9
Report to Scrutiny Panel
Name of Scrutiny Panel
Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel
Meeting Date
September 21st 2010
Subject
Children’s Services Assessment
Ofsted Guidance, July 2010
Wards Affected
All
Report of
Director of Children and Young People’s Services
Type of Item
(please tick)
Review existing policy
Development of new policy
Performance management (including financial)
/
Briefing (including potential areas for scrutiny)
Statutory consultation
Council request
Cabinet request
Member request for scrutiny (CCFA)
Why is it coming here?
1.1. To brief Scrutiny upon the new, July 2010, Ofsted guidance and arrangements
for the assessment of children’s services.
1.2. To provide Scrutiny with an assessment of what Calderdale’s likely 2010
children’s services assessment will be through the new assessment framework
from Ofsted, in light of the latest performance profile released 18th August
2010.
What are the key points?
1. In May the coalition government removed Comprehensive Area Assessment, CAA,
as a means of local authority assessment. This linked the Ofsted assessment of
children’s services into the overall Council assessment. Ofsted, in response
released a new framework for the assessment of children’s services.
2. The new guidance outlines the assessment for children’s services under a
“performance profile”. A draft assessment will be made in October, with a finalised
outcome given in December 2010.
3. Calderdale’s likely assessment will be “limited” by the January 2010 full inspection
of safeguarding and looked after children, which was graded ‘inadequate’.
4. The 2nd annual unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment
arrangements which may take place anytime from September 1st 2010 will be
taken into account for the assessment of children’s services and act as an
indication of direction of travel.
5. The children’s services assessment outcome in December 2010 is likely to be
“performs poorly”, however there are promising areas of good performance upon
which the service can build.
Possible course of action
1. Scrutiny are asked to note the new guidance and Calderdale’s likely 2010 position.
Contact officer
Andrew Ramsay
Principal Officer, Policy and Planning
01422 393320
[email protected]
Should this report be exempt?
Yes
Report to Scrutiny Panel
2.
Background
2.1. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 charges Ofsted with the responsibility
to assess annually the quality of children’s services for each local authority.
2.2. In 2009 Ofsted provided this assessment as one element of its contribution to
the joint inspectorate Comprehensive Area Agreement (CAA). In May 2010 as
part of the Coalition’s programme for government, the CAA was abolished.
However, Ofsted’s statutory duty to provide children’s service assessment
remains.
2.3. In July 2010 Ofsted produced a paper “Children’s services assessment for
2010” that outlines the new arrangements for the annual assessment of
children’s services
2.4. The children’s services assessment will now be derived from Ofsted’s
performance profile. This profile reports on the quality of services and
outcomes for children and young people from across Ofsted’s inspection and
regulation of the services and settings for which the local authority is
strategically or operationally responsible, blocks A and B respectively. This
judgement is supplemented by assessment of a raft of national indicators, block
C.
2.5. Each block has its own set of evaluation criteria, with the three “blocks” then
being taken into account under “descriptor” criteria to derive an overall
assessment for children’s services.
2.6. For 2010 the performance profile has been updated in the way evidence is
presented, organised and evaluated. Ofsted states this is to make the
application of the assessment principals easier, fairer and more transparent.
2.7. The latest profile was released by Ofsted on 20th August 2010 and is included in
this analysis, see Appendix A, of Calderdale’s likely 2010 assessment.
2.8. It is worth noting that the Education Select Committee has launched an inquiry
into Ofsted and its duties, which will end in October 2010 and may well result in
further changes to the inspection and evaluation regime.
2.9. The Performance Profile
2.10. For 2010 the evidence in the performance profile continues to be arranged into
three main blocks, with some new additions to evidence in Blocks A and B,
which are highlighted below in brackets marked 2010.
2.11. Each block has its own set of evaluation criteria, the three “blocks” are then
taken into account under “grade descriptor” criteria to derive an overall grade
assessment for children’s services.
2.12. The three blocks are:
Block A: the findings from regular and ongoing inspections and regulation of
services, settings and institutions.
For the purpose of the analysis the 22 groups of inspected services and settings
have been amalgamated into 7 larger ‘super’ groups:

Early years (2010 includes children’s centres) and childcare

nursery and primary schools (2010 includes early years foundation
stage)

secondary schools (2010 includes academies)

post-16 (2010)

special schools and pupil referral units

fostering and adoption (2010)

children’s homes (2010).
Across block A several groups include private settings, for example children’s
homes and fostering and adoption, which are taken into account within the
assessment.
Performance bandings are used to overall assess this block, applied to
services, settings or institutions judged to be good or outstanding. Bands are
those judgements that are good or outstanding as an overall percentage. In
descending order these are:
Dark Green 80% or above.
Light Green is 65-79%
Amber is 51-64%;
Red = 50% or less
2.13. These bandings are then applied to a set of criteria regards the groupings of
“supergroups” regards the overall children’s assessment grading, see Appendix
D.
2.14. The guidance states that the views of children and young people are taken
account of through the individual inspection judgements.
Block B: findings from the safeguarding and looked after children services
inspections; unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment
arrangements for children in need and children who may be in need of
protection; evaluations of serious case reviews; (2010 private fostering
arrangements)
2.15. The guidance states that any full inspection with an “inadequate” rating “usually
overrides findings from the annual unannounced inspection”. It is unclear
whether an unannounced inspection which takes place after an ‘inadequate’ full
inspection will impact on the overall judgement and if not it would seem that a
‘performing poorly’ judgement would be in place for a three year cycle.
2.16. In terms of the annual unannounced inspection the issue is whether it raises
one or more areas of priority action as this again falls under the criteria of an
overall judgement of “performs poorly”. Calderdale will be subject to a 2nd
annual unannounced inspection anytime from 1st September 2010 onwards.
2.17. In respect of serious case reviews the most recent will be given greater
emphasis. Again the views of children and young people are taken account of
through the individual inspection judgements.
2.18. Again grade criteria are then applied to the overall block position to help arrive
at the children’s services rating.
Block C: performance against Every Child Matters theme indicators from the
National Indicator Set are evaluated against national or comparator group.
2.19. In block C, performance in staying safe and outcomes for learning are the key
indicators that will be considered.
2.20. In addition “closing the gap” indicators for vulnerable groups are also used in
making the judgement.
2.21. These are then applied to children’s services grade criteria and are used to
support the decision made from blocks A and B.
2.22. Assessment Principels and Timetable
2.23. Evidence in blocks A and B of the performance profile are the major factors in
arriving at the assessment. Block C evidence is supplementary to inform and
confirm this decision.
2.24. The profile is updated in February, April, June and August of each year to take
account of new findings.
2.25. The data in the August 2010 performance profile will be the normal cut-off point
for the 2010 assessment. However, Ofsted will consider evidence up to the
beginning of December 2010 (publication of the assessment due), particularly
where there are any concerns regarding safeguarding, hence the outcomes
from the 2nd unannounced inspection of Calderdale contact, referral and
assessment arrangements will be considered by Ofsted for the assessments
publication in December 2010, on Ofsted’s website, assuming this takes place
within the next 2 or 3 months
2.1. Calderdale will receive a draft assessment letter on 4 October 2010.
2.2. Key 2010 Timetable Dates;
17-20 August
Performance profile update published in new format
September
Final Social care data published
4 October
Draft children’s services assessment letter sent to local authorities
5-22 October
Factual accuracy checks and contact with the local authorities
25 October
Notification of appeals to Ofsted
17 November
Local authorities notified of outcome of appeals
3 December
Pre-publication version of the children’s services assessment letter sent to
local authorities
9 December
Publication of children’s services assessment
2.3. The 2010 children’s services assessment letter will have two parts. The first part
being the overall children’s services assessment that will include key areas for
further development. Part two will be comments on the quality of services
provided by the local authority and partners, outcomes achieved by children and
young people and prospects for improvement.
2.4. The table below shows the meaning of the overall judgement in the
assessment. Each level is banded by criteria given in the new guidance under
Appendix F of the new guidance, given in Appendix D here.
Performs excellently
An organisation that significantly exceeds minimum
requirements.
3
Performs well
An organisation that exceeds minimum requirements
2
Performs adequately
An organisation that meets only minimum requirements
1
Performs poorly
An organisation that does not meet minimum requirements.
4
2.5. Calderdale’s Assessment 2010
2.6. Performance within blocks A and B will have the most impact on the overall
assessment. Performance in block C is used to supplement the judgement.
2.7. The guidance states that the full inspection (January 2010 in Calderdale an
“inadequate” rating) with an “inadequate” rating “usually overrides findings from
the annual unannounced inspection, due August 2010 in Calderdale. This
means the likely overall assessment is likely to be “performs poorly”, whatever
the unannounced result.
2.8. The exact wording under the performs “poorly” definition in Appendix D, says,
the most recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment
arrangements for children in need identified one or more areas for priority
action, or, where a full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children has
taken place, (before or after is not said here but is in adequate), and the
judgement for safeguarding is inadequate.
2.9. Hence our block B assessment will overwrite the whole assessment.
2.10. As such the 2nd unannounced inspection, whatever the result, will not
significantly impact the 2010 rating, rather it will act more as a direction of
travel.
2.11. Overall across the three blocks the profile of Calderdale suggests a variable
picture of performance, with some good aspects.
2.12. Appendix B gives an assessment of the August profile for Block A.
2.13. There are several positive aspects within this block such as nursery and primary
schools; special schools and pupil referral unit, adoption and children’s homes.
2.14. There are other areas where further work is needed around early years and
childcare; secondary schools; post-16 and fostering.
2.15. Block A demonstrates some good aspects of performance but the majority of
universal services are not rated as good or outstanding. In terms of targeted
services these perform better however overall the assessment is “performs
poorly”.
2.16. Block B has already been discussed above and clearly is placed in the
“performs poorly” category.
2.17. Appendix C gives an assessment of the August profile Block C.
2.18. Block C which is a supplementary judgement provides a mixed picture. The
majority of indicators in all Every Child Matters categories are in line with their
appropriate average. Gaps in educational achievement for key vulnerable
groups present a variable picture. In terms of the educational and achievement
indicators the majority are in line with their appropriate comparator.
2.19. In terms of the assessment it would place us in “performs adequately”
judgement for Block C however as this is only a supplementary judgement, it is
has limited impact and is over shadowed by Blocks A and B.
2.20. What it does do is give an indication of overall improvement, however the
relative quartile positions give another dimension to the picture, with staying
safe at 69% in lower middle or lower quartiles, and making a positive
contribution with 60% and achieving economic well-being with 75%.
2.21. Enjoying and achieve indicators have 67% in the upper or upper middle quartile
and 17% in lower middle and lower respectively.
2.22. Overall this would support the frameworks hypothesis that Calderdale currently
would be assessed as “performs poorly”, however that it is improving.
3.
Main issues for Scrutiny
3.1. Members need to be aware of the aspects new Ofsted assessment in
relationship to Calderdale as detailed within Appendix A, B and C.
3.2. Performance as detailed within the August performance profile, see Appendix
A, has the impact that Calderdale will likely be awarded a “performs poorly”
grade for children’s services in 2010.
3.3. Members will want to see the assessment once published.
4.
Consultation
4.1. Not applicable
5.
Further action and timescales
5.1. Since the January 2010 full inspection and the Notice to Improve work has been
undertaken against an agreed improvement plan, overseen by the Improvement
Board..
5.2. The areas of concern raised by the performance profile will be used to direct
and focus effort towards ongoing improvement.
6.
Options appraisals
6.1. Targeted focus and support for areas identified in need of improvement through
the performance profile will be crucial in helping to raise Calderdale’s children’s
services assessment.
7.
Conclusion
7.1. A full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children took place in January
2010 and placed Calderdale in the lowest rating, ‘inadequate’. This placed
Calderdale in a notice to improve situation.
7.2. A 2nd annual unannounced inspection is expected.
7.3. The new guidance by Ofsted indicates that whatever the outcome of the
unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements of
children in need that the latest full inspection rating will override it, and thus
Calderdale will likely be classified as “performing poorly”.
7.4. There are strong aspects of performance across the service in terms of both
inspected services and performance indicators. However these are being over
shadowed by the overall variable picture of performance.
8.
Appendices
8.1. A - August 2010 Performance profile
8.2. B - Block A – Inspected services
8.3. C - Block C – Performance Indicators
8.4. D – Children’s Services grade descriptors
9.
Background documents
9.1. Ofsted – Children’s Services Assessment – July 2010
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/11275/133193/file/Children's%20service
s%20assessment%20for%202010.doc
10. Documents available for inspection at
10.1. 4th Floor, Northgate House.
_______________________________________________________________________
Appendix A – Performance Profile
Appendix B – Block A – Inspected services
Appendix C – Block C – Performance indicators
Appendix D – Appendix F of guidance
11. Annex F. Summary of the assessment principles
General principles underlying the children’s services assessment
 These principles aim to be simple, transparent and easy to apply.
 Outlined below are the minimum requirements for each grade which cover all three blocks.
Meeting, or not meeting, the minimum requirements alone do not define the grade. The
assessment will involve the application of inspector judgement.
 The assessment will take account of the mix and balance of performance across different
areas of inspected services and settings, it will also take account of the performance of
services commissioned by the local authority that are located within the area and those
located outside.
 Performance within block A1 and block B2 will have the most impact on the overall
assessment. However, where a local authority has been judged inadequate for safeguarding
as a result of a full inspection or received an area for priority action as a result of an
unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements, it is likely that
the overall judgement for children’s services will be performs poorly.
 Performance in block C3 is used to supplement the judgement arising from the assessment
based on blocks A and B. Performance in staying safe and learning outcomes for young
children to those aged 19 will be given particular consideration.
 Many inspection cycles are three years in length, and sometimes longer. Although it is
recognised that services and settings will have drawn up plans and undertaken actions to
bring about improvements, the impact of these cannot be confirmed until a subsequent
inspection has taken place and, therefore, the most recent inspection judgement is used in
making the assessment.
 It should be noted that:
 very large majority means 80% or more
 large majority means 65%–79%
 majority means 51%–64%
 minority means 50% or less.
1
The outcomes of inspected services and settings
2
Inspections of safeguarding and services for looked after children, annual unannounced inspections, relevant joint area
reviews and findings from serious case reviews
3
The national indicator set
Performs excellently
Block A
Performance, in terms of overall effectiveness, is in one of the top two bands (that is rated
good or outstanding) for at least six out of the seven super groups of inspected services
and settings and none is likely to be in the red band.
and
The very large majority of the 22 inspection groups of services and settings is likely to be in
one of the top two bands for each of the enjoying and achieving and staying safe outcome
areas.
Block B
The most recent annual unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment
arrangements for children in need identifies no area(s) for priority action.4
Where a full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children has taken place5 (or a
joint area review post-April 2007), whether before or after any unannounced inspection of
contact, referral and assessment arrangements, the judgement for safeguarding must be
adequate or better.
Block C
(This will supplement the judgement arising from the assessment based on blocks A and B.)
Performance is at least in line with the appropriate comparator for a very large majority of
national indicators across the five Every Child Matters outcome areas.
and either
Performance indicators show that gaps6 in educational attainment for key vulnerable groups
have narrowed between the most recent and previous years.
or
A very large majority of performance indicators for educational attainment7 and progress
are at least in line with appropriate comparators.
4
An area for priority action is identified as a result of an unannounced inspection of safeguarding where the safety of
children in need is not assured.
5
Where a recent full inspection of safeguarding has not taken place, consideration will be given to the post 2007 joint
area review grade for safeguarding.
6
Gap indicators are NI92, NI104, NI102 (Key Stages 2 and 4), NI105, NI81.
7
Educational attainment indicators are N72, NI93, NI94, NI73, NI99, NI100, NI75, NI101, NI84, NI79, NI82, NI80.
Performs well
Block A
Performance, in terms of overall effectiveness, is in one of the top two bands for at least
four out of the seven super groups of inspected services and settings and this must include
at least two out of the four blocks for universal provision.8
and
The large majority of the 22 inspection groups of services and settings are likely to be rated
in one of the top two bands for each of the enjoying and achieving and staying safe
outcome areas.
Block B
The most recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements
for children in need identifies no area(s) for priority action.
Where a full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children has taken place9 (or a
joint area review post-April 2007), whether before or after any unannounced inspection of
contact, referral and assessment arrangements, the judgement for safeguarding must be
adequate or better.
Block C
(This will supplement the judgement arising from the assessment based on blocks A and B.)
Performance is at least in line with the appropriate comparator for a large majority of
national indicators across the five Every Child Matters outcome areas.
and either
Performance indicators show that gaps in educational attainment for key vulnerable groups
have narrowed between the most recent and previous years.
or
A large majority of performance indicators for educational attainment are at least in line
with appropriate comparators.
8
9
Universal services include the inspection groupings for early years, nursery/primary, secondary and post-16.
Where a recent full inspection of safeguarding has not taken place, consideration will be given to the post 2007 joint
area review grade for safeguarding.
Performs adequately
Block A
Performance in terms of the overall effectiveness judgement is in one of the top two bands
for at least three out of the seven super groups of inspected services and settings which
must include at least two out of the four blocks for universal provision.
and
The majority of the 22 inspection groups of services and settings are likely to be rated at
least good for enjoying and achieving and staying safe.
Block B
The most recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements
of children in need identified no area(s) for priority action.
Where a full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children has taken place10 (or a
joint area review post-April 2007), whether before or after any unannounced inspection of
contact, referral and assessment arrangements, the judgement for safeguarding must be
adequate or better.
Block C
(This will supplement the judgement arising from the assessment based on blocks A and B.)
Performance is at least in line with the appropriate comparator for a majority of national
indicators across the five Every Child Matters outcome areas.
and either
Performance indicators show that gaps in educational attainment for key vulnerable groups
have narrowed between the most recent and previous years.
or
A majority of performance indicators for educational attainment are at least in line with
appropriate comparators.
10
Where a recent full inspection of safeguarding has not taken place, consideration will be given to the post 2007 joint
area review grade for safeguarding.
Performs poorly
Block A
Performance in terms of the overall effectiveness judgement is in one of the top two bands for no
more than two of the seven super groups of inspected services and settings. It is likely that three
of the four super groups for universal services are not better than adequate.
and
It is likely that two or more of the seven super groups of inspected services and settings will be in
the red band.
Block B
The most recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements for
children in need identified one or more area(s) for priority action.
or
Where a full inspection of safeguarding and looked after children has taken place11 (or a joint area
review post-April 2007) and the judgement for safeguarding is inadequate.
Block C
(this will supplement the judgement arising from the assessment based on blocks A and B)
Performance is below the appropriate comparator for a majority of national indicators across the
five Every Child Matters outcome areas.
and
Performance indicators show that gaps in educational attainment for key vulnerable groups have
not narrowed between the most recent and previous years.
11
Where a recent full inspection of safeguarding has not taken place, consideration will be given to the post 2007 joint
area review grade for safeguarding.