Ofsted


Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. We inspect services providing education and skills for learners of all ages. We also inspect and regulate services that care for children and young people.

Ofsted have a range of responsibilities and regulatory powers that allow them to carry out full inspections of maintained schools and academies, some independent schools, colleges, apprenticeship providers, prison education and many other educational institutions and programmes outside of higher education.

They are the regulatory authority for providers of childcare, local authorities, adoption and fostering agencies, initial teacher training and teacher development
Ofsted has a wide range of civil and criminal enforcement powers and these can be used to take action against registered providers and managers in early years, childcare, education, and social care sectors.

Counsel at 9 KBW are instructed on behalf of Ofsted to bring those cases before the relevant Tribunals  for determination, where providers such  as schools, directors, and managers,  have failed significantly to meet regulatory standards and requirements,.
 
ELA v Ofsted [2019] UKFTT 1 (HESC) – Claire Stevenson successfully represented OFSTED in a six-day appeal against cancellation before the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). The Appellant’s registration to provide childcare at two nursery settings had been cancelled due to a risk of exposing children to the real risk of receiving care that would fall significantly below the standards required in terms of the General Childcare and EYFS frameworks.

The decision to cancel registration was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

Reported at: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/childminder-who-continued-practise-after-15478147

Ofsted v SN Claire Stevenson successfully prosecuted a disqualified childminder, charged with two offences: 1) childminding whilst suspended (section 69 of the Childcare Act 2006); and 2) childminding whilst unregistered (section 76(4) of the same Act).

CASE ARTICLE OF NOTE
Ofsted v R (on the application of Durand Academy Trust) ofsted-v-durand-academy-approved-judgment (judiciary.uk)
Following an inspection carried out on 30 November and 1 December 2016 ("the Inspection"), Ofsted produced a report dated 1 February 2017 ("the Report") which adjudged the School to be "inadequate" with a recommendation made under section 44(1) of the Education Act 2005 ("EA 2005") that it be placed into "special measures".

On 7 February 2017, the Trust brought a claim for judicial review seeking an order that the Report be quashed on the grounds that Ofsted’s assessment of the School was Wednesbury unreasonable and/or that Ofsted's Complaints Procedures were procedurally unfair.

The Judge, HHJ McKenna sitting as a judge of the High Court, found that "the absence of any ability effectively to challenge the Report renders the Complaints Procedures unfair" and that this "vitiates" the Report which was accordingly quashed. In those circumstances, it was not necessary for the Judge to rule on the rationality challenge and he did not do so.

Ofsted appealed against the Judge's decision and permission to appeal was granted by McCombe LJ on 25 May 2018.

The Judge's finding that Ofsted's Complaints Procedures were unfair had serious implications for other cases and impacted on Ofsted's ongoing work and, in particular, the manner in which it deals with schools which have been graded inadequate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. 

Hamblen LJ stated in the judgment at [69]:

The Judge was wrong to conclude that Ofsted’s Complaints Procedures are unfair in serious weakness/special measures cases and to quash the Report. In particular, I consider that the Judge erred in focusing exclusively on the Complaints Procedures and not considering the overall fairness of the process of inspection.


News

Members