Imagine a world without Ofsted.

For anyone working within the Early Years Sector in the UK there is an understanding that we are not only being judged by ourselves, parents and colleagues, but also by an overarching regulatory body called Ofsted that sets and monitors policy on the safety and education of children in early years settings.

A brief history of Ofsted

Ofsted has been inspecting schools since 1992, and their scope was expanded to include childminders and childcare settings in 2001.  Ofsted has been involved in early childhood education for so long now that it is hard for many of us to remember a time without them.

From its inception, Ofsted’s main focus has been on raising the standards for children in safeguarding, welfare and learning and development, and recently they added a further focus on recovery education and improvement following the impact of Covid.

These inspections include observing and talking to the children to gauge their level of understanding of the learning that they are engaged in, observing care routines being carried out by staff, observing and evaluating teaching that practitioners are involved in and interviewing staff to assess their level of understanding of the learning that they are facilitating, and the reasoning behind it.

Following an inspection the provision is graded, a report is written and within a set time frame the grade and report is made publicly available on the Ofsted website.

Pros and cons to this system

The benefit of having a system like Ofsted is that it can help to ensure there are consistent expectations across the country, which in turn increases the likelihood that children are offered the same high level of education and care.  It also allows practitioners to know what is expected of them, and ensures that providers that may need extra help have an opportunity to be better supported.

However, having a regulatory body can greatly hinder creative philosophies being explored and embedded.  As their focus is on educational outcomes and progress for children, it often means they miss meeting children where they are, and allowing them to live in the moment of childhood. There is also a belief that this approach can be very subjective when assessing how ‘good’ practice is, as it may be difficult for judgments not to be influenced by a person's own experiences and mood on any given day.  I have witnessed this first hand myself on more than one occasion.  The presence of Ofsted could also be seen as adding unnecessary stress to practitioners.

So imagine a world without Ofsted. What would that look like?  Well while working in New York City, I got the opportunity to experience such a world firsthand.

An alternative approach

Between 2011 and 2017 I worked with a number of different early years programmes within New York City.  During this time I got to see how these programmes worked, what things were in

place to support them and also how they were assessed.  I have recently been in contact with two early years directors that still work within an Early Childcare Centre in New York City to check if any of the regulations I experienced have changed.  This confirmed that despite the passing of time regulations have largely stayed the same, excluding some changes related to expectations regarding vaccines.

New York City, like all parts of America, is not regulated by a countrywide regulatory body that works in the same way as Ofsted does. Regulations are implemented at a state and city level, and each state or city has the opportunity to introduce a different set of expectations, and different ways to enforce and monitor such expectations.

In New York City children do not start formal schooling until they are 6 years old.  Prior to this they attend pre-schools that are either government funded or privately run.  Child care providers that receive funding from the city (government funding) are overseen by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), and not by the Department of Education as you would expect.  For these providers the mandatory guidelines relate heavily to health and safety aspects.  This includes the size of the room that learning is being carried out, the staff-to-child ratio, the qualifications of staff, safety within the rooms such as the correct flooring and fire doors etc, and a very general overarching rule that an age appropriate curriculum has to be in place, which in reality is nonspecific and very open.  Each program is inspected at least once a year by the DOHMH, with the focus on the areas stated above.  If the program is found to be noncompliant they are given a time frame to improve and fix any of the infringements, and if they fail to do this they may be subject to monetary fines. These inspections do not look at teaching, learning or educational outcomes for the children attending.

In fact, when it comes to educational outcomes for children, there is no legal requirement for early years settings to be assessed by any external agency to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of provision offered. Some providers may be requested to work with particular educational consultants by the public or private body providing them with funding, but it is not based on federal guidelines.  Nor is there any form of formal inspection carried out, or public reports issued.  

Pros and Cons to this alternative system

I have seen many benefits to having no regulatory body linked to educational outcomes.  For example, in some cases I saw how it enabled the practitioners to have greater freedom to explore and embed an educational philosophy that they were passionate about. It also meant they had less pressure to demonstrate the effectiveness of their teaching, and instead were able to focus much more on the individual children's needs, and allowed them to be very present with the children. I observed a large number of high quality provisions and interactions with children in many programmes.   Alongside all of these benefits, this approach also instilled a level of trust for those who work within the field.

However, I also saw the negative impact this lack of regulation could introduce. For example, some practitioners who were less connected to a specific philosophy often used different ways of working interchangeably without really understanding why they were doing what they were doing, which often led to lower quality of provision for the children in their care. One observation I often share to demonstrate this is a nursery classroom that had chosen the topic of vets, and had decided to change every area in the classroom to relate to this theme. For example, they restricted access to art materials and replaced them with trays of paint with animals in it for the children to do animal prints, and they covered up the block area and replaced it with a few soft toys and a few blocks for a bed. By doing this they restricted the learning possibilities that children may have been able to access had all of the resources been available alongside what they had set up.  When I discussed the reasoning behind doing this the practitioners gave no real explanation for it, other than it was linked to the topic of the week.

Conclusion

On reflection, each approach has clear strengths and weaknesses, and therefore I believe that an ideal approach is a balance of both.  More specifically, I see value in having a regulatory body to establish standards and consistency, but I believe its focus should be on building trust and strong relationships with practitioners, and supporting them via the provision of guidance and coaching to enable their growth and understanding.  Alongside this, I believe that  a collaborative support system, where practitioners are able to work together to share and reflect on practice, would provide a further rich learning experience.  

Trust, support and reflection are the key aspects that will lead to quality provision for children in the most supportive way.

Source

● Being inspected as a childminder or childcare provider.  Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/ofsted-inspection-childcare-provider(Accessed July 2022)

● Guidance on Ofsted registration and inspections. Available at:

https://www.eyalliance.org.uk/guidance-ofsted-registration-and-inspections (Accessed July 2022)

● What Group Child Care Providers Should Know.  Available at:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/dc/group-child-care-center-compliance-guide.pdf (Accessed July 2022)

● Child Care - Information for Operators.  NYC Health.  Available at:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/business/permits-and-licenses/children-and-adolescents-childcare.page (Accessed July 2022)