice learning on the job – being mentored and supported at all times by a qualified staff member – and should not be expected to know everything.
‘In an industry that has a staffing crisis, working collaboratively to improve outcomes for children in a positive manner would be a huge benefit to the industry, building confidence and improving morale.’
She believes that ‘judging a setting based on an inspection that witnesses a minuscule snapshot of life at the nursery is not visionary or fit for purpose’. Referring to the death of primary head teacher Ruth Perry, who killed herself after an Ofsted inspection downgraded her school, Caversham Primary School in Reading, from Outstanding to ‘inadequate’ (see Analysis), Mason says the inspection process needs reviewing and ‘inadequate’ should be removed from assessment criteria. She says, ‘If a nursery is truly inadequate then it should be closed down immediately. Currently it would be allowed to stay open which, in my opinion, does not make sense.’
Mason would like Ofsted to support nurseries by engaging in dialogue with providers and establishing better routes for contesting judgements or making complaints, rather than going to the inspector first.
REVISED EYFS
The updated EYFS framework, launched at the start of the annual review's remit, brought with it significant changes which Mason speculates have had an impact on Ofsted gradings.
‘I think this has a lot to do with the timing of the new EYFS framework that was introduced in 2021,’ she says. ‘Its introduction came in towards the tail end of Covid and nurseries hadn't recovered properly in terms of re-establishing their staff teams and working in a “non-Covid” way. The impact of this on both staff and children cannot be underestimated.’
Mason adds, ‘We are now up and running in a pre-Covid way, but this has taken time. I think Ofsted were also impacted by this and some inspectors aren't also fully up to speed on the new framework and so lack the confidence to give Outstanding judgements. Giving a Good is “safer” than saying a setting is Outstanding in some circumstances.’
When it was put to Ofsted that nurseries feel their recent inspection grades are not a true reflection of their practice and are demoralising for staff, the spokesperson responded, ‘The pandemic had a profound impact on the sector and early years practitioners have worked hard to support children in catching up on what they missed. All our inspection outcomes are subject to thorough quality assurance processes to ensure that the grade is an accurate and fair reflection of the evidence gathered.’
NURSERY GROUPS
The annual report highlights that around half of pre-schools and nurseries are owned by multiple providers. Currently nursery settings are inspected individually despite the fact that in the majority of nursery groups, it is the larger organisation taking responsibility for influencing policy and practice across its settings.
A report published the previous year by Ofsted, How early years multiple providers work (see Further information), recommended that nursery groups should be inspected in a similar way to Multi-Academy Trusts, with inspection report summary evaluations looking at the extent to which a multiple provider is delivering high-quality education and improving children's outcomes.
The Ofsted spokesperson said that the inspectorate is still looking at how to best inspect nursery groups. ‘More childcare settings are now run by multiple providers and stronger oversight of these providers is vital to ensure that every child is being offered the best start in life,’ she stated. ‘We continue to have conversations with Government and the wider sector about ensuring regulation sits where it has greatest impact.’
Mason says, ‘I think the most impactful change they could make would be to remove the word “inadequate” from the judging criteria. This is soul-destroying for settings. Instead, they should give a series of recommendations and then come back in three to six months and see if these have been improved upon.
‘I would also like to see more consistency in how inspections are carried out. Currently, the inconsistencies from inspection to inspection are vast. What one inspector may not appreciate, topic-based learning, for example, another inspector will “like”. Where one inspector might carry out an inspection spending time observing and interacting with children and staff in a room, another inspector will sit quietly in a room on a laptop typing and observing, not interacting, which can be intimidating to some staff.’
- This article links with our analysis on page 6, which explores the results of a Nursery World survey gauging current opinion on Ofsted
What does it mean?
Addressing the Nursery World Business Summit in March, Wendy Ratcliff, principal officer, early education at Ofsted, outlined what Ofsted wants to see in a quality early years curriculum. According to her:
The curriculum is not:
- the same as teaching (pedagogy): the curriculum is what is taught not how it is taught.
- the same as providing ‘experiences’. Providing ‘experiences’ is not a substitute for thinking about what children need to learn.
- about devising more and more elaborate or creative activities.
- a substitute for working out what children need to learn and how.
A good curriculum…
- is based on proactive thinking.
- is the product of clear consideration of the sequence of knowledge necessary for children to make progress.
- ensures that all children are ready for the challenges that await them.
Key messages
- The curriculum covers all children.
- Adults consider what children already know and can do.
- Children with gaps get extra help.
- Practitioners consider a child's interests when choosing activities.
- Children's play is valued.
- Explicit teaching introduces new knowledge.
What should we do?
Last year, Ofsted published the first of a series of early years reviews.
Best start in life part 1: setting the scene(see Further information) describes the features of a high-quality early years curriculum and pedagogy. But more than 100 sector experts and early years organisations signed an open letter to Ofsted citing ‘deficiencies’ within the review. The letter was co-ordinated by Early Education and expressed concern that the paper relied on a ‘small and incomplete review’ of the literature, not reflecting the ‘rich and extensive peer-reviewed research evidence available, nor the wealth of excellent practice in the sector’.
Early Education chief executive, Beatrice Merrick explains, ‘Our concern was that Ofsted was setting up the reports as a source of expertise, but failing to deliver on that aspiration. We were disappointed Ofsted did not offer to engage with our offer of input from the large number of experienced and knowledgeable signatories of the letter.’
Early years consultant Helen Moylett says, ‘If the review was Ofsted's attempt to set itself up as an expert on early years pedagogy and curriculum, it failed!
‘There are many areas of concern and inaccuracies which imply that it was not written by anyone with a deep practical and intellectual understanding of child development or the sector.’
The letter highlighted nine concerns:
- The review focuses on birth to age four and excludes Reception classes.
- Underpinning principles do not reflect those of the EYFS itself.
- There is limited engagement with research evidence.
- Definition of curriculum being used across all phases of education puts it under too much strain.
- Definition of teaching does not include the first sentence of Ofsted's ‘long-established and well-constructed’ definition – ‘Teaching in the early years should not be taken to imply a “top down” or formal way of working.’
- No mention of the Characteristics of Effective Learning in the sections on ‘How children learn and cognitive science’ and ‘Executive function’, which are core to the EYFS.
- The suggestion that practitioners would limit children to their existing interests and not give opportunities to develop new ones is ‘bizarre’.
- Misinterpretation of ‘play’ – a poor reflection of the complex and nuanced literature on this topic.
- The review's examples of practice are not be well chosen or explained.
Ofsted plans to explore the seven areas of learning in the EYFS in its subsequent reviews. The letter concludes with signatories urging Ofsted to trial these with ‘knowledgeable and experienced practitioners and researchers’ before publishing them, as well as engage with sector representative bodies.
Merrick is yet to hear further from Ofsted but adds that the offer of support to the inspectorate remains open.
Since the publication of the first review, Ofsted has announced that it is expanding its curriculum team to include two new leads for early education, with the aim of strengthening the inspectorate's early years expertise. Julian Grenier, head of Sheringham Nursery School and Children's Centre in Newham and author of Development Matters has just started and will be joined by Mireille Macraild, education services director, early years at Herts for Learning.
FURTHER INFORMATION
- The Annual Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills 2021/22: https://bit.ly/40LOyL5
- Best start in life part 1: setting the scene, Ofsted: https://bit.ly/3nuymiY
- How early years multiple providers work, Ofsted: https://bit.ly/42W889l
