Common inspection framework: part 1 - Common ground?

The Common Inspection Framework (CIF) arguably heralds a fundamental redefinition of early years provision in England. It may not have been obvious when the new framework was launched in June, but the prism through which the work of nurseries, pre-schools, childminders, nursery schools and nursery classes are to be judged has been refocused.

Throughout the new documentation, there is clearly greater emphasis on children's cognitive progress and attainment. Beyond this, there is a shift in the very raison d'etre of inspection. The current Ofsted framework (Early Years Inspection Handbook) states: 'We inspect early years providers in order to judge the quality and standards of care, learning and development of children -these standards are in the statutory framework for the EYFS'. The focus of the CIF inspection will rather be 'ensuring that all learners have the best education and opportunities possible and that students and parents are able to make informed choices' (The Future of Education Inspection: understanding the changes).

Will bringing the language of compulsory schooling into the early years mean the early years morphs into looking and behaving like school? Ofsted would of course say not. In his speech on Ofsted's early years report earlier this month, chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw said that a distinction between learning and play was a false one, adding, 'Young children can learn without any loss of freedom, imagination or excitement. They can learn without sitting down, they can learn at their own pace and they can learn while doing the things they are most interested in.' But we should also look at the political context within which the CIF has been developed. Greater emphasis at inspection on educational attainment aligns closely with Government's desire to introduce the baseline within weeks of children starting school, and with ministers' open commitment to promoting and extending early years provision in schools.

Within this context, Ofsted should be commended for focusing its attention on each individual child's progress rather than the achievement of pre-defined levels. At the CIF launch, Sir Michael was insistent that inspectors' focus will be on progress made by each child from their own starting point rather than an institution's overall success rates: in effect the focus is to be the 'value added' by provision. In the new early years inspection handbook, this translates as 'the progress all children make in their learning and development relative to their starting points and their readiness for the next stage of their education including, where appropriate, readiness for school'.

Seeking consistency

There are merits in aligning the inspection frameworks of all provision under Ofsted's educational remit and this should be acknowledged. Evidence from across early years, compulsory school age and the further education and skills sectors demonstrates that great leadership and management is key to successful provision and children's outcomes. So assessing the vision, ambition and delivery of leaders and managers against common criteria has value, as does the aim to provide consistency across all provision. Similarly the starting assumption on the part of inspectors that the provision is 'good' and that leaders 'will have nothing to fear from accurately identifying at the outset any weaknesses in their provision - as well as the strengths' as the basis for open, honest and challenging professional dialogue with the inspector are elements to be welcomed.

However, while the CIF does attempt to demonstrate that consistency does not mean 'one size fits all' and a separate handbook will apply to each remit, even Nick Hudson, director of early years at Ofsted, has conceded that some of the wording is not tailored for the early years. Statements such as 'teachers, practitioners and other staff ... have relevant subject knowledge that is detailed and communicated well to children' (from the new handbook) or 'children and learners are able to understand, respond to and calculate risk effectively, for example risks associated with child sexual exploitation, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, substance misuse, gang activity, radicalisation and extremism' (Inspecting Safeguarding in Early Years, Education and Skills Settings from September 2015) do not translate easily for early years practitioners.

There is also a question about just how common the operational framework is across Ofsted's educational remit. While the scrapping of no-notice inspections for private, voluntary and independent (PVI) settings is consistent with the rest of the education spectrum, the new short inspection mechanism that is being introduced for 'good' schools and further education providers is not. These will take place approximately every three years and are designed to confirm that the previous grade for overall effectiveness is accurate, the setting remains good and that safeguarding is effective.

Short inspections will not be introduced for PVI providers, where inspections last seven hours for group provision and four hours for childminders and so are already 'short'. While this may be the case, it does create an imbalance in information available to parents when they look to compare provision. All PVI settings and childminders will continue to be subject to full inspection and a report made available, but a nursery class in a school rated 'good' will only be able to provide a letter stating that provision across the school remains of high quality. There will, presumably, be no detail specific to the nursery. Over time, the school may collect any number of these short inspection letters, but the most recent full inspection report will become evermore outdated. (For childminders, the notice period hasn't changed - the standard line is a request for times when the childminder is not available in the next few weeks.)

Good practice

Good practice in early years remains good practice and many aspects of inspection under the CIF will feel similar to previous frameworks. However, the increased focus on 'the best education possible' could be seen as implying a shift in the relationship between inspection and the EYFS regulatory framework. Unlike the current early years framework, which places the core focus of inspection as assessing the effectiveness of the provider to deliver the requirements of EYFS, there has been some comment that the CIF appears to view the statutory framework as an additional tool of judgement as opposed to how it has previously been viewed: the primary focus of provision and an articulation of the vision and values of early years in England.

This has led to a view that the EYFS now appears to be a supplement to the inspection documents rather than the other way around. Certainly in the early years inspection handbook, the statements that outline the evidence required to evaluate the overall effectiveness grade and 'what it is like to be a child in the provision' make no reference at all to the EYFS. Similarly, in the evaluation schedule, grade characteristics and sources of evidence for the effectiveness of leadership and management, no reference is made to the EYFS until three pages in where it appears as the fifth bullet point of the grade descriptor for 'outstanding'.

Ofsted disputes this general contention, saying the EYFS is mentioned 'frequently' in the handbook. It appears with reference to policies and procedures, knowledge of English, practitioners' knowledge of learning and development requirements, and in relation to recommendations for improvement (actions must refer to the requirements in the EYFS) and in a few other cases, but such general statements as the 'provider is able to demonstrate sufficient understanding of the EYFS requirements' are only given under the heading 'No children on roll or present on the day of inspection' and where 'the manager or nominated person has changed since the last inspection.'

Probably the clearest example of a change in emphasis is provided by the new definition of overall 'outstanding' provision. In the current inspection framework, the requirement for 'outstanding' is the provision 'consistently achieves very high standards across all aspects of its work, with exceptional educational programmes for children of all ages'. Within the CIF the primary criterion becomes 'the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is outstanding'.

• Part 2 of this series, looking at changes under the new CIF, will run in the 24 August-6 September issue of Nursery World

KEY FOCUS POINTS OF THE CIF

Leadership and management

• Curriculum
• Ambitious vision
• Promoting fundamental 'British values'
• Safeguarding

Teaching, learning and assessment

• Assessment
• Parents
• The next stage of learning

Personal development, behaviour and welfare

• Self-awareness

Outcomes

• Progress measured from an individual starting point

MORE INFORMATION

Key documents can be found online (www.gov.uk). These include:

• The Common Inspection Framework: education, skills and early years
• The Future of Education Inspection: understanding the changes
• Ofsted Early Years Report 2015

Handbook titles

• Early Years Inspection Handbook
• School Inspection Handbook
• Inspecting Safeguarding in Early Years, Education and Skills Settings

Early years will also have a separate registration handbook and a compliance handbook.