Opinion: In my view - Inspections need a re-fit

It was a major error to introduce an inspection and grading system designed for schools to assess childcare, which is considerably more emotive to parents. Ofsted claims the inspection is merely a snapshot of what the inspector finds on the day, but this is unhelpful. It is unclear to parents in an inspection report, increasingly undertaken by a single inspector who, using spurious observations, acts as judge and jury.

There is no common standard. One can read almost identical reports with different outcomes. Reputations of perfectly adequate providers can rise or fall, generally the latter, based on the subjective judgement of an inspector arriving unannounced on either a good or a bad day. Minor items are highlighted by Ofsted's so-called impact statement, and generalised to an entire setting, leading to elated or demoralised staff and parents.

Parents soon pick up on truly bad provision and vote with their feet. Yet Ofsted inspections often misrepresent the standard of both popular and poor providers because there is no measurement in their Toolkit for demographics, occupancy or popularity. Some inspectors take the view that a successful provider with good occupancy must be doing something wrong; staffing or resources must be inadequate. Others might see the bigger picture, but the inspection framework provides little scope to encourage improvement without condemnation.

A less definitive, achievement-based grading system would serve childcare inspection better. Take, for example, the five stars awarded by food hygiene inspectors - one star certainly means a restaurant needs to improve, but Inadequate would have it closed. Perhaps there should be just one grade, Satisfactory, and five star grades within it, and a provider failing to meet this be given a short time to improve, or lose their registration.