Nobody wins in inspections

We appreciate, understand and feel totally sympathetic to last month's survey findings of the National Association of Head Teachers concerning the new Ofsted framework for school inspections.

The NAHT has called for Ofsted to deal urgently with its inspection teams'

lack of experience in the early years and the Foundation Stage. We support this because we are concerned about the greater emphasis on a school's self-evaluation. If its observations are overly optimistic but the Ofsted team's judgement doesn't match it, then the leadership and management will be marked down. Or if the school's self-evaluation is too low, the leadership and management will still be marked down. It's a double whammy - they can't win.

Early education, by definition, is about understanding child development and where each child is at developmentally at a particular time. The early years approach starts with what a child can do, then provides the experiences from which the child can learn and develop. But when it comes to school improvements through inspection, Ofsted starts from the premise of what's wrong rather than what's good. Any cognitive psychologist would say that if you want to see improvements you should first recognise the positives, then move forward so things can develop.

Ofsted needs to work closely with schools, recognise their good features and share ways that there can be continued development. Although some inspectors do this, the teams aren't consistent. Inspectors need to have an understanding of early years education if they are going to make judgements in early years environments.

The education and care of young children is too crucial and vital to be misrepresented and unsupported through a lack of understanding by inspectors. We all need to work more closely with each other, to be confident and honest about good practice, and be strong enough to recognise in broad terms ways in which roles and responses can be complemented for the benefit of all children's learning.

Early years policy and practice must go hand in hand if these is to be shared mutual respect, responsibility and recognition for the needs of all children.

The greater emphasis on self-evaluation causes concern. If a school's observations are overly optimistic and the team's judgement doesn't match it, the leadership and management will be marked down. But if the school's self-evaluation focuses too low, then leadership and management will still be marked down. It's a double whammy - you can't win.

The new inspection time is much shorter than before. Early education, by definition, is about understanding child development. The early years approach starts with what each child can do and then provides the experiences from which the child can learn and develop. What price are school improvements through inspection, because you're starting from the premise of what's wrong rather than what's good? Any cognitive psychologist would say that if you want improvements, you should recognise the positive stance and then move forward to things that can develop.

Ofsted needs to work closely with schools, recognise their good features and share ways that there can be continued development. Some inspectors do this, but the teams aren't consistent. The task is subtle and demanding, and inspectors need to have an understanding of early years education if they are going to make judgements in early years environments.

There is great concern about the difference between school inspections and combined inspections as they are not equivalent.

The education and care of young children is too crucial and vital to be misrepresented and unsupported through a lack of understanding. We all need to work more closely with each other, to be confident and honest about good practice, and be strong enough to recognise in broad terms the ways roles and responses can be complemented for the benefit of all children's learning.