Joined-up thinking was New Labour's slogan for improving service provision by challenging Government depart- ments and agencies to work together towards common goals. However, in the early years sector some of the combined cognitive processes seem to be confused and at times downright contradictory.
Critics claim that Ofsted's new joint Children Act and nursery education inspections are undermining efforts to improve the quality of provision by failing to endorse the work of local early years advisory teachers and the sector's quality assurance (QA) mentors.
Some early years professionals are reluctant to voice concerns because they have only anecdotal evidence - while others prefer to speak off the record because they do not want to harm relationships with Ofsted.
'There seems to be a disparity between what we expect as good practice and what they (Ofsted inspectors) accept,' says an advisory teacher in Yorkshire. 'We are finding that they are not picking up problems that we have identified.
'Our teams are made up of extremely experienced and professional people who expect high standards. We hoped Ofsted would give us some teeth. Sometimes we want to work in certain key areas but find that Ofsted has been to a setting and said those areas are fine. If Ofsted inspectors are not experienced and are not getting proper training, they are not going to recognise when practice is good or poor.'
Poor practice, identified by early years advisory teachers and consultants, but condoned by Ofsted inspectors includes: young children doing worksheets; displays not being of children's work; limited scope for creativity as children are required to all work on the same activity; and lack of outdoor play areas.
'We had a city centre nursery where the children had a tiny outdoor area with access limited to ten to 15 minutes a day,' says one advisory teacher. 'Staff were complaining about children's behavioural problems, but the children were not being stimulated. The partnership advisory teacher was concerned, but Ofsted gave the setting a glowing report.'
Another adviser adds, 'Some inspectors don't seem to understand what happens in a nursery. I heard of one who asked, "Why do you have cots?" "Because some are babies," said the manager.
'Some don't appear to have read the Foundation Stage curriculum planning guidance that planning should be flexible and activities child-led so they will pick people up and ask, "Why aren't you following the plan?"'
But an Ofsted spokeswoman says their 978 childcare inspectors (CCIs), 544 of which have qualified to carry out combined inspections, 'have had considerable experience of working in the daycare/nursery education sector either as teachers, local authority inspectors or advisors of day care and/or nursery education, managers and/or trainers.'
She says CCIs attend a three-day combined inspection training course which helps them evaluate the 'impact of teaching', 'leadership and management' and 'partnership with parents' on children's progress towards the early learning goals. They also attend a three-day Foundation Stage training course which focuses on the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage.
Lacking consistency
A further concern raised is lack of consistency in inspections. Jean Evans, an early years expert and former Ofsted nursery inspector, explains how she worked with the nine council maintained pre-schools that she advises to develop documentation. 'I helped the pre-schools put their policies together. We had an inspector at one setting saying the planning was fine, while at another setting a different inspector expressed concern about the same documentation.'
Her colleague, Jackie Swainston, early years adviser, says lack of consistency is confusing. 'We get funding for our pre-schools from our local partnership, and have chosen to follow the LEA assessment system. We had an inspector from outside the area who didn't like the system. She hadn't worked with it before and I don't think quite understood it. She said we had to change it. There is no way we want to change it as we feel it meets our needs. We are comfortable with it and we know that it is approved by our advisory and linked teachers.'
Another complaint is that inspectors seem to judge excellent settings harshly and weaker providers more leniently. 'The better you are, the more they find fault. They nit-pick,' says June O'Sullivan, Westminster Children's Society operations and training manager. 'A very good setting in a care inspection was picked up because the green health and safety notice was awry. The manager straightened it but the inspector noted it. You worry that somewhere, really poor relationships with the children maybe wouldn't be picked up.'
Other concerns centre on administrative problems, particularly delays in scheduled inspections and publication of reports. 'Some reports set dates for actions to be carried out, but the setting is not getting the report until after the specified date,' says an advisory teacher from an inner London partnership. 'A setting is causing me concern. I thought it might fail its inspection in August. It got the lowest pass grade but I only got the report in November. I thought if they identified a weak setting, they would get the report out quicker.
'Ofsted says it will come in a particular month and does not. Someone who was expecting an inspection in November has now heard it could be February or March. I suspect some settings are losing respect for Ofsted.
'There is an insufficient number of people to do the education side of inspections,' says Ms O'Sullivan, 'There is no clear guidance. I have spoken to some inspectors and they seem uncertain about the process.'
Staff shortage
However, complaints are tempered by expressions of sympathy for the enormity of the task facing Ofsted against a background of a shortage of experienced early years education inspectors.
In Scotland, the workload has been organised so settings will be inspected annually under a rolling three-year programme with each review focusing on different care standards and one visit being a joint Care Commission/HMIE inspection.
But in England Rosemary Murphy, National Day Nurseries Association chief executive says, 'The volume of inspections in the sector is part of the problem. Maybe I am cynical, but you could ask: does the combined inspection matter? All the three-year-olds will soon be in school anyway.'
Ofsted previously paid staff at rates of up to 450 per inspection, but now they are salaried. 'Many Ofsted inspectors under the old system came from early years education,' says a former inspector from London. 'Teachers start work in London at 23,000. They are not going to gain five years' experience, join Ofsted and be paid less.'
'If you are trying to make nursery education inspectors out of the social services/Children's Act inspectors, you have a long way to go with some to get them up to scratch,' says Ms Murphy. 'You are not getting the calibre of nursery education inspection people.'
Support systems
The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project funded by the DfES underlined the benefits teachers bring to early years when it reported last year that children make more progress at settings where there are trained teachers. As one advisory teacher says, the Government recognises the merits of this by appointing early years advisory teachers, but it is undermining itself by not having qualified inspectors to back up this effort.
Equally, it recognised the importance of QA by setting a target for 40 per cent of providers to have achieved or be working towards a QA scheme by this spring. The target has now been dropped and Ms O'Sullivan wonders who will hold sway when an Ofsted inspector and QA mentor differ.
Having talked about joined-up thinking to drive up standards, is the Government going to empower joined-up working in the early years sector?