Nick Hudson, Ofsted's Director for Early Education, introduces the Early Years Annual Report 2012/13, providing an overview of the sector and key findings of the report

1. Early Years Annual Report
2012/13
3 April 2014
Report Launch Event

2. About the report
 HMCI publishes his annual report every year in December. Alongside
this report there are reports on each of the sectors we inspect.
 Last year for the first time we published the social care report
separately to give additional focus and profile to the important issues
facing the sector.
 Given the positive response, we are today publishing the first
dedicated early years report.
 We have recently changed our inspection framework for Early Years
Registered providers and this report covers the period up to the point
of that change (1 September 2012 to 31 October 2013).
 Today we are also publishing a thematic report on School Readiness.
 We will be inviting responses to the messages in the report using
Twitter and #OfstedEarlyYears

3. Context

4. Context
 Traditionally Ofsted reports on Early Years have commented on the
performance of Early Years Registered providers only. This report
considers all provision for ages 0-4, including schools.
 The Chief Inspector has just written to all Early Years inspectors,
emphasising the need to make a link between the quality of teaching
and its impact on children’s progress. The report reinforces the
message that it is relevant to focus on teaching in early years.
 The government has just announced the introduction of a baseline
assessment at age 4. The report makes a series of recommendations
to government with the aim of ensuring the baseline is useful to
inspectors.
 The report comments on the lack of comparability between inspection
judgements of EY registered providers and schools. Ofsted has
recently launched a consultation on reintroducing an early years
judgement for schools which is one step towards addressing this.

5. Key messages

6. Key messages
The report argues for a simpler, more flexible and more
accountable early years system, arguing that this is necessary
because:
 the sector is confusing for parents and too hard to
access
 too much provision serving more disadvantaged
communities is not good enough
 there are serious weaknesses in data and assessment,
meaning it is difficult to hold providers of early education
to account.

7. Report
overview

8. The views of parents
 Parents are the most important influence on any child’s early years
 Additionally, 94% of children experience government funded early
education and childcare which means quality matters
 Most parents are satisfied with the quality of childcare, with only
10% thinking quality is less than good
However
 39% of parents say there is too little information on childcare
options
 Parents on low incomes, lone parents and those not already using
childcare are less likely to feel they have enough information
 35% of couples where neither parent is working are not aware of
the free entitlement to funded early education

9. Quality continues to improve…
Ofsted has contributed to this through greater rigour in registration, greater
emphasis on learning and development and in our response to complaints

10. …but the sector is confusing
 Online information sources, including Ofsted’s own website,
together present a patchy and confusing picture
 The language we use to talk about education and childcare is
confusing – too many words for different kinds of provider and no
agreement about what they refer to
 The regulatory system is not well equipped to deal with
institutions that overlap: school - children’s centre - EY registered
provider
 Inspection reports for schools are not comparable to those for
Early Years Registered providers
 There is no inspection judgement for early years in primary
schools – a consultation has just been launched to reintroduce this
but more will be needed to make inspection outcomes clear
enough to inform parents’ choices

11. Outcomes have improved but the gap for the
poorest children is still far too wide
The report includes a league table of local authorities based on the
proportion of FSM pupils reaching a good level of development in the

12. Why do children from low-income
backgrounds do less well?
 There is less of the highest quality provision in deprived areas:
the quality of childminders varies most by deprivation, and the
quality of nursery schools varies least but there are very few
nursery schools nationally
 Children from low income families benefit from interaction with
graduate level staff, but the prevalence of these higher
qualifications in deprived areas is highly variable
 Funded places are available at a younger age to children from
low income families but fewer places are taken up
 The most common reason families do not take up entitlement
is a lack of awareness of eligibility

13. Accountability for improving
outcomes
 There is very weak accountability for outcomes
 Only local authorities and children’s centres have specific
responsibility for children from low income families and there is
no clear way to hold them to account
 The performance of local authorities varies widely:
 In Greenwich, Hackney and Lewisham, 60% of children
eligible for free school meals reach a ‘good level of
development’
 In Halton, North Yorkshire, Stockton on Tees, Leicester,
Richmond upon Thames , Gateshead, Wigan and
Warrington is less than 25%

14. Data weaknesses seriously limit
accountability

15. Data and assessment requires
improvement
 There is only one data source which is the EYFS Profile
 This is not linked to early years providers, so there is no data
to hold them to account
 Assessments at age two are conducted by health and at age
five by education, and assessment information is not passed
from one to the other
 The reliability of current assessments of attainment on entry
and at KS1 is open to question
 An integrated two year old check and a new baseline are
planned but may not address these gaps

16. Recommendations

17. The report makes 17 detailed
recommendations to achieve these
aims:
 It should be easier for parents to compare the quality of
provision for children before the start of Reception
 There should be clear accountability for outcomes and Ofsted
should have the means to hold providers to account for their
performance, particularly where they are in receipt of public
money
 Schools should have greater flexibility to support children and
parents in their early years and be incentivised to do so through
the inspection and regulation system
 The contribution of children’s centres to outcomes should be
made clearer
 More should be done to stop children from low income families
from falling behind