Role Of La In An Ofsted-failed Setting

[AnonyMouse_15]

Calling all members of local authorities!

Does anybody know about the statutory requirements of a local authority when dealing with a pre-school which received an inadequate 1 rating at their Ofsted?

How much input must they have in order to improve practice? Is this written down somewhere?

Thanks everyone,

Cerys.

Edited November 22, 2005 by cerys

[AnonyMouse_2732]

Sorry cerys, I don't know the answer to that one

 

Sue

[Guest]

I have recently been reading about his I think. I was under the impression that inadequate 1 meant that the inpsectors deemed that the setting could be improved without any outside help and would be reisnpected in 6-12 months. In inadequate 2, outside help is required and regsitration and or funding may cease until provision has improved. I have read it in an OFSTED document recently but dont know how to link it in.

I dont know if thats what you needed?

[Steve]

Hi Jawariyah -

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for your first very helpful post!

 

If you want to put links in you can do it one of two ways. The first and easiest is simply to copy the web address from the address bar of the page itself, then paste it into your message as text.

 

The alternative way, which you've probably seen in Forum conversations, is when you're at the appropriate part of your reply, click the button marked 'http://' above the dialogue box you're typing your text into. Then paste the web address into the first box you see appear, and then type some text into the second box (eg 'click here'). The link will then appear as an underlined 'click here' which people can then click on to take them to the page.

 

It's easier to do than it is to explain!

[AnonyMouse_4495]

Cerys... reading between the lines, it sounds as though the preschool in question is not getting any/enough support from their LA (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!)

 

Jawariyah was right in the previous post that Inadequate 1 shows that there are one or more actions needed to improve the quality of care, but the setting is able to improve without external help and support.

 

Working in a LA, if the setting contacted us to tell us they had received this outcome, the development team would offer support on the care side and the advisory teachers would offer support for the Foundation Stage, but I don't think that we HAVE to do it, it is just the way we work here.

 

Looking at the presenation notes, we would automatically be informed by Ofsted about a setting receiving this outcome (for education) and we are able to make a decision (with DfES) as to whether the setting should still be in receipt of funding.

 

Inadequate 2 is a whole different kettle of fish as the LA and DfES are informed and could choose to stop 3 and 4 year old funding as the setting is deemed to require outside support in order to improve and I guess it depends on if the setting is receptive to support or not...

 

Hope this helps...

[Guest]

We had a meeting recently where the lady from the Education & Cultural Services Directorate said that OFSTED weren't going to notify them of 'Unaaceptable 1's' & that they were unhappy about it as they felt support at that stage could stop things getting worse. The Preschool Development Office seemed to be confirming what she said, too. As they hadn't had any yet - thankfully - they weren't absolutley sure themselves.

[AnonyMouse_15]

Many thanks for your replies.

The setting in question received an Inadequate 1, which was no surprise to the teacher who had only recently been employed (about a month before!!) She, along with another new colleague (QTS also), and a new manager had already put together a development plan, which specified huge plans to improve provision over the next twelve months. Ofsted arrived four weeks after these plans were finalised, and the report stated that because these plans had already been created, an Inadequate 1 was given. The EYDC said that nursery education funding would continue as the plans indicated that improvements to provision would occur imminently. That all makes perfect sense.

But......

The LA in question then started to panic, run around like headless chickens, and tried to take over all the action plans, and basically disrupt everything by sending in advisors to pop in, stir things up and leave again. This has led to the nursery staff becoming confused about the real issues, and the nursery management feeling that they are not permitted to run their own setting!

I suppose I'm asking the reverse of what you thought, Running Bunny, in that the setting in question want to halt any more interference from the LA, and they don't know what the legal implications are.

[AnonyMouse_4495]

Oh dear - it sounds like the 'too many chiefs' syndrome...

 

One of our settings had an unsatisfactory (under the old system) and the advisory teacher was supporting them with FS. She thought that it would be a good idea to get me involved for developing Birth to Three provsion. THree phone calls later, having spoken to the owner/manager who is not interested and the deputy who couldn't be more excited about support, I am still unable to arrange a visit.

They have had their education inspection and it is now 'good' but not sure how they would come out under the new outcomes.

 

The only obligation that we have as an LA is to demonstrate that we have offered support, so we write reports and document any correspondence. Settings are (as far as I am aware) able to refuse this support, but if Ofsted ask about links with LA and the provision still comes out as inadequate, I guess Ofsted would question this?

 

It sounds as though there needs to be a better balance between the level of support offered and the needs of the preschool ensuring that the staff still feel as though the club is theirs and not being taken over by the LA!

[Guest]

Just read your comments

The authority is responsible for the quality of the setting. The amount / support is usually written into the local conditions of grant registration. The authority can withdraw the grant funding. I guess this is why every one is going in. Has the authority got a self evaluation / quality framework mechanism that all can use to focus and evaluate practice. Here's one i've been working on - draft but may be some use

LGM :

unsure:

Self_eval_LM_version.doc

[Guest]

Just read your comments

The authority is responsible for the quality of the setting. The amount / support is usually written into the local conditions of grant registration. The authority can withdraw the grant funding. I guess this is why every one is going in. Has the authority got a self evaluation / quality framework mechanism that all can use to focus and evaluate practice. Here's one i've been working on - draft but may be some use

LGM :

unsure:

45264[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks for that LGM,

I produced something similar when the SEF first came out and it was attached on a post somewhere in the forum. I like the layout and content of yours and your "user friendly" interpretation of the grading. . I also like the examples of ways to evidence the evaluation.

 

How often should these be done? I have a sheet in my planning book so that we can review the 5 outcomes on a weekly basis, these are very short notes but helps us not to miss crucial evidence for example comments from parents are written in relevant sections. I was thinking of doing them once a term with whole staff team input.

 

Peggy

[AnonyMouse_15]

That's a really useful document, LGM; many thanks

There isn't a standard one that all the advisors use, and I think this is where the problem lies. Certain advisors come into the setting and just hop about directing their attention to a variety of areas, and getting the staff dizzy

We've used something called ECERS (Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale) which has brought to our attention the most critical things we needed to address, and has allowed us to provide training for the staff based on such things as behaviour management, and quality interactions between staff and children.