Local Government Association response to the improving the way Ofsted inspects education consultation

The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We work with councils to support, promote and improve local government.

We are a politically-led, cross party organisation which works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils, so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems. The LGA covers every part of England and Wales, supporting local government as the most efficient and accountable part of the public sector.

We believe that the single word, overall effectiveness grade is too blunt an instrument to capture school complexity and support school improvement. We are therefore supportive of the introduction of school report cards that can provide a more nuanced view of where a school is performing well and where there are areas of improvement. There are however multiple audiences for report cards and it is not clear that the needs of parents, school leaders, teachers and government can be met with a single approach.

Report cards provide an opportunity for the inspectorate to focus on a school’s inclusive practice and whether it is meeting the needs of the community that it serves. Those schools that are not playing a meaningful role in supporting vulnerable children, including those with SEND and are care experienced, should be held to account for their lack of action. 

The proposed definition of inclusion must align with the definition that we assume will be included in the Department for Education’s forthcoming policy paper that will set out proposed reforms to the SEND system. It would also be help for Ofsted to publish details on how inspection teams will liaise with councils to gather intelligence on the inclusivity of the schools being inspected. Judging schools to be good in their inclusive practices where this is not supported by local intelligence is likely to result in parents and carers losing trust in the inspection process. 

The proposed five-point scale for report findings improves on the existing single word judgement and allows a more nuanced approach to reflecting school performance, but we are concerned that the proposed approach is complex and there is a lack of differential between grades in the five-point scale.  We are however supportive of inclusion being a standalone area of evaluation for all settings. It is vital that mainstream settings are incentivised and supported to support children and young people with additional needs. The proposal to share ‘exemplary’ practise in schools is a welcome and important step in allowing all schools to learn from their peers and drive improvement.

We welcome the proposal for Ofsted to include data alongside report schools, particularly on performance data and outcomes, as well as the characteristics of learnings, including those who have SEND and/or are disadvantaged.  We agree that this data will be provide welcome additional context on a school’s performance and allow for easier comparison between settings, whether at a local or national level. 

It is a less clear-cut picture for early years settings as there is no ‘performance’ data for early years and the early years foundation stage profile is not intended to be used as a measure of success. Greater clarity of this would be welcome.  While the proposed evaluation areas do appear to be tailored to some extent, we are concerned that the approach feels as if it’s starting with a school-based model and then other provider types (such as the early years) are being forced to fit this wider approach. This is a particular concern given the focus on ‘teachers’ throughout much of the consultation.

We support the proposed introduction of inspection toolkits that are tailored to specific parts of the education sector. We particularly welcome the focus on ensuring inspections can be a more effective lever for change and holding settings to account on issues such as behaviour, attendance and particularly inclusion. We are also pleased that the toolkits will be used as a tool to support improvement in settings on these and other issues.

The proposed national definition of inclusion and Ofsted’s lead in this space is welcome in that it helps set out a vision and ambition that can be used to hold providers to account for their work to support children with additional needs. This is necessary to address confusion and tensions between policies relating to inclusion and SEND and is a helpful step in rebalancing the national rhetoric with an emphasis on inclusion. 

We are concerned that inspectors may not have the skills nor experience to understand what good or bad practice may look like in the early years nor have sufficient understanding of the expected levels of development among children of this age. We would like to understand further how the reference to inclusion will cover the children who are not attending a setting as they have been denied access to a setting as the challenge is that the child’s needs will not be met.  The definition also needs to include a focus on learners being welcome, to reduce the issues with off-rolling and children not having access to settings, particularly in the early years. 

Fundamentally, whilst it is welcome that there is a toolkit developed specifically for the early years, the EY toolkit is still an adaptation of the school version, rather than a bespoke tool designed to effectively evaluate the Early Years sector.

A greater focus on inclusion and supporting children with additional needs in the early years is welcomed. However, the LGA is concerned that there is not a sufficient focus on supporting children with emerging and additional needs in the toolkit, with the narrative focusing on SEND itself. 

Some of the language in the toolkit may not be sufficiently appropriate for all types of early years settings, particularly childminders, for example the focus on ‘leadership and governance’ and could be extended to be more inclusive of all types of provision including those that may work alone. 

While partners are mentioned, there could be more to highlight the focus on integrated working and the importance of links with other services to ensure development of children e.g. supported integrated working with health visitors.  There is a lack of granularity in the detail of how the youngest children will be supported and the unique response that children of this age will require. 

There needs to be consideration of how local intelligence and join up with local authorities is considered given the soft intelligence that local authorities will have regarding the inclusiveness of settings.

Given the change of language happening within the department for education on ‘deprived’ children and access to 2-year-old entitlement, this language should be reflected across the Ofsted toolkit and clarified to ensure consistent understanding.

For early years settings, there remains a query as to how comprehensive a review can be on all of these areas if it’s fitting into a short, inspection, which may be even shorter for nursery settings attached to a primary school.

We are concerned that the proposed inspection methodology, specifically the proposed six visits in a two-year period, could be excessive given parallel oversight from, and work with, the DfE’s RISE teams.  There is a risk that servicing the demands of monitoring and inspection diverts attention from a school’s improvement journey

Co-ordination will be important to ensure that the demands of this process do not add to either long-standing workload or well-being concerns related to inspection. Ofsted will need to ensure they have sufficient capacity to service the intensive regime for those settings judged to be “requires improvement” as well as “inadequate” and who will be subjected to monitoring. 

For the inspection of early years settings, it will be challenging for Ofsted to meaningfully evaluate early years provision incorporating all aspects set out in the EIF and the toolkit in a 4-6 hour inspection visit and for Ofsted to ensure that inspections are fair and consistent. In the Big Listen, the LGA raised concerns regarding inspector understanding of the early years and the need to bring in the local authority perspective and understanding of settings to ensure a holistic view of the setting’s quality. 

The LGA does not have a view on this proposal.

The LGA does not have a view on this proposal.