The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2019/20

Question 1

HMCI commentary

Accepted Answer

This has been an extraordinary year, in which education and children’s social care, like the rest of society, have been hugely affected by the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic. We have seen heroic efforts made, and I would like to thank all our teachers, social workers, childminders, leaders and everyone working in education and children’s social care for going above and beyond in the most trying circumstances, and continuing to put children and young people first.

For Ofsted, this has been a year of 2 very different halves: what we could call the ‘pre-COVID’ period from September 2019 to March 2020, and the ‘post-COVID’ period that followed. The picture also differs between our regulation and inspection activities: while routine inspection in the remits for which we are not the regulator paused from March, our regulatory work in social care and early years continued throughout the pandemic. This report reflects the divided year and our insights from each period, but also highlights the commonalities across time and remits. What has remained clear is the importance of our work for children and young people, whatever the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Inspections under the education inspection framework

Outcomes

We started inspecting under the education inspection framework (EIF) in September 2019.

Our judgements of overall effectiveness remained high and largely unchanged. The concerns of some that the new framework would lead to turbulence in inspection grade profiles have not been borne out.

In early years, the profile of overall effectiveness judgements is largely unchanged, at 96%. However, there has been a slight shift to a higher proportion of providers judged good and a lower proportion judged outstanding since August 2019, reflecting that outstanding is a challenging and exacting judgement.

Nearly two-thirds of state-funded schools inspected under the EIF kept the same overall effectiveness grade as at their previous inspection. However, only 32% of the schools receiving a routine section 5 inspection (as opposed to section 8 inspections, which are not graded)^{[footnote 1]} maintained their previous grade. Of schools whose grades changed, a similar proportion improved as declined.

Our routine section 5 inspections include key judgements as well as an overall effectiveness judgement. The quality of education key judgement is designed to be at the core of a school’s overall grade, so the same proportion of schools were awarded good or outstanding for quality of education as for overall effectiveness.

Proportions awarded good and outstanding for leadership and management were slightly higher. In the majority of cases where the grade for leadership and management was different to overall effectiveness, the school was graded good for leadership and management but requires improvement overall. Just as we saw under the previous common inspection framework (CIF), the schools that are graded higher for leadership and management than for overall effectiveness are disproportionately in deprived areas. We are continuing to highlight where schools in challenging circumstances are nevertheless being well led.

Grades were substantially higher for behaviour and attitudes and personal development compared with overall effectiveness. This shows that even where the quality of education and overall effectiveness of the school may need improvement, inspectors are able to acknowledge strong work done to ensure good behaviour and personal development.

In the alternative provision (AP) sector, 85% of state-funded pupil referral units, AP free schools and AP academies were graded good or outstanding as at 31 August 2020, compared with 86% for all schools.

The proportion of state-funded special schools judged as good or outstanding is also fairly similar to the proportion for other schools.

Inspection outcomes for non-association independent schools have improved slightly. By 31 August 2020, 77% of schools were judged good or outstanding compared with 75% at 31 August 2019. However, nearly a fifth of independent schools that Ofsted inspects are not meeting the independent school standards (ISS), which they are legally required to meet.

Failings in leadership and management were the most likely indicator for independent schools declining in their overall effectiveness.

In further education and skills (FES), the proportion of providers judged good or outstanding has not changed, remaining at 8 out of 10. The best-performing provider types were community learning and skills (CLS) providers and 16 to 19 academies (though numbers here are small).

Independent learning providers (ILPs) had the lowest proportion of good or outstanding judgements. Sixty-four per cent were graded good, and 10% outstanding. Sixty-one per cent of colleges were graded good, and 18% outstanding.

Adult learning programmes were one of the most successful provision types offered in FES providers this year, while provision for learners with high needs^{[footnote 2]} had the highest proportion of outstanding grades at 12%. Apprenticeships were one of the least successful provision types, with too many judged inadequate (10%).

In FES, effectiveness of leadership and management and quality of education were the 2 key judgements with profiles most similar to overall effectiveness. In common with schools, in providers with overall effectiveness judgements of less than good it is not uncommon to see positive recognition in other areas, such as behaviour and attitudes and personal development. In addition, almost half of FES providers inspected in 2019/20 were receiving their first full inspection. The judgement profile of these new providers is very similar to the profile across other providers. The biggest difference (although based on small numbers of inspections) was in personal development, where 67% of new providers received a good or outstanding judgement compared with 74% of other providers. Judgements about behaviour in new providers (76%) were also slightly lower than in other providers (81%).

When we introduced the EIF, we said we would evaluate its implementation and impact. We have been evaluating implementation since September 2019 and we will be publishing the findings in early 2021. This will be based on what we have learned from the inspections we carried out from September to March 2020.

An outstanding curriculum

An important aim of the EIF is to focus inspection on what the evidence tells us makes providers most effective. The EIF therefore introduced a bigger emphasis on curriculum quality. This is something that has been much discussed in the sector, particularly over the last 3 years or so, and I am pleased that Ofsted has played a leading role.

We can continue to do so by using our evidence from the first 2 terms of inspections under the EIF to highlight the elements of curriculum quality that distinguish good and outstanding providers from others. Our evidence shows the importance of a rich and well-sequenced curriculum that leads to good results, taught by well-trained and well-supported teachers and their early years counterparts. In weaker providers, we often see a focus on tests or qualifications, which can lead to narrowing of the curriculum.

To inspect the curriculum, we carry out ‘deep dives’ into subject areas. So far, we have made over 11,000 deep dives in different subjects in state-funded schools. We will do research on individual subjects, and will publish subject reviews for all 14 national curriculum subjects over the next 2 years. In the meantime, we have looked at the evidence from a sample of existing deep dives as well as our inspection reports to draw some conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of curriculums in general.

Mainstream curriculums

In state-funded schools, our analysis shows that the curriculum in outstanding schools tends to be:

rich – pupils get a wide range of knowledge and experiences
well planned and coherent – the school has a top-level approach to curriculum planning, which informs and supports the development of individual subject curriculums
well sequenced – the curriculum is planned in such a way that ideas build over time. In primary, that means that it starts from early reading and phonics and continues through the whole school. In secondary, that means that key stage 3 is a solid foundation for GCSE study
comprehensive – every element of what pupils are taught (including personal development and behaviour) is part of a well-planned curriculum

In our research, we found that these different elements of curriculum design were strongly related to each other. They are underpinned by an understanding that progress happens through learning the curriculum, rather than being a function of testing and assessment, and that assessment is not an aim in itself, but is linked to the curriculum progression model. A strong curriculum is underpinned by clear central aims and accountability, but also recognises that individual subjects require different approaches to sequencing and assessing content, and therefore avoids a one-size-fits-all approach.^{[footnote 3]}

The best possible curriculum will still fail if not taught well. A common characteristic of outstanding schools is that they have really well-trained and experienced teachers who have strong subject and pedagogical knowledge, and who feel valued by senior leaders. The lessons they deliver build on prior learning and are underpinned by formative assessment in order to discover and address misconceptions and adapt lessons as they go.

Subject knowledge among teachers is critical. Our research found this is more of a challenge in primary schools, where teachers have to teach across the curriculum, but also in some secondaries when teachers have to teach out of subject because of staff shortages. In schools that scored highly on curriculum quality in our research, leaders made sure teachers received high-quality professional development to develop subject knowledge in their own subject.

In the outstanding schools seen this year, pupils know more and remember more, and this is reflected in their attainment. There continues to be a strong correlation between inspection outcomes and Progress 8 scores, though this has never been as high as is commonly assumed.

Outstanding secondary schools inspected under EIF had an average Progress 8 score of 0.6, good schools an average score of 0, schools judged as requires improvement a score of -0.4, and inadequate schools a score of -0.7. These averages are very similar to what we found under the CIF in 2018/19. We can see the same pattern in primary schools, where outstanding schools have an average reading, writing and mathematics score of 82, good schools 65, schools judged as requires improvement 54 and inadequate schools 48. This is again similar to what we found last year under the CIF, and demonstrates that a strong curriculum leads to strong outcomes.

Primary schools judged as requires improvement sometimes focused extensively on teaching reading, writing and mathematics at the expense of other subjects in the curriculum, even for pupils who had the capability to tackle a wide range of subjects. This limits pupils’ ability to thrive in secondary school, where they will encounter a range of subjects. This effect will be especially profound for disadvantaged pupils, who are less likely to be able to draw on resources at home to fill in gaps and broaden their knowledge.

In a minority of secondary schools, our EIF inspections continued to show that not all children were receiving a full and appropriate curriculum. In some inspections, we identified and reported on one or both of the following aspects:

Curriculum narrowing, where a disproportionate or premature emphasis on teaching exam specifications was limiting pupils’ exposure to a broad and balanced curriculum over the course of their secondary education. As we mentioned in last year’s Annual Report, we have no view on the length of key stages 3 and 4, but we do expect all pupils to have access to a full curriculum, and not spend inordinate time preparing for GCSEs. The EBacc is a useful route towards a broad and balanced curriculum at key stage 4 that keeps options open for young people.
Curriculum misalignment, where substantial numbers of pupils were being directed or encouraged into courses (often for GCSE-equivalent qualifications) in which they were likely to earn high grades but that were unlikely to help some of them to progress in the pathways that best suited their talents and interests, and could harm them by preventing them from taking courses that would suit them better.

Specialist curriculums

When people think of the curriculum, they often think of the national curriculum. However, we also inspect providers that have a specialist curriculum or that are not required to follow the national curriculum, and offer alternatives. The same principles of good curriculum design apply.

AP schools provide education for pupils who have left mainstream school. The curriculum in AP schools often includes a blend of academic and vocational subjects. Most AP schools need to achieve a balance between investing time in helping pupils to improve their behaviour and offering a curriculum with sufficient breadth.

The most successful AP schools take time to understand pupils’ specific needs at the point of entry (from their previous school or college). Leaders then formulate a curriculum that is matched to those needs. The curriculum is often strengthened where APs collaborate with partner schools, whether within a school trust or with partners such as their local authority or with leaders from other strong settings. This joined-up work can raise aspirations and give the AP school clear benchmarks for its pupils to aspire to. This type of collaboration also offers support for staff in training and development. Subject expertise can be a problem in AP schools, and linking with partner schools can mitigate this.

In state-funded special schools, we similarly find that the most effective schools have an ambitious curriculum that prepares pupils well for the future. The best special schools attend to both content and sequencing of the curriculum in all subjects. The best primary special schools systematically build pupils’ knowledge of phonics and promote a love of reading. Special schools judged less than good and those that are declining show weaknesses in both.

FES provision offers specialist curriculums based on the knowledge and skills needed for particular vocational routes, as well as often offering A levels. Given their highly specialised nature, we have found that FES providers have sometimes thought more deeply and for longer about curriculum sequencing and content than schools.

In most FES providers, the curriculum is carefully sequenced and builds on learners’ existing knowledge and skills. Large providers, such as general further education colleges, sixth-form colleges and some ILPs, tend to provide a well-considered curriculum with clear progression routes through levels to employment. Smaller providers and local authority providers often plan their curriculum offer to meet the needs of specific groups of learners, specific industries, and/or their local communities.

However, providers judged less than good often do not have a sufficiently ambitious curriculum for their learners and apprentices. The emphasis tends to be on achieving qualifications and the curriculum does not prepare learners and apprentices to gain the wider knowledge and skills required for work or their next steps. In outstanding providers, learners consistently achieve valuable qualifications, but do so through a rich and sequenced curriculum.

Overall, provision in FES is weakest in apprenticeship provision, where 1 in 10 providers are judged inadequate. This is clearly too large a number. We found that apprentices who receive training through apprenticeship standards tend to experience a more tailored and broad curriculum compared with those on the legacy apprenticeship frameworks. Nearly a quarter (24%) of providers that received new provider monitoring visits this year had at least one insufficient progress judgement. In many cases, this was down to weak leadership and a lack of co-development of the curriculum with employers.

We introduced the EIF in prison inspections in February 2020, and have made 4 prison inspections so far. The key issues affecting education in prisons are poor management of quality in education, skills and work and slow progress with improving the provision since the previous inspection. Only a third of prisons inspected since September 2019 deliver an appropriate curriculum to meet the needs of their prisoners. In many cases, the number of activity spaces available in education, skills and work is insufficient for the number of prisoners, or spaces are poorly allocated and used. Prisoners with additional learning needs receive insufficient support and the range of education, skills and work activities that vulnerable prisoners can access is poor.

Overall, these early findings from EIF inspections are encouraging. In the vast majority of schools, early years providers and FES providers, curriculums are well developed, thought through and implemented. Providers offering specialist curriculums can be more variable, sometimes either matching their offer well to the needs of learners or failing to have expert staff teaching well-considered plans.

As mentioned above, over the coming year, we will be looking more closely at individual subject curriculums in schools, and we will be doing in-depth subject reviews once we return to EIF inspections. The aim of these reviews is in part to provide information that can help subject leaders to further develop their subject curriculum. We will publish these over the next 2 to 3 years. In this report, however, we are able to comment in depth on early reading in the light of EIF evidence already gathered.

Early reading – the first priority

If we want to ensure that our children flourish, we need to help them make the best possible start. It should be the first priority of every primary school to make every child a proficient reader. Reading is not only the key to the curriculum and an essential life skill, it is also a protective factor: poor reading leads to later low attainment across subjects and to poor behaviour and self-control.^{[footnote 4]} Phonics and early reading are the foundation for later success.

Fortunately, how to make sure children are proficient readers is one of the best evidenced areas in education. The ‘simple view of reading’, which finds that reading comprehension is a function of decoding skills and understanding of words’ meanings, has extensive scientific grounding.^{[footnote 5]} We also have a very strong body of knowledge on how to teach the crucial decoding skills, using systematic synthetic phonics instruction.^{[footnote 6]} This is why our inspections prioritise both the teaching of decoding skills and language comprehension in Reception and key stage 1. It has also been a theme of our work in the last few years, through Annual Reports and research.^{[footnote 7]}

We have not been alone in our efforts. Many educators and researchers have been pushing at this door for a long time, and government has put in place a range of useful initiatives over the past 10 years: the introduction of the phonics screening check in 2012; the requirement to develop pupils’ phonics knowledge in the key stage 1 national curriculum; and the £43 million investment in primary English hubs to build a network of excellent phonics teaching in every region. There was an improvement in our ranking on reading in the international PISA tests between 2015 and 2018. England now outperforms the OECD average by 18 score points.^{[footnote 8]}

It is therefore pleasing and unsurprising to see that leaders are increasingly prioritising early reading. Most schools we inspected this year, including those judged to be good or outstanding, had recently reviewed their curriculum for early reading. Some schools are taking specific action to improve early reading, for example by identifying the need for a phonics or reading lead who leads and/or teaches in either early years or key stage 1. In early years and key stages 1 and 2, there is growing attention to how regularly adults read to children, immersing them in a range of stories, rhymes, poems and non-fiction. Leaders rightly recognise that this will develop pupils’ language comprehension and instil an interest in reading for both purpose and pleasure.

Schools are also placing greater emphasis on the teaching of phonics. Phonics is frequently being taught from the start of Reception. Many schools have either introduced a new approach to the teaching of phonics or have made changes to improve the consistency of phonics teaching. Many have recently purchased sets of new books that are decodable.

However, it is extremely important that reading books closely match pupils’ phonics knowledge. Schools should be using a structured phonics programme that has decodable reading books in a sequence that carefully matches the letter–sound correspondences that children have learned. Otherwise, pupils will be expected to guess words for which they have not learned the letter–sound correspondence and will miss out on opportunities to practise their decoding skills. This guessing game can be very dispiriting for young children, particularly those at the lower attaining end or with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), and in fact can put them off reading altogether.

In outstanding schools, leaders instil a sense of urgency in teaching the lowest attaining 20% of pupils to read, at both key stages 1 and 2. They do not settle for phonics screening check results that are in line with the national average or explain pupils’ poor progress by their background. In outstanding schools, books match sounds. This means that children build confidence and fluency from the very beginning of learning to read. Teachers read books aloud to pupils who cannot yet read them and they do not expect struggling readers to read books that include words they cannot read. The teaching of phonics is rigorous and is done by staff who have been trained to use the method well, which ensures that they choose appropriate activities so that pupils get lots of practice and keep up with the expected pace of the programme.

The phonics/reading leader in a school has to have expertise and experience in teaching phonics and be given dedicated time to fulfil their role. But all staff need a thorough understanding of the school’s chosen phonics programme. Well-trained staff can spot any child who has not secured the intended learning and provide extra support so that these pupils get additional practice in the specific aspects of phonics they are struggling with.

Of course, phonics just unlocks the code to becoming a reader. In the outstanding schools we have seen this year, once children are reading accurately and confidently, teachers use their deep knowledge of children’s literature to guide children’s independent reading choices. This heightens children’s enthusiasm for reading and starts to instil the love of reading we want to see in all schools.

However, this is not the case everywhere. There is still work to do to ensure that all children get the teaching they need to become proficient readers. Phonics programmes are not being implemented consistently well in all schools. Where schools use a phonics programme that is not supported by resources, including books and sufficient guidance for staff, this often leads to greater inconsistency and a lack of rigour in the teaching of phonics. These schools also find it more difficult to make sure that books are well matched to pupils’ phonics knowledge and that staff gain sufficient expertise in the teaching of phonics. Lower-attaining readers are not always receiving the right type or amount of support to help them catch up quickly. There are too many ‘lost’ readers in key stage 2 who are suffering from a legacy of poor phonics teaching. This is particularly noticeable in Years 2, 3 and 4 when struggling readers have often fallen further and further behind their peers. These pupils’ progress is hindered by limited practice or practice not being related precisely to the gaps in their learning. In turn, this means that not only do they then struggle with reading, but they consequently also have difficulty accessing the full range of curriculum subjects in key stage 2 and beyond.

In early years, teachers in the most successful schools and school nurseries put talking at the heart of their curriculum. They help children talk about what they are doing and learning throughout the day, in each area of learning. Early reading itself is built on a foundation of language and communication.

Our inspection evidence shows that providers in the registered early years sector recognise the importance of the curriculum for communication and language so children have the skills they need for the future. Outstanding providers are exceptionally skilful in developing children’s communication and language, for example through skilful questioning and animated storytelling.

Our new initial teacher education (ITE) inspection framework aims to reinforce our focus on phonics and address the remaining issues in phonics teaching, by ensuring that all inspections of primary and early years ITE include a focused review of early reading and phonics.^{[footnote 9]} The framework requires that for primary provision to be rated good, training has to ensure that trainees learn to teach early reading using systematic synthetic phonics, and that trainees are not taught to teach competing approaches to early reading. Trainees should be taught the importance of providing pupils with enough structured practice to secure fluency in both reading and numeracy work.

Improving ‘stuck’ schools

Over the past few years, we have highlighted the plight of ‘stuck schools’. These are schools that have not had a rating of good or outstanding for 13 years, going back to 2007.

Before we introduced the EIF, there were 415 stuck schools. This year, we have looked at how many of those remain stuck, what our inspection evidence suggests about their characteristics and what it suggests about those that have become ‘unstuck’.

Under the EIF, just under half of stuck schools that were inspected improved to good. This supports the conclusions of our January 2020 research report ‘Fight or flight? How “stuck” schools are overcoming isolation’,^{[footnote 10]} which concluded that no school should be written off, and that every school could improve to good if leaders concentrated on improving a small number of key things, starting with behaviour and high standards of teaching and learning. ‘Unstuck’ schools had also typically benefited from strong support from a multi-academy trust (MAT).

So far, 27% of the 415 original stuck schools have been inspected under the EIF (110 schools). Fifty-three schools had improved to good at their most recent inspection and 57 had not. Fourteen of the 23 inadequate schools moved up to a judgement of requires improvement this year, but are still ‘stuck’ as they are not yet good.

A number of factors distinguished schools that had improved, as shown in Table 1. It is no surprise that the schools that improved did so through planning an ambitious curriculum for all, focusing on phonics in primary schools and supporting staff to be experts in their subjects. All schools have the capacity to improve, but those that have struggled for a while should focus on getting basic processes around curriculum, behaviour and quality of teaching right.

Table 1: Characteristics of stuck and unstuck schools

Schools that improved	Schools that did not improve
The curriculum is well planned and ambitious. Any variation between subjects is outweighed by leaders’ work to secure high-quality learning in most curriculum areas.	Curriculum planning is recent or incomplete. Some subjects are not taught in sufficient depth. Some staff lack the expertise to deliver the curriculum well.
There is strong provision for phonics and reading. In both primary and secondary schools, this includes effective support for pupils who have fallen behind.	There are issues in reading and phonics, particularly for the weakest readers. In some schools, staff expertise is a barrier.
There is high-quality, ambitious provision for pupils with SEND. Pupils’ needs are understood and met.	There are weaknesses in the provision for pupils with SEND. Too little focus is given to supporting these pupils to achieve academically.
There are high expectations for behaviour and attendance. Effective extra help is given to pupils who need it.	Disruptions to learning and poor attendance remain barriers.
Leaders place importance on developing personal, social and spiritual well-being. There is a broadening of pupils’ skills and perspective. Opportunities benefit all pupils.	Many pupils do not take up extra-curricular activities. Aspects of the personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) or spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) curriculum are new or are not implemented effectively.
There are effective challenge and support from governors. There is a shared and ambitious vision.	Governors need training so that they can hold leaders better to account. At times, a more effective interface is needed between governors and trustees.
There is a clarity of direction. Leaders have an accurate understanding of the school’s strengths and weaknesses.	There is an absence of accurate self-evaluation. There is not compelling evidence that plans are implemented as intended.
Staff feel supported to develop their subject knowledge through high-quality and motivational professional development.	There is often instability in staffing and higher-than- average staff absence. There are inconsistencies in the quality of support and training staff receive.

Protecting vulnerable children

Helping protect vulnerable children and young people is one of the most important parts of our work. Vulnerable children are those whose needs are such that they require additional services from their local authority, such as children needing help and protection, those under the care of the local authority and those with an education, health and care plan (EHCP). We focus on this group of children through our inspection and regulation of social care providers, inspection of local authorities, regulation of early years providers and inspection of SEND arrangements. In addition, our education inspections emphasise the importance of high-quality provision for children and young people with SEND.

I will come on to the impact that disruption caused by COVID-19 has had on these children in the final section of this commentary. But there are also continuing systemic issues around our collective oversight of these children, partnership working in their interests and the capacity of the ‘market’ to deliver what they need.

Oversight and accountability

Our inspections of children’s homes, under the social care common inspection framework (SCCIF), show that the vast majority of homes (80%) are currently good or outstanding. In instances where we have required children’s homes to act and improve, this is most commonly to address weak leadership and management, and to improve the safety and protection of children.

There has been a significant rise in the number of requirements we have made in leadership and management. We see homes without strong leadership that make poor decisions for children and staff, who are also unsupported. Two-thirds of the requirements include reference to the poor quality of care, particularly in relation to the impact on children. For example, requirements have been made to ensure that managers and staff regularly review the quality of one-to-one work with children and the progress children make as a result of these interventions. Requirements have also been made in relation to managers using ideas and suggestions from children and young people to improve their care.

To improve the protection of children, we make requirements in relation to the skills of staff, their understanding of their roles in protection and their ability to take effective action. This includes requirements for staff to understand risk assessments and crucially how to manage risk to keep children safe.

The experiences and progress of care leavers are central to our inspections under the framework for inspecting local authority children’s services (ILACS). The ILACS inspections carried out before March reinforced familiar messages. In the strongest local authorities, young people had access to a good range of high-quality accommodation. Personal advisers went the extra mile to keep in touch and provide support. The views and feelings of young people are taken seriously and make a real difference to plans for their future and to wider service planning. Crucially, young people’s emotional well-being was an absolute priority. All practice was underpinned by corporate parents who had demonstrably high aspirations and ambition for their children and young people.

We were pleased to see examples of such strong practice in a rising number of local authorities, but important challenges remain, including, most commonly, the availability of suitable accommodation. In a small number of local authorities, difficulties in securing access to emergency accommodation for young people were particularly concerning.

Children with SEND are also a major focus of our work. Providing a quality education for these children is, of course, vital and we address this in a number of ways:

In education inspections, we look at SEND provision
In our social care inspections, we focus on the most vulnerable children, many of whom have SEND
In ILACS, we also look more generally at provision for children and young people with SEND
We and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) jointly scrutinise local provision in area SEND inspections

The combined evidence from these inspections clearly shows some serious weaknesses in SEND provision overall. The government’s forthcoming SEND review is an opportunity to address some of these failings.

Our area SEND inspections point to a lack of a coordinated response from education and health services in many local areas. Accountability is unclear: there is generally a lack of understanding about who is responsible for what between organisations, resulting in fractures in the way professionals in services work together. In many cases, the goal of creating a child-centred system is not being fully met. Area arrangements for identifying, assessing and meeting children and young people’s education, health and care needs are frequently slow. Too often, families are left feeling dissatisfied with their experience of area SEND arrangements because the quality of services and support fall short of what was envisaged in their children’s EHCPs.^{[footnote 11]}

More positively, in some of the areas we re-visited, parents and carers had been given meaningful involvement in planning and decision-making. The role of the parent–carer forum featured prominently in the most successful areas, and leaders had understood that co-production meant working with families as equal partners. This is something to build on.

We also see a range of quality in SEND provision in schools, which we look at during inspections under the EIF. Good practice for these children is the same as good practice more generally, and the same important principles of curriculum design and behaviour management apply here. In outstanding schools, staff are skilled at identifying, assessing and meeting the needs of pupils with SEND, and pupils receive good support and achieve well. In schools judged as requires improvement or inadequate, our inspection reports often note low expectations, an unambitious curriculum and weaknesses in the support provided for pupils with SEND.

Some of our most vulnerable young people end up in alternative provision, as discussed above. Our inspection evidence shows that there are many good or outstanding AP providers in which pupils experience an appropriate curriculum and achieve well.

However, all too often, providers do not do enough to make sure that all pupils attend school regularly. In some cases, pupils were only in school for a fraction of the time that they should have been. This leaves them at risk of criminal exploitation as well as of educational underachievement.

Furthermore, vulnerable pupils in AP need consistency but often do not get it because of staffing turbulence. In almost half of providers, staffing instability was a significant issue, especially among leaders. In some cases, pupils do not successfully make the transition into post-16 settings. The government’s AP transition fund seeks to support AP schools with this.

Where we cannot see vulnerable children

I have talked in previous Annual Reports about unregistered and illegal provision being one of the most concerning issues in our sector at the moment. We are continuing to uncover these unsafe and unsuitable places. I have long called for legislation in these areas, but it has been slow to arrive. I must again emphasise how urgent it is for government to make this a priority.

This year, we continued our enforcement activity against unregistered schools. Since the last reporting year, our work has led to 3 further sets of convictions. One noteworthy case exemplified the risks associated with unregistered schools. Children were left unsupervised. The premises were inappropriate, with children sharing facilities with adults unconnected to the school. Children were sent home early to disguise the setting’s true hours of operation, without parents being at home. In the light of the seriousness of the concerns about the education offered and about children’s safety, the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales imposed an unprecedented custodial sentence. This helpfully reinforces the message that illegal schools face severe consequences, especially when they put children’s safety at risk.

Even when the outcome is not a prosecution, children benefit from settings addressing poor health and safety and safeguarding practices after inspectors uncover and report on them. As a result of our referrals to other agencies with enforcement powers, unregistered institutions have removed obvious fire risks, fixed filthy and dangerous premises and carried out more rigorous recruitment processes. We believe that improvements have been made in more than two-thirds of cases where we have reported such concerns.

Children also benefit from previously unregistered settings that register after our interventions. It is crucial that children receive their education in places subject to some oversight. Children are also more likely to move to registered providers when unregistered schools close following our interventions.

While we have made significant progress in tackling unregistered schools, there is no room for complacency or inaction. Thousands of children in unregistered schools are still out of reach because of weaknesses in legislation and in our investigative powers.

I particularly want to highlight the use of unregistered AP. Most secondary schools inspected last year make use of at least one AP provider, and we know that some of these providers are unregistered. Just over a third of AP settings in turn commission the services of other providers, many of which are unregistered. In these sub-contracted arrangements, there is often a lack of clarity around who is monitoring unregistered AP. It is not always plausible that the original school can do so effectively: for example, in one case a single school had sent children to 16 registered and unregistered AP providers. In another case, over half of the pupils nominally attending an AP school were actually being sent to another AP setting. Schools and local authorities need to do much better to understand which AP settings are registered.

We are pleased that government has taken steps towards resolving these issues. In particular, we fully support the proposal to close the legislative loophole that allows unregistered settings offering an extremely restricted curriculum to evade registration as a school. We also welcome the constructive engagement on equipping Ofsted with the tools to investigate suspected unregistered schools as thoroughly as possible. We urge government to ensure that this momentum is not lost, and to take meaningful further action as a priority.

We have growing concerns about unregistered children’s homes. The sufficiency issues we see in many areas may be leading to greater use of unregistered provision. It is hard to be exact, as the lack of a definition of ‘care’ in the legislation means it is not sufficiently clear which services require registration. In the absence of a clear definition, some providers operate children’s homes without realising they are doing so. We have seen children being placed in ‘other arrangements’ in settings that we consider require registration.^{[footnote 12]} Some providers interpret the existing exemption in the children’s homes regulations to their advantage. For example, some providers are misusing the 28-day exemption intended for holidays and sports trips to accommodate children in a succession of short placements, denying them stability.

Revisiting the exemptions or explaining their purpose more clearly in care planning guidance would help the sector. More generally, there is an issue with the legislation: in particular, the Care Standards Act 2000 is out of date and the legislation does not support creative solutions or allow new service models to develop.

Our investigations into unregistered care suggest that a small number of companies are purposely setting up short-term arrangements to avoid registering as children’s homes. Whatever their intentions, they are filling a gap in current provision. Without further investment in the sector, this gap will remain. We have been proactive in visiting premises that are not registered but are providing care and accommodation to children – the definition of a children’s home. In these circumstances, the provider is acting unlawfully and we try to get it to register or to cease operating. In addition, we contact the placing local authority with the expectation that it has an appropriate plan for the child to move on and/or is actively encouraging the provider to register. If unlawful activity continues, we have powers to prosecute the offender.

What is clear from our work on provision for vulnerable children, whether in SEND, AP or social care, is that where our oversight is weakest (as in unregistered providers) or accountability is least clear (as in area SEND), the problems we find tend to be greatest. All children deserve high-quality education, care and health provision. We need the tools to make sure they get it.

Strong partnership working

Protecting the most vulnerable children and young people requires partnership and coordination. No one can do it alone. Strong partnership working is a feature of good provision in both social care and area SEND inspections. When education, health and social care providers work together effectively, we see better outcomes for children and young people.

Partnership working needs to go beyond good intentions and conversations at leadership level. It is about effective exchange of information between partners, and about taking joint responsibility for the welfare of children and young people through work on the ground. In good partnerships, information-sharing and an understanding of responsibility and accountability lead to rapid action.

However, the picture that emerges from our joint targeted area inspections (JTAIs) in social care and our area SEND inspections is mixed. In some of our previous JTAI reports, such as on neglect of older children or child sexual abuse in the family environment, we have been critical of a lack of effective partnership working.^{[footnote 13]} The domestic abuse JTAI report showed that probation services do not always contribute to safeguarding children.^{[footnote 14]} The JTAI report on child sexual abuse in the family environment also showed that practice was too often police-led and not child-centred, often with no involvement from health services.

Our forthcoming JTAI report on children’s mental health will present a more positive picture, however, with examples of partner agencies working well together to improve the range of services available to children and to make these more accessible. Specialist child and adolescent mental health services have been restructured in many areas to develop systems and processes, to improve pathways for children in need of a range of services, and to provide support to professionals, parents and carers. In many areas, this is leading to improvements in the identification of, and response to, children with mental illness. But in all areas, there are still gaps in services. Some children have had to wait too long for their mental health needs to be identified and to receive the right support. And while significant progress has been made, improvements are not consistent across areas or within all agencies.

Overall, our JTAIs are leading us to some solid conclusions on what the foundations of effective multi- agency work are. These are about both systems and culture. On the former, good systems are essential for sharing information, multi-agency auditing, clear understanding of the roles of different agencies, and multi-agency training. Culture is equally important. All partners need to share an ambitious and child-centred leadership approach, and a culture that values professional practice and disciplines while also encouraging strong support and challenge.

Our own partnership working is also making a difference. We evaluated the area SEND framework, and found that the joint inspection approach with CQC had led to better coordination between education, health and care locally, and that EHCPs had improved as a result of the increased focus on SEND and enhanced local collaboration. Areas described having clearer direction from their leadership and improved structures for enabling change.^{[footnote 15]}

In other areas of social care, our joint work with other inspectorates has also had several positive effects. We have been able to gain a deeper understanding of the role each agency plays in multi-agency working, and of their impact on help and protection for children and young people. This has enabled inspectorates to much better understand each agency’s role. We have been able to share knowledge effectively across inspectorates, for example about service responses to child protection, and this has improved how inspectorates carry out their own individual inspections.

The JTAIs also influence inspectorates’ priorities and programmes. Our domestic abuse JTAI report showed that probation services do not always contribute effectively to child safeguarding processes. This led to a 2018 thematic inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation on the work of community rehabilitation companies.^{[footnote 16]} Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is also working on a domestic abuse action plan in response to the report’s findings.

Effective partnership working is therefore not just important in providing vulnerable children and young people with the support they need, but also makes our own work better when we successfully model it and engage with partner inspectorates.

We recently reported on our research project exploring what contributes to good matching decisions for children in foster care.^{[footnote 17]} As expected, we found that the serious shortage of foster carers was one of the most significant challenges in making successful matches for children. However, despite seeing many examples of effective work to identify suitable carers for children, there was room for improvement in several other important areas of matching practice.

For example, carers and fostering agencies often felt that the information that was shared with them about children was out of date, incomplete or too impersonal. Most importantly, children were not always sufficiently involved in the decisions and plans about where they were going to live. When children were given good information about their foster carers, it helped them to settle and develop a sense of belonging.

This project is the first of several looking at decision-making for children in care. We hope that the findings will be useful to everyone responsible for the care of these children and encourage improvement in this critical area.

Capacity of the ‘market’ to deliver vital services for vulnerable children

Social care and early years provision is provided in large part by private companies, operating in a ‘market’. The bigger players in these markets are steadily swallowing the smaller ones. While this does not seem to be currently affecting quality, it is clear that in some cases there are not enough places suitable to meet the needs of all vulnerable children in social care.

The percentage of private and voluntary children’s homes owned by the 10 largest providers has not changed from 2019 and remains at 30%. CareTech Holdings Limited owns almost 10% of children’s homes.^{[footnote 18]}

Around 43% of nurseries and pre-schools operate as part of a group under a single registration. Since August 2018, there are about 800 fewer standalone nurseries and pre-schools, suggesting that more are joining a group. These groups tend to be small: only 6% of nurseries and pre-schools are in groups of 21 or more under a single registration.

Despite ‘market’ mechanisms, there are big issues with sufficiency in children’s social care. This remains a major concern. The current system is not working well for children. For example, there is a serious shortage of secure children’s home places: at any one time, around 25 children are waiting for a secure children’s home place and around 20 are placed by English local authorities in Scottish secure units due to the lack of available places in England.

We continue to see growth in parts of the country that already have high numbers of children’s homes, and a shortage of places where they are needed. No single local authority can fix this on its own. Commissioning is often linked to individual children and prices are high, so the ‘buyer’ is often not in a good position to negotiate the best solution. National and local action is needed to create a system that works for children. Local areas need to engage in co-production with children and families, local communities and providers to develop a mix of in-house and commissioned provision. However, no single local authority or regional grouping can solve this on its own, and addressing these issues needs to be a fundamental part of the forthcoming Care Review. Central government has a critical role to play.

Case study: instability in care
After being adopted at an early age and re-entering care in his early teens, Michael (now aged 15) has experienced several changes of foster carers and children’s homes. The local authority has struggled to find a stable placement that can protect Michael and help him to feel safe. Due to a lack of suitable alternatives, it was forced briefly to use unregulated provision for Michael, despite his young age and complex care needs.

He is now living in a children’s home, where he is the only child. Although the local authority is working hard with the children’s home to help Michael settle, his future remains extremely uncertain. Michael’s serious risk-taking behaviour has only escalated during his time in care. His self-esteem, already fragile as a result of early adverse life experiences, has been further damaged by the serious lack of stability and consistent care. His trust in adults is understandably low. If no one cares for him, he wonders, why should he care about himself?

‘I just know that nobody gives a shit, it is obvious.’

Case study: sufficiency issues in foster care
One local authority reported to us that foster provision is primarily available for children under 10 years old and who have lower-level needs that do not present complexities. When children present complex issues and need foster placements, they are often not available. In these situations, the local authority finds itself moving children quickly and maybe not into the best options, but what can be found at that time. There is no time to plan. Last-minute changes mean children grow to distrust the local authority, and it affects their ability to attach to carers. This is not a good start for the children.

One child, aged 6, had 6 foster-placement breakdowns, significant complex issues and safeguarding concerns with her family. The number of placements compounded the significant attachment difficulties and trust issues she had. Her behaviour escalated and foster carers could not cope. She had no safe place to go, and was in a state of constant fear and anxiety. At a very young age, she had a range of significantly disrupted attachments and a fragmented identity. She found it difficult to cope with the intensity of family environments, so the local authority reluctantly placed her in a one-to-one therapeutic unit. Staff at the unit have started to calm her, always holding her hand whenever walking around (even indoors). This is providing ‘grounding with an anchor of a hand to hold’.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Both the education and social care systems in England have been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is in many ways still too early to fully judge its impact, and we are limited by not having the evidence from inspection that we have used for other sections of this report, we are starting to understand more about the effects on children and young people and on the providers we inspect.

I am proud of Ofsted’s response to the pandemic. We recognised early that much of our regular work would need to pause, but that other areas of government, along with local authorities and frontline services, would come under great pressure. We acted quickly to deploy many hundreds of staff to support the national response, in central and local government and elsewhere, while making sure that our critical regulatory work continued.

There has been no lowering of the standards that we expect providers to work to in either social care or early years. Although the Department for Education temporarily eased some regulations, we still expect high standards and a high-quality experience for children.

The crisis has underlined the importance of putting children’s welfare first. We continued to carry out our regulatory work, including monitoring and visiting settings of high concern. Where necessary and proportionate, we also continued to use our enforcement powers.

Disruption to education

As schools, further education providers and early years providers closed their face-to-face provision from March to June for all but vulnerable children and children of key workers, the vast majority of children and young people have lost at least some learning time.

Most children went back to school in September 2020, having been out of school for 14 weeks. To put 14 weeks in context, it is about 3% of a child’s entire time in school, from Reception to Year 11.

Some schools tried to teach a full curriculum during the first national restrictions, through online lessons, work sent home and other means, but some did not, or could not. Of course, some parts of the curriculum do not lend themselves to remote learning. Even where schools made good provision, few children did as much schoolwork as they would have done at school.

Many children lost not just a term’s education, but also the consolidation of what they were taught in previous years. While we do not yet have reliable evidence on ‘learning loss’ from the pandemic, it is likely that losses have been significant and will be reflected in widening attainment gaps. The assessment company No More Marking tested over 112,000 Year 7 pupils in 644 secondary schools using a short writing assessment, which used comparative judgement. The results were placed on the same scale as No More Marking’s previous primary writing assessments. The average writing score of this Year 7 cohort (starting in September 2020) is almost exactly the same as the average score of 531 achieved in No More Marking’s most recent Year 5 assessment from November 2019. This average score was also significantly lower than the last time this cohort were assessed when they were in Year 6.^{[footnote 19]} This suggests the picture is worse than just ‘no progress since the first national lockdown’. We cannot yet say how long it will take to retrieve lost ground.

This backs up previous research on pupils’ absence, which suggests that in normal times, 8 days of individual absence would move a pupil one place down a ranking of 100 pupils by achievement. There is also evidence of small but persistent negative effects of coordinated closures of schools on whole cohorts. The effects tend to be larger for disadvantaged pupils.^{[footnote 20]}^,^{[footnote 21]}

When schools set remote work, many children did not do it, or did little. Sometimes, this was because they did not have the hardware, connectivity or quiet space to work. Others struggled with the work without a teacher, for example because they have SEND or speak limited English, or simply because self-study is harder than being taught. In many cases, parents had competing demands from other children, jobs and wider family responsibilities and were not able to give children as much structure and support as they would need to cope with schools’ expectations. Some children struggled with motivation in the absence of the structures and routines of school, being in a classroom with a teacher, and seeing and being seen by their peers doing the same work.

Various studies confirm this. On average, research suggests children in England were spending 13 hours per week during lockdown on home learning, but one study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that the figure could be as low as 5 hours.^{[footnote 22]}^, ^{[footnote 23]}^, ^{[footnote 24]} Children aged 11 to 16 were spending 6 hours more on school work than children aged 5 to 10.^{[footnote 25]} There was also great variation in the amount of time spent learning at home. Seventeen per cent of children were learning for 4 or more hours per day and 1 in 5 were learning for 1 hour or less.^{[footnote 26]}

Furthermore, it looks certain that learning loss will affect children and young people unequally. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and Institute of Education studies point to big differences both in provision (for instance, private schools offering more support and resources than state schools, on average) and in take-up.^{[footnote 27]} These effects should not be seen only through the lens of the usual categories of disadvantage (although on average, disadvantaged pupils will be more affected). Factors such as differences in how much support the school provided, parents’ availability and pupils’ motivation all contribute to how much learning a child or young person has lost. The most affluent child in the country will probably not have achieved much during the first national lockdown if their parents were unavailable to help and they lacked motivation themselves.

Children with an allocated social worker were one of the categories of children generally expected to continue attending school through the summer. This group included children in care. In practice, it appears that most children in foster care and children’s homes did not attend school, or not regularly. This may be because what was on offer for them was often childcare rather than education.

Of course, some children will have had valuable experiences outside of school, and many parents have stepped in to teach or help their children. The government’s direction to schools to provide remote learning to pupils and bubbles who need to remain at home and the provision of devices for remote learning were also helpful in spurring development. Some education providers quickly developed remote learning offers, often using digital platforms. The work of Oak National Academy, for example, is noteworthy in its scope and the rapidity with which a large volume of material was developed across national curriculum subjects. However, it is clear from our recent review of online education in FES during COVID-19 that this can only ever be a partial solution to ensuring a good quality of education and training where education cannot happen face to face. Indeed, remote (including online) education can be, and is sometimes, delivered ineffectively.^{[footnote 28]}

Our survey of online provision in FES showed that online education needs to be well integrated into the provider’s curriculum offer as a whole and adapted to the learning needs of learners in order to work effectively. Teachers need to be suitably able and trained to use it. Learners miss the face-to-face contact of the classroom, not only for social interaction but also for the instant feedback and opportunity to ask questions that it provides. Some providers say their learners’ engagement is good simply because learners have logged on to online sessions. The reality may be that the learners have logged on but are doing other things, and so are not fully engaged in the learning. Some learners admitted to being frequently distracted. To avoid those without sufficient access to online devices and connectivity falling behind, the Department for Education, colleges and other providers need to invest in this as well as in a suitable virtual learning environment and staff training.

These lessons from FES are likely to apply to schools as well. Online education is likely to have less benefit for younger children. For example, while some of the areas of learning set out in the early years foundation stage, such as literacy and mathematics, can be taught to a limited extent online, other areas such as developing fine motor skills in physical development or empathy in personal, social and emotional development do not lend themselves to remote learning. Even among older pupils in secondary and beyond, remote learning is not a substitute for in-class learning. Pupils’ motivation is often lacking,^{[footnote 29]} parents cannot be expected to provide the levels of knowledge and support that teachers have, and teachers cannot replicate the experience of a good classroom.

It has been notable that many have tended to conflate remote and online learning. Unlike in many other countries, high-quality textbooks are not routinely used in most education provision in England, nor even available for all subjects and all age groups. Without these resources, schools and colleges have had to work fast to put together quite complex systems and programmes to support remote learning. In some cases, the use of non-digital resources (such as high-quality textbooks) would have made it quicker, easier and cheaper to establish a well-structured programme of remote learning.

And of course, some learners have seen their provision disappear entirely. Apprentices have missed out on work and learning during the crisis: 36% of apprentices were furloughed; 8% were made redundant; and 17% had their off-the-job learning suspended.^{[footnote 30]}

Another concerning area is prison education. Education, skills and work activities in prisons stopped completely in order to control the spread of the virus, leaving prisoners with very few learning opportunities.

Our recent visits to education providers

I am pleased that inspectors have been able to visit providers during this autumn term, and that we are now sharing what we have found with parents, government and providers themselves.

Our initial findings from the interim visits to schools showed the great effort leaders made to respond to the challenge of fully reopening. Leaders reported wide variability in the extent to which pupils returned to school this term: not all pupils came back following the first national lockdown. And although in many schools, attendance rates for those who came back are comparable with normal for this time of year, in others attendance was affected by groups of pupils having to self-isolate. Leaders said that children were happy to be back at school and to see their friends, but were sometimes suffering from poor physical health.

Leaders said that they were making some adaptations to their curriculum, based on practical considerations or as a result of pupils having lost learning while not at school, or often both. Leaders were ambitious to return their schools to their usual, full curriculum as soon as possible. They also talked about the many challenges they were facing in keeping their schools safe and open.

In FES, most providers we visited had remained open during the first national lockdown and continued to deliver provision remotely. To do this, many had changed their courses to be either fully remote or a mixture of remote and face-to-face teaching.

This move to remote learning often resulted in shifting around of course content, for example teaching theoretical work remotely and fitting in practical sessions in the autumn. A few leaders had started to change what they were teaching in response to changes in the economy and job market. Learners in some providers were also signing up for different courses than they were before the pandemic.

Learners’ experiences and the help they received from providers varied. Some learners missed the socialisation that face-to-face learning brought them and found it challenging to engage with learning remotely. Others told us that they liked the additional flexibility and independence that remote learning gave them.

Many of the leaders we spoke to also felt financial pressures. They said the pandemic had increased their costs at the same time as reducing their income streams and destabilising future funding.

In early years, providers told us that many children had not returned to early years provision. They said that the pandemic had significantly impacted the learning and development of children who had returned. Four in five providers told us that children had either not progressed, or their progression had declined, in communication and language, physical development, literacy and mathematics. However, the key area of development that providers were most concerned about was personal, social and emotional development. Fifty-three per cent of providers agreed that this had declined.

Many providers have given aspects of the curriculum a greater focus as a result of the pandemic. Most said they have placed more emphasis on personal, social and emotional development and physical development. Many recognise that children have had different experiences during this period and are planning around children’s individual needs. Some told us they are focusing more on gaps they have identified in what children know and can do. Many have made changes to the resources and routines in their settings and most have increased their teaching of personal hygiene.

Loss of sight of vulnerable children

A big concern for us during the period when schools were closed to most children was the lack of visibility of vulnerable children. Schools are crucial to children’s safety and welfare, and not just while they are on school premises. In normal times, around 20% of notifications to local authorities about children come from schools and early years settings. Teachers know their children and often recognise when something is not right.

The low numbers of children in school during the first national lockdown therefore directly affected the ability of local safeguarding partners to identify neglect and harm. Combined with disruption to community health services, which are the universal service for very small children, it became more difficult to identify children’s and families’ need for early help and protection. Instead, local authorities are more likely now to be responding to a legacy of abuse and neglect.

Agencies now need to work together to make sure cases that need following up most urgently are prioritised.

Some children were particularly vulnerable under the restrictions, including:

children with SEND, who may have needed extra help to adapt to changes in routine and to understand what is going on
disabled children who were no longer able to access educational support and already face increased risk of abuse
disabled children who previously had visiting carers, which may have put extra pressure on parents to manage their child’s complex needs
very young children in care who needed direct contact with birth parents and siblings
young carers
care leavers, who may have been socially isolated
babies whose parents struggled when families could not visit and health visitors had to pause home visits
children with pre-existing mental health problems

Unsurprisingly, partnership working has also been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are, however, some reports of better multi-agency working. Some practitioners reported that it has been easier for agencies to join up virtually because many services operate remotely. COVID-19 has also reinforced the need for agencies to collaborate, and created a sense of urgency around this.

We have a concern around pupils with SEND. Their access to additional support and healthcare was sharply reduced. Early identification and assessment have suffered because children were not in school and had less access to universal health services. For some children, this will cause lasting harm. Most pupils with EHCPs did not attend school during the first national lockdown. Although many special schools never shut, and by the end of the summer most special schools were fully open, attendance remained low.^{[footnote 31]} We have had reports that the lack of respite and support for families of children with highly complex needs affected those families’ ability to cope.

There are also clear issues for care leavers. Coram Voice reported that before the pandemic: 23% of care leavers had low well-being, 37% did not feel safe where they live and around a third did not feel that where they live is right for them. This makes self-isolation a particularly big problem for them, which is likely to affect mental health, in some cases quite severely.^{[footnote 32]}

There are obvious concerns around the physical and mental health of children and young people as a result of the pandemic. The impact on children’s well-being will be multi-faceted. They will have worries about their future and about missing education, and there may be impacts on their family, such as possible bereavement. There are also concerns about children being lonely and therefore vulnerable to being groomed online.^{[footnote 33]}^, ^{[footnote 34]} This is matched by concerns from parents about the impact on their children. The Office for National Statistics found that during the first national lockdown, 43% of parents whose children were not in school agreed it was negatively affecting their children’s well-being.^{[footnote 35]}

Our recent focused visits have looked closely at how local authorities have maintained contact with children in care and care leavers, and at how they have enabled them to keep in touch with friends and families. When face-to-face visits were not possible, the use of technology for children and young people to keep in touch with people who were important to them became commonplace. Before March, our reports generally flagged the use of different media to speak to children and young people as noteworthy good practice. The pandemic has brought this practice into the mainstream, where it is likely to stay. As always, the strongest services will make use of a range of different options to meet children’s individual needs and wishes.

However, at this stage, we need to be cautious about drawing strong conclusions in light of the limited evidence of the actual impact of the pandemic.

COVID-19 has exacerbated concerns about sufficiency of provision

Earlier, I mentioned continuing concerns around sufficiency in the social care market. These concerns have been exacerbated by the pandemic. The number of children waiting for placements has doubled. A significant proportion of voluntary adoption agencies are reporting serious financial problems and their numbers have dropped by 22% compared with 31 March 2019 (50 to 39).^{[footnote 36]}

We see similar issues in early years, where the largest expenditures are usually staff costs. Many nurseries have voiced significant concerns around delayed payments, particularly those associated with the Job Retention Scheme salary payments. Some nurseries that continued to provide childcare for key workers and vulnerable children have been able to secure additional bank support but many nurseries that were already struggling fear they will not be able to reopen.^{[footnote 37]} A recent survey by the EY Alliance found that a quarter of childcare providers believe they are likely to close within the next year.^{[footnote 38]}

In addition, the pandemic has led to growing concerns over sustainability in parts of the FES sector. COVID-19 has serious financial implications for FES because most further education colleges are partly dependent on funding through the apprenticeship levy, which is not currently guaranteed. Further government funding initiatives around capital expenditure and the national skills fund should help colleges to re-balance their finances to an extent. But those funded through the apprenticeship levy will not have this special relief available, and so hundreds of ILPs are dependent on funding from the Education and Skills Funding Agency and other schemes for cashflow and continuation. Their viability depends on businesses buying their training services, but some of those customers have gone, or will go, out of business themselves or reduce their training. The full impact of this remains to be seen, but some providers have already ceased trading.

We will monitor developments in these markets because sufficiency of provision is central to ensuring that children and young people receive the education and care they need.

Examples of resilience in a crisis

While a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic brings major concerns, we have also seen some impressively resilient responses from providers.

In social care, we have seen many remarkable examples of resilience, creativity and adaptability. These were witnessed first-hand by our inspectors who were deployed to support local authorities. Local authorities and agencies have shown a consistent commitment to putting the needs of vulnerable children first, despite complex circumstances.

Our interim visits to children’s homes showed us that most had been managing the challenges of the pandemic well.^{[footnote 39]} They had put suitable measures in place to ensure that children were safe and they remained aware of the possible impacts on children’s emotional well-being. Inspectors were generally confident that children were safe and well cared for. Staff worked hard to make homes fun and provided activities to support learning. They helped children to maintain relationships with friends and families through messaging and video technology and worked with partners to ensure that specialist services continued. Unsurprisingly, homes also reported an increase in anxiety and frustration in children around COVID-19.

There was some evidence of less oversight in many homes, but much more evidence of strong leaders managing the challenges of the pandemic well.

Having remained open to care for the very youngest and most vulnerable children in our communities, early years settings were part of the wider return of children into education. There have been numerous challenges along the way, not least the financial burden of running settings below capacity, so as to adhere to social distancing and the preservation of ‘bubbles’. However, many providers have risen to this challenge, building parents’ confidence and ensuring the health and well-being of young children and their families.

Case study: effective communication
As highlighted by a nursery in Northumberland, effective communication is key.

Staff made sure to communicate: with parents so that they were able to allay their fears; with local authorities in order to navigate their way through the very complex mechanics of funding systems and ever-changing guidance; and perhaps most importantly, with other providers of care and education, including local schools, in order to secure a smooth transition for children back into a learning routine.

Parents who chose to keep their children at home were not forgotten. Staff were on hand to provide virtual support with a plethora of issues, including behaviour and anxiety management.

This nursery recognised the complex web of support that wraps around children in the early years. By understanding their community and working in partnership, staff created unique solutions, many of which others will learn from.

In schools, we know leaders and staff have made huge efforts to provide education in the toughest of circumstances. Almost all schools were either providing remote learning to pupils who were self-isolating or said that they were ready to do so if needed. They have been communicating and working closely with parents, which in many cases has led to improved relations and understanding. Leaders have been working to support the well-being of both staff and pupils, sometimes at a cost to their own well-being.

Many FES providers were particularly quick in adapting to remote learning, putting systems in place and reorganising teaching to suit a remote approach. We found that leaders in many providers were working closely with employers, local organisations and partners to support learning. Many leaders told us that their relationships with employers and other organisations had become stronger over this period, and some providers successfully established links with new employers for placement and work-experience opportunities.

Our programme of interim visits this term is giving further insights into the impact of COVID-19.

Question 2

Data on Ofsted’s activities

Accepted Answer

In 2019/20, Ofsted inspected or visited over 21,100 schools, colleges and providers of social care, early years and FES. Over half of this year’s inspections and visits (14,000) were to early years and childcare providers, 3,250 to state-funded schools, 2,550 to social care settings and over 400 to further education providers. The remainder related to independent schools, unregistered schools, ITE, area SEND and local authority inspections and visits.

This section provides a range of data on Ofsted’s activities and supports many of the findings highlighted earlier in the report.

Any comparisons of activity in 2019/20 and 2018/19 should be made with caution. This is due to the different mix of providers inspected in any 2 years, the different inspection frameworks used for these 2 years and the pause in most inspection activity since March 2020.

Data on our inspection activities can be downloaded from our management information and official statistics pages. For a more interactive look at changes in inspection outcomes over time, please visit the regional performance sections of Ofsted’s DataView pages.^{[footnote 40]}

Question 3

Early years and childcare providers

Accepted Answer

‘Early years’ refers to the care and education of children from birth to 5 years old. This includes providers registered with us, such as childminders, nurseries and pre-schools.^{[footnote 41]} It also includes maintained nursery schools, and Nursery and Reception classes in schools.^{[footnote 42]}

Ofsted operates 2 registers: the Early Years Register (EYR) and the Childcare Register (CR). The EYR is for providers that care for children in the early years age group somewhere other than in the child’s home. Registration is compulsory for these providers and they must meet the requirements of the early years foundation stage. The CR has 2 parts, compulsory and voluntary, with associated requirements that providers must meet. It was established to provide access for parents to tax credits and to give parents reassurance that the childcare provider has passed some basic checks to ensure that their children are protected.

Figure 1: Early years and childcare providers and inspections in 2019/20

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

Inspection outcomes

Most recent inspections

Of the inspected EYR providers, 96% were judged good or outstanding at their most recent inspection. This is unchanged since last year and a marked increase from 85% in 2015, the start of the CIF. Providers that are judged less than good have more opportunities to demonstrate improvement because they are inspected more frequently.

Of the relatively few nursery schools we inspect, a high proportion also have very positive inspection outcomes, with 63% judged outstanding at their most recent inspection.

Figure 2: Overall effectiveness of early years providers: 31 August 2020

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

Each year, Ofsted inspects a 10% sample of providers that are only on the CR. These inspections do not result in a quality (graded) judgement but a judgement as to whether the provider has met or not met the legal requirements for registration. We found that 86% of the inspected CR-only providers met the requirements of registration. Childminders had a higher proportion that did not meet the requirements (20%) compared with nurseries and pre-schools (13%).^{[footnote 43]}

We define a nursery and pre-school group as at least 2 nurseries and pre-schools on the EYR under the ownership of the same registered person. Over half of nurseries and pre-schools operate as standalone provision, but around 43% operate as part of a group under a single registration.

The proportion of nurseries and pre-schools judged good or outstanding is similar across those in groups and those operating alone. However, the proportion of providers judged outstanding increases with the size of the nursery group.

Figure 3: Overall effectiveness of nurseries and pre-schools by group size: 31 August 2020

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

2019/20 inspections

In September 2019, we began inspections under the EIF. Routine inspections paused in mid-March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Between September 2019 and August 2020, we carried out 8,540 inspections of early years and childcare providers. Of these, 7,330 were full inspections of providers on the EYR. We judged 89% of these providers as good or outstanding overall. A higher proportion of inspections resulted in an outstanding judgement compared with 2018/19. This may be due to Ofsted inspecting a higher proportion of previously outstanding providers as we near the end of an inspection cycle.

Figure 4: Overall effectiveness of early years providers by academic year

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

The proportion of key judgements that were good or outstanding is similar to the overall effectiveness judgement, but leadership and management and personal development are most closely aligned at 89% and 90% respectively.

Figure 5: Overall effectiveness and key judgements of early years providers, 2019/20

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

Providers and places

Since August 2015, the number of childminders has continued to fall steadily, while there has been minimal change in the number of nurseries and pre-schools. Early years places have remained stable at around 1.3 million, suggesting an increase in the average number of places offered by each provider over time.

Figure 6: Early years and childcare providers and places on the Early Years Register over time, by provider type

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

There has been a consistent downward trend in the number of Ofsted-registered childminders since 2011/12. The number of childminders joining the register has also been declining since this time, except in the last year, when 130 more childminders joined compared with 2018/19.

Figure 7: Childminder joiners and leavers since 2010/11

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

Early years regulation

Complaints and notifications

In 2019/20, we received 13,700 complaints and notifications related to around 9,070 providers.^{[footnote 44]}

The number of complaints (6,640) was similar to the number of notifications (7,040). The large majority of these cases related to nurseries and pre-schools.

Around two-thirds of cases were logged for consideration at the provider’s next inspection because the issue did not require immediate action. This was the case for most notifications from nurseries and pre-schools. In contrast, we referred nearly two-thirds of the complaints made about childminders for regional action.

Figure 8: Outcomes of complaints and notification cases, by provider type

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}

Regulatory visits and enforcement

In 2019/20, we carried out 4,740 regulatory visits to 3,460 early years and childcare providers. Most of the regulatory visits were due to complaints or notifications. Around 4% of visits were as a result of providers being judged inadequate at inspection.

The large majority of providers remained active on our registers following a regulatory visit. However, 5% resulted in the provider being cancelled or suspended and 11% resulted in the provider becoming active on our registers following a proposal to open or a prior suspension. Of the providers we visited in 2019/20, 7% resigned.

Overall, there were 2,260 cancellations and 200 suspensions of childcare providers in 2019/20. Most cancellations (91%) were due to the provider not paying their fees. Around 5% were because there were no children on roll.^{[footnote 45]} Those remaining were about more serious issues (4%); the majority were about a continued failure to meet requirements and outstanding suitability checks.

Question 4

Schools

Accepted Answer

State-funded schools

There are currently nearly 22,000 state-funded schools. Forty-two per cent of schools are now academies. In 2019/20, we carried out 3,250 inspections.

Figure 9: State-funded schools and inspections in 2019/20

^{Download a zip file with the underlying data in csv format.}