To receive a list of daycare providers which have been inspected since the last meeting and the judgements awarded and to consider the main themes arising from the inspections.

The Subgroup received a list of all Manchester daycare providers which had been inspected since the last meeting and the judgements awarded.

The Early Years Quality Assurance Lead provided Members with an overview of the inspections which had taken place since the last meeting, reporting that two settings which had been judged as “inadequate” by Ofsted had subsequently closed.  She reported that overall 94% of daycare providers in the city were judged to be “good” or “outstanding”.  She highlighted some of the challenges facing the sector, including the recruitment and retention of staff and sustainability, with rising costs within the sector.  She outlined the key themes from recent Ofsted reports relating to daycare providers, including a fully embedded curriculum design which was having an impact on children, high aspirations for children, children who were thriving and making rapid progress, the quality of provision for children with SEND and supporting children’s independence.  She reported that a number of reports had highlighted issues around health and safety and risk assessment, relating to the safety of the environment and hygiene, which was being focused on with settings.  She advised that reports for a couple of settings had highlighted inconsistent staff knowledge on safeguarding, which the Early Years Safeguarding Lead had been working with them on, and settings not having a named deputy.  She highlighted how Anson Cabin had worked to address the issues raised in their previous Ofsted report, with support from the Council, which had led to them moving from “requires improvement” to “good”.

In response to Members’ concerns about the findings from the inspection of Early Explorers, the Early Years Quality Assurance Lead reported that the setting had had staffing issues and the Quality Assurance professional had not had previous concerns about the quality of the provision; however, she advised that the setting was working with the Council to address the issues raised, that they were getting a lot of support and that she was confident that they had capacity to improve.  A Member expressed concern that this outcome had not been anticipated and asked how the Council could ensure that settings which were of concern were on their radar, particularly if they had not been inspected for some time.  The Early Years Quality Assurance Lead reported that the prioritisation of quality assurance visits to settings was being tightened up and outlined some of the factors in how settings were prioritised, including changes at the setting, a new manager, having a “requires improvement” judgement and being due an Ofsted inspection.  She advised that all settings were offered at least an annual visit.

In response to a Member’s question, the Early Years Quality Assurance Lead reported that settings which had been judged as “inadequate” received at least a monthly visit, focusing on the actions arising from the inspection.  She reported that the Council provided challenge and support to these settings, advising that it was a bespoke package of support depending on what was needed.  In response to a further question, she advised that settings judged “inadequate” were re-inspected within six months and did usually improve within this time.  In response to a question about what happened to funding for two-and-three-year-olds if a setting was judged to be “inadequate”, she reported that the setting could keep their current children but could not take on any more, which could affect their sustainability, but that the Council did have some discretion in relation to this.

In response to a question about Tiny Turtles, the Early Years Quality Assurance Lead reported that they had been getting a lot of support and that the report had judged them to be “good” in some areas but that there had been issues around safeguarding knowledge and that this might be related to changes in staffing and the inspector speaking to newer staff.  She advised that they expected this setting would be able to achieve a “good” judgement in future, with support from her team.  In response to a Member’s question, she outlined the quality assurance support provided to childminders.

The Chair proposed that that Subgroup consider an overview of childminding inspection reports in the next municipal year.

Decision

To consider an overview of childminding inspection reports in the next municipal year.