improving quality in the early years - university of oxford · 1 improving quality in the early...

1

Improving Quality

In the Early Years: A Comparison of Perspectives and Measures

TECHNICAL REPORT:

Arjette Karemaker (University of Oxford)

Sandra Mathers (University of Oxford, A+ Education Ltd)

Rosanna Singler (Daycare Trust)

2

Introduction

This Technical Report is designed to supplement the Final Report (Mathers et al., 2012). It provides

technical details on the design, conduct and analysis of the quantitative and qualitative analysis. Part 1

describes the Quantitative analysis and Part 2 describes the Qualitative analysis. The main study

findings are reported in the Final Report.

PART 1: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

This section presents the results of the statistical analysis. It is structured according the main analysis

findings set out in Chapter 5 (Analysis Findings: Relationships Between Quality Measures), which sets

out to ask the following research questions:

1. What are the associations between ECERS/ITERS and the overall grade awarded by Ofsted,

and are these different pre- and post-EYFS? (Section 5.1 in the main report)

2. What are the associations between ECERS/ITERS and the various sub-grades provided in

EYFS Ofsted reports? (Section 5.2 in the main report)

3. How do ECERS/ITERS and Ofsted categorise settings into high and low quality, and to what

extent do these methods of grouping align with each other? (Section 5.3 in the main report)

4. Do settings participating in a quality assurance scheme achieve higher ECERS scores or

Ofsted gradings? (Section 5.4 in the main report)

Each section presents the relevant descriptives, followed by the results of the statistical analysis.

Throughout, only statistically significant results are shown (at least at the p < 0.05 level).

3

1. What are the associations between ECERS/ITERS and the overall grade awarded

by Ofsted, and are these different pre- and post-EYFS?1

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 report the descriptives for the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and ITERS-R measures, and for the

overall Ofsted grades. Tables 1.3 to 1.5 show significant partial correlations between ECERS/ITERS

scores and Ofsted ratings (controlling for the gap between the ECERS/ITERS and Ofsted assessments).

All partial correlations were confirmed using non-parametric Spearman’s rank tests.

Table 1.1 Descriptives: ECERS-R, ECERS-E and ITERS-R measures (pre-EYFS and EYFS samples)

N Min-Max Mean (Std. Dev.)

EYFS

sample

Pre-EYFS

sample

EYFS

sample

Pre-EYFS

sample

EYFS

sample

Pre-EYFS

sample

ECERS-R

Total Childcare Quality (1-6)* 1035 1165 2.2-6.6 2.2-6.6 4.2 (.70) 4.3 (.70)

1.Space & Furnishings 1035 1165 1.6-6.5 1.9-6.5 4.0 (.80) 4.1 (.80)

2.Care Routines 1035 1165 1.2-7.0 1.2-7.0 3.7 (1.2) 3.7 (1.2)

3.Language/Reasoning 1035 1165 2.0-7.0 1.5-7.0 4.6 (.90) 4.7 (.90)

4.Activities 1035 1165 1.6-7.0 1.6-7.0 3.8 (.80) 3.8 (.80)

5. Interaction 1035 1165 1.4-7.0 1.4-7.0 5.4 (1.0) 5.4 (1.0)

6. Program structure 1035 1165 1.3-7.0 1.7-7.0 4.7 (1.2) 4.7 (1.1)

7. Parents & staff 378 432 2.5-6.8 2.3-6.8 4.6 (.80) 4.6 (.90)

ECERS-E

Total Curricular Quality 624 718 1.7-5.3 1.3-5.7 3.4 (.70) 3.3 (.70)

1. Literacy 624 718 1.8-6.0 1.7-6.2 3.9 (.80) 3.9 (.80)

2. Maths 624 718 1.0-6.3 1.0-6.3 3.1 (.90) 3.1 (1.0)

3. Science 624 718 1.0-7.0 1.0-7.0 2.8 (1.1) 2.8 (1.1)

4. Diversity 624 718 1.0-5.3 1.0-5.7 2.9 (.80) 2.9 (.90)

ITERS-R

Total Childcare Quality (1-6)* 247 324 1.7-6.0 2.1-6.1 4.0 (.90) 4.2 (.90)

1.Space & furnishings 247 324 2.0-6.8 2.2-6.8 3.9 (.90) 4.1 (.90)

2.Personal care 247 324 1.0-6.7 1.4-7.0 3.6 (1.2) 3.8 (1.2)

3.Listening & talking 247 324 1.3-7.0 1.0-7.0 4.6 (1.1) 4.6 (1.2)

4.Activities 247 324 1.1-6.0 1.5-6.0 3.5 (1.0) 3.6 (1.0)

5.Interaction 247 324 1.3-7.0 2.0-7.0 5.1 (1.2) 5.3 (1.1)

6.Program structure 247 324 1-0-7.0 1.3-7.0 4.5 (1.3) 4.7 (1.5)

7.Parents & staff 246 320 3.0-6.9 2.1-6.9 4.8 (.70) 4.8 (.80)

*Mean of items in the first six subscales related to childcare quality

Table 1.2 Descriptives: Ofsted overall grades (pre-EYFS and EYFS samples)

N Min-Max Mean (Std. Dev.)

EYFS

sample

Pre-EYFS

sample

EYFS

sample

Pre-EYFS

sample EYFS sample

Pre-EYFS

sample

OFSTED

Care 1256 1-4 2.29 (.55)

Nursery Education 1160 1-3 2.24 (.58)

Overall Effectiveness 1094 1-4 2.08 (.69)

1 This part of the Technical Appendix supplements pages 65-68 of the Final Report (Mathers et al., 2012).

4

Table 1.3 Partial correlations: significant associations between ECERS-R measures and Ofsted’s overall

grades, pre-EYFS (Care n=1165, Nursery Education n=1093) and EYFS (n=1035), controlling for the gap

between ECERS and Ofsted assessments2

ECERS-R measure

Ofsted grade

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

an

gu

ag

e/

Re

aso

nin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

Care (Pre-EYFS) 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.08

Nursery Education (pre-EYFS) 0.20 0.11 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.09 0.13

Overall effectiveness (EYFS) 0.29 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.27 0.15 0.24 0.12

*Mean of items in the first six subscales related to childcare quality

Table 1.4 Partial correlations: significant associations between ECERS-E measures and Ofsted’s overall

grades, pre-EYFS (Care n=718, Nursery Education n=678) and EYFS (n=624), controlling for the gap

between ECERS and Ofsted assessments3

ECERS-E measure

Ofsted grade

To

tal

Cu

rric

ula

r

Qu

ali

ty

1.L

ite

racy

2.M

ath

s

3.S

cie

nce

4.D

ive

rsit

y

Care (Pre-EYFS) 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.06

Nursery Education (pre-EYFS) 0.25 0.21 0.26 0.17 0.13

Overall effectiveness (EYFS) 0.29 0.24 0.15 0.23 0.25

Table 1.5. Partial correlations: significant associations between ITERS-R measures and Ofsted’s overall

grades, pre-EYFS (Care n=324) and EYFS (n=247), controlling for the gap between ECERS and Ofsted

assessments

ITERS-R measure

Ofsted grade

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

iste

nin

g &

Ta

lkin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

sta

ff

Care (Pre-EYFS) ** -0.12

Overall effectiveness (EYFS)

* Mean of items in the first six subscales related to childcare quality

** Nursery Education grades (pre-EYFS) were not relevant for children under the age of 3 years

2 The correlations of the following subscales with Ofsted overall grades were significantly different from each other at p < 0.05:

• For Care (pre-EYFS): Care Routines and Total Childcare Quality

• For Nursery Education (pre-EYFS):

o Care Routines and Total Childcare Quality /Interaction/Language & Reasoning

o Space & Furnishings and Total Childcare Quality/Interaction/ Language & Reasoning

• For Overall effectiveness (EYFS):

o Care Routines and Program Structure/ Language & Reasoning/Activities/Total Childcare Quality

o Parents and staff and Program Structure/ Language & Reasoning/ Activities/ Total Childcare Quality

o Interaction and Program Structure/ Language & Reasoning/ Activities/ Total Childcare Quality 3 The correlations of the following subscales with Ofsted overall grades were significantly different from each other at p < 0.05:

• Overall effectiveness (EYFS): Maths and Total Curricular Quality

5

2. What are the associations between ECERS/ITERS and the various sub-grades

provided in EYFS Ofsted reports?4

Table 1.6 presents the descriptives for the various Ofsted sub-grades (for the EYFS sample). Table 1.7

reports the significant partial correlations between the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and ITERS-R overall scores

and each of the Ofsted sub-grades, whilst controlling for the gap between ECERS/ITERS and Ofsted

assessments. All partial correlations were confirmed using non-parametric Spearman’s rank tests.

Table 1.6 Descriptives: sub-grades awarded by Ofsted (EYFS sample)

Ofsted sub-grades N Min-Max

Mean

(Std. Dev.)

Effectiveness with which the setting meets children’s needs 1094 1-4 2.08 (.69)

Capacity of the provision to maintain continuous improvement 1094 1-4 2.04 (.69)

Leadership and management of the EYFS 1094 1-4 2.07 (.69)

Effectiveness of leadership in embedding ambition & driving improvement

(09/09 onwards) 786 1-4 1.97 (.69)

Effectiveness with which setting deploys resources (09/09 onwards) 786 1-4 1.94 (.68)

Effectiveness with which setting promotes equality diversity/inclusive practice 1094 1-4 1.98 (.65)

Effectiveness of safeguarding 1094 1-4 2.02 (.70)

Effectiveness of self evaluation 1094 1-4 2.06 (.71)

Effectiveness of partnerships with parents and others** 1094 1-4 1.91 (.63)

Effectiveness of engagement with parents/carers (09/09 onwards) 786 1-4 1.81 (.65)

Quality of provision in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 786 1-4 2.01 (.67)

Outcomes for children in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 786 1-4 1.99 (.66)

Extent to which children achieve/enjoy their learning*** 1094 1-4 1.97 (.67)

Extent to which children feel safe*** 1094 1-4 1.98 (.68)

Extent to which children adopt healthy lifestyles*** 1094 1-4 1.93 (.62)

Extent to which children make a positive contribution*** 1094 1-4 1.94 (.64)

Extent to which children develop skills for the future*** 1094 1-4 2.02 (.66)

Children helped to learn & develop? (pre-09/09 only) 308 1-4 2.16 (.67)

How effectively is the welfare of children promoted? (pre-09/09 only) 308 1-4 2.13 (.68)

Composite: mean of all sub-grades 1094 1-4 2.00 (.61)

** From 09/09, this is a mean of the grades for 'effectiveness of partnerships' and 'effectiveness of engagement with parents and carers'

*** Between 09/08 and 09/09 these grades did not relate to outcomes but to how well the provision helped children to achieve outcomes

(e.g. how well are children helped to stay safe)


6

Table 1.7 Partial correlations between ECERS-R (n=1035), ECERS-E (n=624) and ITERS-R (n=247) total

scores and the sub-grades awarded by Ofsted (EYFS inspections), controlling for the gap between

ECERS/ ITERS and Ofsted assessments.

Ofsted sub-grades

Total ECERS-R

Childcare

Quality (1-6)*

Total ECERS-E

Curricular

Quality

Total ITERS-R

Childcare

Quality (1-6)*

Overall effectiveness 0.29 0.29

Effectiveness with which the setting meets children’s needs 0.29 0.29

Capacity of the provision to maintain continuous improvement 0.28 0.28

Leadership and management of the EYFS 0.29 0.28

Effectiveness of leadership in embedding ambition & driving

improvement (09/09 onwards) 0.28 0.24

Effectiveness with which setting deploys resources (09/09 onwards) 0.33 0.32

Effectiveness with which setting promotes equality diversity/inclusive

practice 0.28 0.27

Effectiveness of safeguarding 0.25 0.25

Effectiveness of self-evaluation 0.28 0.26

Effectiveness of partnerships with parents and others** 0.27 0.24

Effectiveness of engagement with parents/carers (09/09 onwards) 0.26 0.22

Quality of provision in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 0.31 0.30

Outcomes for children in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 0.30 0.29

Extent to which children achieve/enjoy their learning*** 0.30 0.29

Extent to which children feel safe*** 0.24 0.26

Extent to which children adopt healthy lifestyles*** 0.26 0.28

Extent to which children make a positive contribution*** 0.26 0.27

Extent to which children develop skills for the future*** 0.27 0.27

Children helped to learn & develop? (pre-09/09 only) 0.28 0.26

How effectively is the welfare of children promoted? (pre-09/09 only) 0.26 0.23

Composite: mean of all sub-grades 0.30 0.30


** From 09/09, this is a mean of the grades for 'effectiveness of partnerships' and 'effectiveness of engagement with parents and carers' ***Between 09/08 and 09/09 these grades did not relate to outcomes but to how well the provision helped children to achieve outcomes

(e.g. how well are children helped to stay safe?)

7

3. How do ECERS/ITERS and Ofsted categorise settings into high and low quality,

and to what extent do these methods of grouping align with each other?5

Tables 1.8 to 1.10 report the mean ECERS-R/E and ITERS-R scores for groups of settings achieving each

Ofsted grade. Tables 1.11 to 1.14 present statistical test results (Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney

tests) indicating significant differences between groups of settings awarded each grade.

Table 1.8 Mean ECERS-R scores for groups of settings achieving each Ofsted grade (EYFS sample)

ECERS-R measures: mean scores (Std. Dev.)

Settings

graded as

…..

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

an

gu

ag

e/

Re

aso

nin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

Outstanding

(n=186)

4.53

(.71)

4.29

(.84)

3.85

(1.21)

5.02

(.97)

4.09

(.84)

5.65

(.95)

5.11

(1.16)

4.63

(.74)

Good

(n=622)

4.26

(.66)

4.03

(.79)

3.74

(1.25)

4.66

(.91)

3.79

(.79)

5.42

(1.03)

4.72

(1.14)

4.68

(.81)

Satisfactory

(n=197)

3.88

(.64)

3.68

(.79)

3.45

(1.20)

4.28

(.91)

3.39

(.75)

5.04

(1.08)

4.29

(1.03)

4.40

(.88)

Inadequate

(n=30)

3.87

(.70)

3.45

(.84)

3.60

(1.26)

4.21

(.81)

3.42

(.78)

5.42

(.91)

3.91

(1.08)

4.32

(1.05)


Table 1.9 Mean ECERS-E scores for groups of settings achieving each Ofsted grade (EYFS sample)

ECERS-E measures: mean scores (Std. Dev.)

Settings graded as

…..

To

tal

Cu

rric

ula

r

Qu

ali

ty

1.L

ite

racy

2.M

ath

s

3.S

cie

nce

4.D

ive

rsit

y

Outstanding (n=124) 3.65

(.65)

4.22

(.70)

3.38

(.92)

3.20

(1.17)

3.24

(.76)

Good (n=385) 3.36

(.65)

3.93

(.75)

3.10

(.93)

2.84

(1.04)

2.94

(.83)

Satisfactory (n=104) 3.07

(.68)

3.63

(.76)

2.96

(.99)

2.49

(.95)

2.54

(.93)

Inadequate (n=11) 2.84

(.38)

3.55

(.43)

2.76

(.97

2.15

(.27)

2.19

(.66)


8

Table 1.10 Mean ITERS-R scores for groups of settings achieving each Ofsted grade (EYFS sample)

ITERS-R measures: mean scores (Std. Dev.)

Settings

graded as

….. T

ota

l C

hil

dca

re

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

iste

nin

g &

Ta

lkin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

Outstanding

(n=26)

3.89

(.60)

3.85

(1.00)

3.51

(.99)

4.64

(1.16)

3.22

(.76)

5.32

(.93)

4.04

(1.34)

4.90

(.72)

Good

(n=162)

4.07

(.88)

4.02

(.94)

3.65

(1.27)

4.60

(1.12)

3.58

(.98)

5.02

(1.30)

4.65

(1.32)

4.89

(.76)

Satisfactory

(n=54)

3.95

(1.18)

3.73

(.84)

3.51

(1.29)

4.50

(1.22)

3.47

(1.06)

5.24

(1.13)

4.40

(1.32)

4.56

(.66)

Inadequate

(n=5)

4.10

(1.18)

4.28

(1.05)

4.10

(1.15)

4.33

(1.33)

3.35

(1.10)

5.20

(1.50)

4.33

(2.04)

5.11

(.81)


Table 1.11 Kruskal Wallis test: significant differences in ECERS-R (n=1035) scores for the Ofsted grade

groups.

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

an

gu

ag

e/

Re

aso

nin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

s

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

Kruskal Wallis

Test

χ2=91.66 χ

2=64.96 χ

2=12.16 χ

2=62.15 χ

2=73.55 χ

2=35.37 χ

2=65.75


Table 1.12 Kruskal Wallis test: significant differences in ECERS-E (n=624) scores for the Ofsted grade

groups.

To

tal

Cu

rric

ula

r

Qu

ali

ty

1.L

ite

racy

2.M

ath

s

3.S

cie

nce

4.D

ive

rsit

y

Kruskal Wallis Test χ2=49.29 χ

2=36.02 χ

2=16.14 χ

2=29.27 χ

2=36.26

No significant differences in ITERS-R scores were identified between groups of settings achieving each

Ofsted grade.

9

Table 1.13 Mann-Whitney test: significant differences in ECERS-R scores (n=1035) between pairs of

Ofsted grade groupings

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

an

gu

ag

e/

Re

aso

nin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

s

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

Outstanding-

Good

U=44258,

z=-4.87

U=47360

z=-3.76

U=45348

z=-4.49

U=45770

z=-4.33

U=50294

z=-2.71

U=46108

z=-4.21

Outstanding-

Satisfactory

U=9043

z=-8.57

U=10853

z=-6.90

U=14848

z=-3.21

U=10579

z=-7.17

U=9760

z=-7.91

U=12189

z=-5.67

U=10710

z=-7.04

Outstanding-

Inadequate

U=1356

z=-4.49

U=1357

z=-4.52

U=1459

z=-4.20

U=1565

z=-3.86

U=1192

z=-5.04

Good-

Satisfactory

U=41730

z=-6.75

U=45483

z=-5.46

U=52735

z=-2.95

U=47083

z=-4.92

U=43646

z=-6.09

U=48046

z=-4.58

U=47586

z=-4.74

Good-

Inadequate

U=6266

z=-3.04

U=5691

z=-3.62

U=6646

z=-2.67

U=5418

z=-3.89

Satisfactory-

Inadequate


Table 1.14 Mann-Whitney test: significant differences in ECERS-E scores (n=624) between pairs of

Ofsted grade groupings

To

tal

Cu

rric

ula

r

Qu

ali

ty

1.L

ite

racy

2.M

ath

s

3.S

cie

nce

4.D

ive

rsit

y

Outstanding-Good

U=q7838

z=-4.24

U=18611

z=-3.70

U=19292

z=-3.23

U=19736

z=-2.92

U=19250

z=-3.26

Outstanding-

Satisfactory

U=3410

z=-6.13

U=3675

z=-5.60

U=4760

z=-3.42

U=4091

z=-4.77

U=3859

z=-5.24

Outstanding-

Inadequate

Good-Satisfactory

U=14945

z=-3.97

U=15708

z=-3.38

U=15927

z=-3.22

U=15640

z=-3.44

Good- Inadequate

Satisfactory-

Inadequate

*Shaded boxes indicate where statistical tests were not possible due to the size of the groups

10

4. Do settings participating in a quality assurance scheme achieve higher ECERS

scores or Ofsted gradings?6

4.1 Do settings participating in quality assurance scheme achieve higher ECERS scores?

Tables 1.15 and 1.16 present descriptives for the ‘quality assurance’ sub-sample (n=249). Tables 1.17

to 1.20 present the results of the analysis exploring whether settings taking part in quality assurance

achieve higher ECERS-R or ECERS-E scores. Due to the relatively small number of settings in the sub-

sample with available ITERS-R data, it was not possible to include the ITERS-R in this analysis.

Table 1.15 Descriptives: ECERS scores for settings participating [QA (all)] and not participating (Non

QA) in a quality assurance scheme

Subscale QA (all) Non QA QA (all) Non QA

N Mean (Std. Dev.)

ECERS-R

Total Childcare Quality (mean 1-6)* 72 177 4.29 (.89) 4.07 (.79)

Space & furnishings 72 177 4.29 (.89) 4.06 (.90)

Personal care 72 177 3.58 (1.3) 3.53 (1.3)

Language/reasoning 72 177 4.53 (1.1) 4.44 (1.1)

Activities 72 177 3.93 (.96) 3.64 (.84)

Interaction 72 177 5.13(1.4) 4.85 (1.2)

Program structure 72 177 4.89 (1.4) 4.61 (1.2)

Parents & staff 55 152 4.65 (.75) 4.48 (.80)

ECERS-E

Total Curricular Quality 72 173 3.38 (.78) 3.14 (.67)

Literacy 72 173 3.82 (.81) 3.73 (.76)

Maths 72 173 3.13 (1.1) 2.86 (.96)

Science 72 173 3.15 (1.2) 2.69 (.97)

Diversity 72 173 3.00 (.82) 2.68 (.81)



11

Table 1.16 Descriptives: ECERS scores for settings participating in a local authority quality assurance

scheme [QA (LA)], and settings taking part in a non-local authority QA scheme [QA (Non-LA)]

Subscale QA (LA) QA (Non-LA) QA (LA) QA (Non-LA)

N Mean (Std. Dev.)

ECERS-R

Total Childcare Quality (mean 1-6)* 46 26 4.45 (.89) 4.00 (.84)

Space & furnishings 46 26 4.50 (.84) 3.92 (.86)

Personal care 46 26 3.59 (1.3) 3.54 (1.1)

Language/reasoning 46 26 4.69 (1.1) 4.26 (1.1)

Activities 46 26 4.16 (1.0) 3.51 (.75)

Interaction 46 26 5.23 (1.3) 4.95 (1.5)

Program structure 46 26 5.04 (1.4) 4.63 (1.4)

Parents & staff 34 21 4.67 (.70) 4.63 (.84)

ECERS-E

Total Curricular Quality 46 26 3.54 (.81) 3.11 (.66)

Literacy 46 26 3.95 (.80) 3.58 (.79)

Maths 46 26 3.29 (1.1) 2.83 (.86)

Science 46 26 3.33 (1.3) 2.83 (1.1)

Diversity 46 26 3.17 (.82) 2.69 (.74)


Table 1.17 Mann-Whitney test /T-tests: significant differences in ECERS-R scores between settings

participating (n=72) and not participating in a QA scheme (n=177)

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

an

gu

ag

e/

Re

aso

nin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

s

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

QA (72) vs

Non QA

(177)

U=5269

z=-2.14

(t=2.37)


Table 1.18 Mann-Whitney test /T-tests: significant differences in ECERS-E scores between settings

participating (n=72) and not participating in a QA scheme (n=173)

To

tal

Cu

rric

ula

r

Qu

ali

ty

1.L

ite

racy

2.M

ath

s

3.S

cie

nce

4.D

ive

rsit

y

QA (72) vs

Non QA (173)

U=5139

z=--2.16

(t=2.46)

U=5011

z=-2.42

(t=3.07)

U=4915

z=-2.61

(t=2.73)

12

Table 1.19 Mann-Whitney test /T-tests: significant differences in ECERS-R scores between settings

participating in a local authority quality assurance scheme (n=46), settings taking part in a non-local

authority QA scheme (n=26) and settings not participating in quality assurance (n=177)

To

tal

Ch

ild

care

Qu

ali

ty (

1-6

)*

1.S

pa

ce &

Fu

rnis

hin

gs

2.C

are

Ro

uti

ne

s

3.L

an

gu

ag

e/

Re

aso

nin

g

4.A

ctiv

itie

s

5.I

nte

ract

ion

s

6.P

rog

ram

me

Str

uct

ure

7.P

are

nts

&

Sta

ff

QA (LA)

(46) vs QA

(Non-LA)

(26)

U=405

z=-2.27

(t=2.12)

U=367

z=-2.72

(t=2.78)

U= 364

z=-2.75

(t=2.86)

QA (LA)

(46) vs

Non QA

(177)

U=2939

z=-2.90

(t=2.82)

U=2900

z=-3.01

(t=3.02)

U=2796

z=-3.27

(t=3.60)

U=3280

z=-2.03

(ns)

U=3200

z=-2.24

(t=2.08)

QA (Non-

LA) (26) vs

Non QA

(177)


Table 1.20 Mann-Whitney test /T-tests: significant differences in ECERS-E scores between settings



To

tal

Cu

rric

ula

r

Qu

ali

ty

1.L

ite

racy

2.M

ath

s

3.S

cie

nce

4.D

ive

rsit

y

QA (LA) (46) vs QA (Non-

LA) (26)

U=418

z=-2.11

(t=2.31)

U=386

z=-2.50

(t=2.45)

QA (LA) (46) vs

Non QA (173)

U=2836

z=-2.99

(t=3.42)

U=3024

z=-2.51

(t=2.63)

U=2872

z=-2.91

(t=3.67)

U=2656

z=-3.48

(t=3.58)

QA (Non-LA) (26) vs

Non QA (173)

13

4.2 Do settings participating in quality assurance scheme achieve higher Ofsted grades?

Tables 1.21 and 1.22 present descriptives for the ‘quality assurance’ sub-sample (n=249). Tables 1.23

to 1.24 present the results of the analysis exploring whether settings taking part in quality assurance

achieve higher Ofsted grades.

Table 1.21 Descriptives: Ofsted grades for settings participating [QA (all)] and not participating in a

quality assurance scheme (Non QA)

QA (all) Non QA QA (all) Non QA

Ofsted sub-grades N Mean (Std. Dev.)

Overall effectiveness 72 177 1.89 (.62) 2.06 (.66)

Effectiveness with which the setting meets children’s needs 72 177 1.86 (.61) 2.05 (.66)

Capacity of the provision to maintain continuous improvement 72 177 1.82 (.61) 2.03 (.69)

Leadership and management of the EYFS 72 177 1.85 (.64) 2.05 (.67)

Effectiveness of leadership in embedding ambition & driving improvement

(09/09 onwards) 57 125 1.81 (.58) 1.94 (.69)

Effectiveness with which setting deploys resources (09/09 onwards) 57 125 1.81 (.61) 1.97 (.71)

Effectiveness with which setting promotes equality diversity/inclusive

practice 72 177 1.88 (.63) 1.95 (.63)

Effectiveness of safeguarding 72 177 1.88 (.65) 1.99 (.70)

Effectiveness of self-evaluation 72 177 1.83 (.63) 2.05 (.70)

Effectiveness of partnerships with parents and others** 72 177 1.75 (.60) 1.86 (.62)

Effectiveness of engagement with parents/carers (09/09 onwards) 72 177 1.71 (.62) 1.82 (.65)

Quality of provision in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 57 125 1.84 (.59) 1.98 (.67)

Outcomes for children in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 57 125 1.84 (.59) 1.96 (.64)

Extent to which children achieve/enjoy their learning*** 72 177 1.82 (.61) 1.97 (.62)

Extent to which children feel safe*** 72 177 1.85 (.64) 1.94 (.69)

Extent to which children adopt healthy lifestyles*** 72 177 1.83 (.61) 1.93 (.65)

Extent to which children make a positive contribution*** 72 177 1.83 (.61) 1.92 (.62)

Extent to which children develop skills for the future*** 72 177 1.88 (.60) 2.03 (.63)

Children helped to learn & develop? (pre-09/09 only) 15 52 1.93 (59) 2.13 (.63)

How effectively is the welfare of children promoted? (pre-09/09 only) 15 52 2.00 (.76) 2.19 (.66)

Composite: mean of all sub-grades 72 177 1.84 (.56) 1.99 (.60)




14

Table 1.22 Descriptives: Ofsted grades for settings participating in a local authority quality assurance

scheme [QA (LA)] and settings taking part in a non-local authority QA scheme [QA (Non-LA)]

QA (LA) QA (Non-LA) QA (LA) QA (Non-LA)

Ofsted sub-grades N Mean (Std. Dev.)

Overall effectiveness 46 26 1.85 (.63) 1.96 (.60)

Effectiveness with which the setting meets children’s needs 46 26 1.80 (.62) 1.93 (.56)

Capacity of the provision to maintain continuous improvement 46 26 1.78 (.63) 2.00 (.59)

Leadership and management of the EYFS 46 26 1.78 (.66) 1.96 (.60)


improvement (09/09 onwards) 37 20 1.78 (.63) 1.85 (.49)

Effectiveness with which setting deploys resources (09/09 onwards) 37 20 1.73 (.65) 1.95 (.51)

Effectiveness with which setting promotes equality

diversity/inclusive practice 46 26 1.80 (.62) 2.00 (.57)

Effectiveness of safeguarding 46 26 1.89 (.67) 1.85 (.61)

Effectiveness of self-evaluation 46 26 1.76 (.67) 1.96 (.53)

Effectiveness of partnerships with parents and others** 46 26 1.69 (.59) 1.87 (.61)

Effectiveness of engagement with parents/carers (09/09 onwards) 46 26 1.65 (.60) 1.81 (.63)

Quality of provision in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 37 20 1.78 (.63) 1.95 (.51)

Outcomes for children in the EYFS (09/09 onwards) 37 20 1.78 (.63) 1.95 (.51)

Extent to which children achieve/enjoy their learning*** 46 26 1.74 (.61) 1.96 (.60)

Extent to which children feel safe*** 46 26 1.80 (.62) 1.92 (.69)

Extent to which children adopt healthy lifestyles*** 46 26 1.85 (.56) 1.81 (.69)

Extent to which children make a positive contribution*** 46 26 1.78 (.63) 1.92 (.56)

Extent to which children develop skills for the future*** 46 26 1.80 (.62) 2.00 (.57)

Children helped to learn & develop? (pre-09/09 only) 9 6 1.78 (.44) 2.17 (.75)

How effectively is the welfare of children promoted? (pre-09/09 only) 9 6 2.00 (.71) 2.00 (.89)

Composite: mean of all sub-grades 46 26 1.78 (.57) 1.93 (56)




15

Table 1.23 Mann-Whitney test /T-tests: significant differences in Ofsted grades between settings

participating (n=72) and not participating (n=177) in a QA scheme

Ofsted sub-grades QA (72) vs Non QA (177)

Overall effectiveness

Effectiveness with which the setting meets children’s needs U=5394, z=-2.16 (t=-2.03)

Capacity of the provision to maintain continuous improvement U=5397, z=-2.16 (t=-2.29)

Leadership and management of the EYFS U=5468, z=-2.02 (t=-2.13)

Effectiveness of leadership in embedding ambition & driving improvement (09/09 onwards)

Effectiveness with which setting deploys resources (09/09 onwards)

Effectiveness with which setting promotes equality diversity/inclusive practice

Effectiveness of safeguarding

Effectiveness of self-evaluation U=5390, z=-2.16 (t=-2.29)

Effectiveness of partnerships with parents and others**

Effectiveness of engagement with parents/carers (09/09 onwards)

Quality of provision in the EYFS (09/09 onwards)

Outcomes for children in the EYFS (09/09 onwards)

Extent to which children achieve/enjoy their learning***

Extent to which children feel safe***

Extent to which children adopt healthy lifestyles***

Extent to which children make a positive contribution***

Extent to which children develop skills for the future***

Children helped to learn & develop? (pre-09/09 only)

How effectively is the welfare of children promoted? (pre-09/09 only)

Composite: mean of all sub-grades




16

Table 1.24 Mann-Whitney test /T-tests: significant differences in Ofsted grades between settings



Ofsted sub-grades

QA (LA) (46) vs

QA (Non-LA) (26)

QA (LA) (46) vs

Non QA (177)

QA (Non-LA) (26)

vs Non QA (177)

Overall effectiveness

Effectiveness with which the setting meets children’s needs

U=3349, z=-2.16

(t=-2.22)

Capacity of the provision to maintain continuous improvement

U=3328, z=-2.17

(t=-2.24)

Leadership and management of the EYFS

U=3281, z=-2.33

(t=-2.37)


improvement (09/09 onwards)

Effectiveness with which setting deploys resources (09/09

onwards)

Effectiveness with which setting promotes equality

diversity/inclusive practice

Effectiveness of safeguarding

Effectiveness of self-evaluation

U=3212, z=-2.48

(t=-2.52)

Effectiveness of partnerships with parents and others**

Effectiveness of engagement with parents/carers (09/09 onwards)

Quality of provision in the EYFS (09/09 onwards)

Outcomes for children in the EYFS (09/09 onwards)

Extent to which children achieve/enjoy their learning***

U=3320, z=-2.24

(t=-2.26)

Extent to which children feel safe***

Extent to which children adopt healthy lifestyles***

Extent to which children make a positive contribution***

Extent to which children develop skills for the future***

U=3357, z=-2.14

(t=-2.17)

Children helped to learn & develop? (pre-09/09 only)

How effectively is the welfare of children promoted? (pre-09/09

only)

Composite: mean of all sub-grades




Finally, Table 1.25 shows the relationships between ECERS/ITERS scores and Ofsted grades for the

‘quality assurance’ sub-sample, which are very similar to those seen for the main dataset.

Table 1.25 Partial correlations: significant associations between ECERS-R (n=249), ECERS-E (n=245) and

ITERS-R (n=145) measures and Ofsted’s overall effectiveness grade for the quality assurance sub-

sample (EYFS inspections only), controlling for the gap between ECERS/ITERS and Ofsted assessments

Total Childcare Quality

(1-6)* (ECERS-R)

Total Curricular Quality

(ECERS-E)

Total Childcare Quality

(1-6)* (ITERS-R)

Overall effectiveness (EYFS) -0.29 -0.31


17

PART 2: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

The qualitative element of the study sets out to ask the following research questions:

1. How do the different stakeholders (parents, providers and local authorities) perceive quality

in early years education and care?

2. To what extent do the concepts of quality embodied in the measures considered here align

with stakeholder perceptions of quality?

3. How effectively do the three approaches considered here support stakeholders in

identifying and improving quality?

To answer these questions, focus groups were conducted with parents, key local authority staff

involved in quality improvement work, and managers from a range of settings (including nurseries,

pre-school provision and playgroups). Although the sample is not fully representative of all

stakeholders, participants were carefully selected to represent a range of perspectives, contexts and

views. The following questionnaire, topic guides and additional information sheets were used in the

qualitative research to answer the above questions.

The questionnaire was used to ensure we had recruited parents from a range of backgrounds. We

liaised with providers to assist in asking parents to complete a questionnaire prior to taking part.

Parents were asked about their highest qualification, job role and the main language spoken in their

home. Each focus group was then selected to comprise parents from similar social and economic

backgrounds, based on the information provided in the questionnaires and using qualification level as

a proxy (separating parents with a qualification above level three from those whose highest

qualification was no higher than level 2). This was done to ensure parents felt comfortable in

discussing their experiences. Where parents were from different backgrounds, they were split into

two different focus groups.

18

Questionnaire for parents who are taking part in the focus group

Many thanks for taking part in our discussion group. We would be very grateful if you could take a few

minutes to complete a quick, anonymous questionnaire. For research purposes we would like to know

a bit about the circumstances of people which took part in the focus groups. You do not have to

answer any of the questions if you do not wish to. All the information will remain confidential and will

not be shown to anyone who is not involved in this research project.

What are the main languages spoken in your home?

__________________________________________________________

Do you work?

Yes

No

If yes, what is your job title?

__________________________________________________________

How old are your child/ren that attend this setting?

__________________________________________________________

What is the highest qualification you hold? (E.g., GCSE, NVQ level 1, A levels, university degree)

__________________________________________________________

19

Interview topic guides

The following three guides (A, B and C contain pre-set questions agreed by the research team and

approved by the advisory board. The order in which issues are addressed and the amount spent on

different themes will vary between interviews but took around on hour to complete and were

conducted by a trained researcher. The main aim is to draw out key themes and perceptions which are

consistent across all groups.

A. Parents Topic Guide:

Introduction

Thank you for coming. I am ******* from the Daycare Trust. We have asked you here today to gather

information for a project we are currently working which seeks to understand how parents assess the

quality of nurseries. We would like to know how you came to choose the nursery or nurseries that you

have used for your children; what things you look for in a nursery; what things would put you off using

a nursery; and what your ideal nursery would look like.

All the information you give will be treated in confidence you or your child will not be individually

identified. Nothing, which you say, will be fed back to the setting. Before we start there are a few

things I need to say to enable this discussion to run smoothly

We would like to stress that:

• Everybody’s contributions are important

• There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers

• A number of topics to cover -so sometimes I might stop conversations and move the

discussion along - please understand this and do not be offended if we move on to

another topic

• We welcome your input and if you have more to contribute we would be grateful if

you can talk to us at the end supply a contact number and suitable time (if possible

date and time)

Introductions

Ask everyone to give:

• name (first only is fine)

• number and ages of children attending the setting

Part one – parents views of quality

1. When you originally began looking for childcare for your children, did you have a choice of

nurseries which were suitable for your needs (i.e. in the right location, affordable and with the

opening times you needed)?

2. Try to recall back to when you originally chose to send your child/ren to this nursery–

i. Did you visit any other settings before choosing this one for your child?

i. If yes, how many?

ii. What information did you use to decide whether to send your child to this nursery?

Prompts (only use if parents are not forthcoming):

→ Did you look at Ofsted reports (& how did you access them)?

20

→ Recommendation by a friend already using the setting?

→ Information from your council

→ Information from the setting

→ Observing the setting during a visit.

3. If any of you have used the Ofsted report on this nursery, could you say how much of a factor

the report was, if any, in helping you to decide whether to choose a nursery?

Prompts:

→ One of many factors, the only factor or important, but not as important as something

else – what?

→ Could you say what was the deciding factor?

4. How useful was this information in light of what you now know about the nursery? Has your

opinion of the setting changed from your initial impression? (That is, the impression they got

from whatever information they used to form the initial impression)

i. If it is different, how so?

ii. Are there things you wish you had known before choosing the setting?

5. Thinking about the quality of childcare you want for your child – what would you describe as

the aspects which are most important in creating that quality?

Prompts:

→ Characteristics of individual caregivers – warmth, sensitivity, to child’s needs level of

education?

→ Warm and loving atmosphere?

→ Activities offered by the setting – educational or social focus – do you feel they

contribute well to the educational or social development of your child?

→ Physical characteristics of the nursery – (if do not understand - space for outdoor play,

soft play, books)

→ How well the setting communicates with you about your child’s development?

6. If you ever have been unhappy about any element of the care provided by the setting what

have you done about it? If this is not the case, could you say what you might do if you did?

Prompts:

→ Raised a complaint to the manager, to Ofsted?

→ Taken your child out of a setting?

Part two – looking at ECERS and Ofsted

We are now going to take parents through the Early Years Foundation Stage. When Ofsted inspects a

nursery, part of what it is evaluating is how well it meets the requirements of something called the

Early Years Foundation Stage, which you may or may not be aware of. I will briefly go through the main

aspects of it so we can have a discussion about how you feel about it, whether it covers things you

think are important and which aspects are more important than others. I would also like you to

compare it to what you think comprises quality setting and see how well it matches up.

[introduce EYFS - See separate briefing of EYFS]

For each aspect could you rate it:

• Very important

21

• Quite important

• Not really important at all

[This is to stimulate a critical discussion rather than report exact answers]

• Thinking about what you think comprises quality care in nurseries; does this capture it quite

well?

• Is it missing anything? If so, what?

Ofsted reports

We would now like you to spend 5 minutes reading an Ofsted report of another setting. The reason I

am not showing the report of this setting is because we want to know your opinion on how useful

Ofsted inspection reports are to you and not how you feel about how it evaluates this setting.

We want you to imagine that you are considering sending your child to this nursery. After you have

read this we are going to ask you a few questions about what you thought of it –

• Could you find all the information which you wanted to know? [Think back to our discussion of

what comprises quality – did it inform you of how well it met these requirements?]

• Was there anything not in it which you would have liked to see?

• Was it easy to find the things most important to you in enabling you to make a decision?

• Would it help you to decide whether to send your child to this setting?

Closing

Well, that’s all. Once again, thank you very much for giving your time. The process from here is that I

am going to go away and analyse what you have said. We are going to be producing a report at the end

of the year which will be put on our website. And we are also going to be producing a guide for parents

on choosing high quality childcare. We’ll be sending some copies of this to this nursery.

B. Local Authority Topic Guide:

Introduction


information for a research project we are currently working which seeks to understand how key

stakeholders evaluate and assess quality in early years settings. The research project is being

undertaken by a partnership of Daycare Trust, Oxford University’s Department for Education and A+

Education. We will be asking you to compare the Ofsted inspections and quality assessment tools such

as ECERS or your own internal QA tools. We would like to know how well you think they aid you in

your work to drive up quality.

We will be recording the discussion; I hope everyone is happy with this. This is to enable our writing

up of the focus group; as soon as it has been used it will be deleted. All the information you give will

be treated in confidence and you will not be individually identified in our write up of the focus group.

We have a lot to cover during this one hour discussion; please do not be offended if I have to move

the discussion on to ensure we cover everything.

Introductions

Ask everyone to give their names and job title.

Part 1

22

1. Thinking about the early years settings you work with, could you describe what elements of

care comprise high quality for you? (For example policies and practices)

Prompts (if needed):

→ Characteristics of individual caregivers – training, interactions with children

→ Activities offered by the setting

→ Opportunities for educational development

→ Opportunities for social development

→ Physical characteristics of the setting – (if do not understand - space for outdoor play,

soft play, books)

→ Communication with parents (about child’s development etc)

2. What quality assurance schemes and quality tools are you using in your local authorities or

have used recently? (E.g. ECERS & ITERS)

• Any other QA schemes providers you work with may use, including your own bespoke

schemes (ask them to describe what these are/provide their names)

• For each of the QA schemes they say they use, ask how they use them – do they

signpost providers, do they provide support for providers who wish to take part on

the schemes – this could include training, business advice etc, or funding.

3. To what extent does the Ofsted inspection and the quality assurance schemes you have used

align with what you perceive to be important aspects of quality early years care?

Prompts:

→ Ask them to refer back to what they said in response to Q1

→ Ask them to think about any quality tools they use and would like them to be specific

as possible about how well they align

→ Does Ofsted capture all of the elements you feel are important to quality care? Do

other tools you use?

→ Ask them to be specific as possible as to what measurement captures what aspects

best. For example, do some capture educational aspects, social development?

→ Is there any element of quality care which isn’t covered by any of the tools?

Part 2

In this next part we would like to ask you how well each of the tools helps you to improve quality in

early years settings, inform parents about quality and support decisions about funding.

4. How useful do you find Ofsted and any QA schemes/tools you use as a tool for improving

quality?

Prompts:

→ That is, encouraging and supporting settings to improve the quality of their provision?

→ Try to get them to talk about Ofsted as a measure for improving quality and then

compare to any other tools they use

→ How useful are they for engaging practitioners in quality improvement work?

→ How do they usually respond to each - do some do certain schemes more reluctantly

for example?

23

→ Try to encourage participants to compare Ofsted and different QA schemes. For

example, if a setting gets a low Ofsted grade does this provoke them to engage better

in other QA schemes?

5. How useful do you find each of the different measures available as a tool for informing

parents about quality?

[5 mins]

6. How useful do you find Ofsted and QA schemes you use for supporting your decisions about

funding allocation and service commissioning?

[5-10 mins]

E.g., Ofsted, ECERS E & R, ITERS [Talk about each in turn, but they may also want to discuss

them at the same time so they can compare]

7. Are there any further comments anyone would like to make?

Closing

Thank you for participating in this focus group. We will be writing up this research and producing a

final report that will be published early next year.

C. Provider Topic Guide:

Introduction


information for a research project we are currently working which seeks to understand how providers

feel about the Ofsted inspection process and different quality measures such as–ECERS and any

quality assurance schemes you may be taking part in. We want to know how helpful you find these

measures in any improving the quality of your setting.

We will be producing a report early next year of which we will be happy to send a copy to you. All the

information you give will be treated in confidence and you will not be individually identified in the

report.

Introductions

Ask everyone to give their names, job role, name of setting and what type of setting it is (private,

maintained, voluntary).

[Reiterate, this is for the purposes of the person transcribing this tape and to follow the flow of

individual answers. This will not be used to identify who said what.]

1. Thinking about the early years settings you work with, could you describe what elements of

care comprise high quality for you? (For example policies and practices).

Prompts (if necessary):

→ Characteristics of individual caregivers – training, interactions with children

→ Activities offered by the setting

→ Opportunities for educational development

→ Opportunities for social development

24

→ Physical characteristics of the setting – (if do not understand - space for outdoor play,

soft play, books)

→ Communication with parents (about child’s development etc)

2. What quality assurance schemes have you used in recent years?

3. Thinking about Ofsted inspections, ECERS and any other Quality Assurance scheme you may

use, could you describe how useful you feel each of them are in supporting your quality

improvement work?

Prompts:

→ Could you describe what you find helpful about each?

→ Any criticisms?

→ Are there any aspects of any of them which work better than another, for example?

4. To what extent does the Ofsted inspection and the quality assurance schemes you have used

align with what you perceive to be important aspects of quality early years care?

Prompts:

→ This is asking them to refer back to what they said in response to Q1

→ We are asking them to think about any quality tools they use and would like them to be

specific as possible about how well they align

→ Does Ofsted capture all of the elements you feel are important to quality care? Do other

tools you use?

→ Ask them to be specific as possible as to what measurement captures what aspects best.

For example, do some capture educational aspects, social development?

→ Is there any element of quality care which isn’t covered by any of the tools? Do you

feel there are aspects to quality they do not cover but you work to implement

anyway?

5. Overall, what impact has Ofsted inspections and the quality assurance scheme you use had on

your setting?

Prompts:

→ Get them to talk about all the tools they use and compare them – do they find that they

help them to push up quality?

→ Do they cover things they don’t think are relevant and miss out things they do think are?

→ Are they able to recognise aspects of quality they have in the setting (for example, Ofsted

may not take long enough to assess them)

6. Which of the different measures do you find most useful for communicating to parents about

the quality of your service?

7. Could you describe any practical issues you might face in preparing for the Ofsted inspection?

8. Could you describe any practical issues you face preparing for quality assurance schemes such

as ECERS and any other quality tools you may use?

Prompts:

→ Language of the requirements – for example is the way they are described clear?

25

→ Do you feel you are clear on which requirements are the most important, which ones are

supplementary?

Closing Thank you for participating in this focus group. We will be writing up this research and producing a final report that will be published early next year.

Additional Information for Parents Focus Groups:

Participating parents in the parent focus groups are provided with a summary of the Early Years

Foundation Stage (D) and are asked to read and review an example Ofsted report (E).

D. Summary of Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS):

EYFS is based on 4 themes:

Theme 1 – A Unique Child

Child development

• Babies and children develop in individual ways at different rates. All areas of development

(physical, cognitive, language, spiritual, social, emotional) are equally important.

Health and safety

• Children should be kept safe, physically and psychologically.

Inclusive practice

• No child or family is discriminated against. The diversity of individuals and communities is

valued and respected.

Theme 2 – Positive relationships

Relationship between staff and children

• Warm, trusting, respectful relationships with adults support children’s learning more

effectively than any amount of resources.

• A key person will be assigned a small group of children so each child has one key person who

helps them to feel safe and cared for. This person will also have a relationship with the parent,

so they can inform them about their child’s development.

The role of parents as partners

• The nursery should recognise that parents are their child’s most important educators and

work with them.

Theme 3 – Enabling Environments

The physical environment

• A varied learning environment is important for a child’s development.

• The environment should be safe but challenging and involve both indoor and outdoor spaces.

Children at the centre

• Staff should plan activities which appeal to each child’s interests and development needs.

• Activities should be challenging but achievable, based on nursery staff’s observations of the

child.

Working with a range of professionals

• Nursery staff should work with other professionals who can help support children’s

development, if necessary.

26

Theme 4 – Learning and Development

Play and exploration

• Children learn best through play; play with other children is important for their development.

• Children need both mental and physical challenges. They need the chance to be creative and

play with ideas in different situations. Nursery staff should support children’s play,

encouraging them to think critically and ask questions.

Areas of learning and development

• Six areas are identified by the EYFS: language/literacy; maths/reasoning/problem solving;

physical development; social/emotional development; creative development; knowledge &

understanding of the world. All are equally important.

E. The Ofsted Inspection report used in the Parent Focus groups can be found on:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/CARE/EY387260

improving quality in the early years - university of oxford · 1 improving quality in the early...

Documents