Ofsted vs. Child

[Oligo]

Overheard parents talking in cafe other day:

One said one of their friends wasn't bothered about Ofsted registration for nannies or Ofsted ratings in nurseries (and presumably CMS).

They (the cafe people) were totally shocked by this friend's attitude and tutted and exclaimed how irresponsible it was to take that view. They seemed to believe Ofsted was some sort of guarantee and last word in quality. They said if nurseries can't get the presentation and paperwork straight what does that say about how they care for children?

I despaired a little at their attitude and almost interrupted. I think my opinion (and experience) is that if they divert resources to paper there is less for the kiddies? But then does this contradict the value I would place on a thoughtfully presented nanny and cv at interview or leaving tidy and clean house at end of day? What do others think?

I think that there has to be some sort of regulatory body that childcare providers are accountable to. Whether this should be in the form of OSTFED or other, I am not sure.

However, I find that as a childminder, I am overwhelmed by paperwork to the point that i do as little as possible, and then usually have a major catch up when OFSTED is due. That defeats the purpose, I think.

OFSTED is no guarantee: I know of some registered CMs that I would never use, and I know of some that are just wonderful with kids!

I'll probably have more to add later!!

IMHO, the only plus side for OFSTED nanny registration is if you want to use childcare vouchers.

Nurseries cannot operate without OFSTED registration, and I would be wary of one which had a very poor report. But precise details of the rating are far less important than other aspects of the nursery - such as its ethos and your gut feeling of how it would suit your child.

Nick made a comment the other day about OFSTED and nannies something along the lines that it was a guarantee of minimum standards and even then they're pretty low, which I agree 100% with. Tbh I don't think I'd consider a nanny who didn't meet the requirements (insurance, first aid, CRB and common core) but I don't need them to be registered to demonstrate that.

For nurseries again there's minimum standards which need to be met but above that it comes down to personal preference. It depends what different people feel are important. If a nursery can't get the paperwork straight to meet the minimum required then there is a problem.

Paperwork that OFSTED approve of doesn't automatically mean the children are receiving less care and attention, just that some people think the way OFSTED want people to think naturally and have incorporated that into their practice.

I think it's more to do with people's skewed perceptions of OFSTED tbh.

I think this report is a case in point.

www.plymouth.gov.uk/serious_case_review_nursery_z.pdf

According to OFSTED, it was a good nursery. The LA Early Years Team thought otherwise, and there's no guessing who turned out to be correct.

"They seemed to believe Ofsted was some sort of guarantee and last word in quality." If only that were true. I believe OFSTED are good btw, but realistically - think about it - what does a 3-hour-long visit once every 4 years REALLY tell you about a childcare setting?

I tell parents that an OFSTED registration should reassure them that I can administer basic first aid, I have some idea of childcare and that my premises and paperwork - when inpsected - were OK. And that they have someone to complain to.

the moment my nursery found out ofsted was coming they'd be of jiggery pokery of ratios and normal duties. another school managererial role recently told me this was called ofsted oscars and most schools did similar!

Agree that there should be some sort of minimum standards but can/do ofsted account for any significant margin of error: either deliberate 'jiggery pokery!' or a necessary 'major catch up' with paperwork (?that should be done continuously?). Maybe I don't know so much about what/how they check.

snapfrakkle...: I can see how there might be different approaches that mean some settings slip easier into ofsted framework to get higher ratings but would that not also affect demonstration of minimum standards- does that mean 'satisfactory'?

Just a point on CRBs:

Last time I had a CRB check I had been out of EU for most of the years they required addresses for and this time abroad wasn't checked/followed up (as far as I know) yet a full clear certicficate issued within a few weeks. Not sure if that is still the case but potential employers look at it and conclude I am safe and have done nothing wrong ever (which I haven't but CRB check wouldn't necessarily be able to find out).

When I did a 2 day inspection of a pre-school (this was a while back) the pre-school didn't know an inspector was coming. So Day1 I saw it as it was, which is exactly what an inspector wants to see. Day2 they had changed some things thinking it would be better to show more educational things (children sitting at a table counting blocks with an adult for example).
I went with a Team Manager and we both made the same comment about how Day2 was so different to Day1 and that we were both happy about Day1 with children learning through their play.

Ofsted shouldn't in my view be ranking providers as Satisfactory, Good, Outstanding. Instead they should concentrate on checking that providers meet the Minimum Standard - as set by DfES (or whatever that department is called this week!).

With regard to nannies, being Ofsted registered is not a sign of quality. It just means that the nanny should have recognised training, insurance, First Aid and have had a CRB check at some point. Yet there are reports of nannies being able to register without First Aid, without insurance - so even the minimum standard isn't being check properly.

Thanks for thoughtful responses, and interesting experience of inspecting days 1 and 2. Does Ofsted not always give notice of it's inspections?

Thinking about it I suppose I was secretly interested in parent's genuine perceptions of Ofsted rankings/registration in relation to childcare and whether the conversation and attitudes were typical?

iiiiii (think I counted right!) my view on gradungs is basically that if they can't make the minimum (satisfactory) then that's probably symptomatic of something more serious but some settings/CMs just naturally and fairly effortlessly seem to set things up the way OFSTED like so it takes very little extra effort to be outstanding and some settings work in a completely different way so feel under more pressure and end up devoting a lot more time to paperwork to try and achieve the same grade. It's nothing to do with the way they care for the children in those cases and outstanding doesn't necessarily mean they spend their whole time doing paperwork at the expense of the children, just that the system is in place to enable that grade to be achieved (whether by accident or design!).

That's why when there are discussions about OFSTED reports for CMs I'd always advise parents to look at the report rather than just the grading. If a report says Good and the improvements are all paperwork related it's up to that parent to decide whether paperwork is important! The report gives OFSTED's perspective, it's not the gospel. But often parents want a CM or nursery which is outstanding, possible at the expense of a more suited carer who is 'merely' good. I just diike the inverse snobbery implied when an outstanding setting must be that way because they neglect the kiddies to file papers - some settings just work the way OFSTED like with no more effort than a setting which just happens to be set up in a way OFSTED don't like.

The CRB thing is an issue for anyone who's lived abroad. I have police checks from every country I've lived in and am prepared to show them alongside any undoubtedly clear CRB. That's a failing if the CRB system itself rather than any regulator though.

OFSTED does seem to have the last word according to most parents. It's dangerous in a way because it means parents aren't actually looking at the setting. It also means that OFSTED becomes equated with ratings and when it comes to nannies that certainly isn't the case! There's a lot of parental confusion about the role it plays.

Jiggery pokery might get past Ofsted inspectors so far as paperwork goes, and to a certain degree with the daily routine/activities, but I don't think inspectors are completely naive. When a little voice pipes up "Why do we have to wash our hands? We don't usually!" or one of the assistants says how they do messy play every week and one of the older children protests that "no we don't!" I think they might suspect some things have been put on for them!