OFSTED has released its damning report of Grafton Childcare in Newton Abbot, an early years childcare provider that closed its doors earlier this month.
The report, detailing a surprise inspection that took place on April 25, found Grafton to be ‘Inadequate’, and that children’s: ‘health, care and learning and developmental needs are not met.’
Aspects assessed by Ofsted are: quality of education; behaviour and attitudes; personal development and leadership and management. Although last year’s inspection received a ‘Good’ rating, this year’s surprise inspection was ‘Inadequate’ in all aspects.
Inadequate is lowest Ofsted rating possible, and means that serious improvements must be made to remain registered.
Grafton Childcare had been running for 32 years, and its owner and founder Denise Tupman admitted last month that the inspection was one of the reasons that she closed the setting’s doors for good.
The two inspectors that attended, reported that: ‘Children are not supported to build secure emotional bonds or nurturing relationships with their key persons and the staff team.
‘Frequently, the provider and staff do not offer any comfort or reassurance or acknowledge children when they are upset and crying.’
The inspectors found that the staff and the provider were not ‘sensitive and respectful towards the children,’ and that ‘the provider and staff do not build warm and caring bonds with children.’
For instance, they found that children were woken from their nap at the same time by opening the blinds and collecting the sleep mats, and they leave the children to sit and come around from their sleep by themselves without any comfort.
‘Staff instruct children who are upset to get a flannel and wipe their faces to dry their tears, rather than offering reassurance and consolation.’
At one point in the inspection, the inspectors themselves had to soothe crying children that were not being attended to.
Toddlers were found to be ‘placed in cots for naps and left to cry in distress for long periods.’
The children were not thriving at the setting because they ‘do not receive the care and attention needed to help them to feel safe and to support their personal, social and emotional development.’
There were also serious concerns surrounding children's welfare, the report saying: ‘the provider does not share important information with staff about children's welfare or ensure staff are able to recognise when children arrive with injuries.’
The report noted warned that in situations such as head bumps, this lack of care could pose serious risks.
In terms of learning and progression, the report’s outlook was equally as damning. The inspectors found that: ‘The provider, who is also the manager, does not take into account children's individual learning needs when planning the curriculum, to help them make good developmental progress.
'For example, two-year-old children, including those with delayed speech, are expected to participate in phonics activities that are too challenging for them, alongside the preschool children.
‘Some children are not encouraged to engage in activities during free-play sessions. They sit and watch others by themselves for long periods without any support or interaction from staff.
‘Overall, children are not prepared well for the next stages in their learning.’
Despite this, the inspectors found that the children still ‘play alongside each other cooperatively.’
In the report, the inspectors detailed the many issues it had with the setting, quoted below.
- The provider does not monitor staff practice or provide effective support and coaching for their professional development. Consequently, the provider and staff do not meet children's individual needs.
- The provider does not ensure that the key-person system is effective in meeting children's needs. Despite parents sharing children's sleep routines in writing, staff put children down for a nap outside of these times to fit in with the setting's routine. The children become extremely upset by this when left for long periods as they are not ready for a sleep. New key persons are not given sufficient information about the children from the previous key persons to allow them to get to know the children well.
- The provider does not prioritise children's welfare. Parents inform her of injuries their children receive at home that could impact the children's well-being. However, the provider fails to share this information with any staff working with the children, including when she leaves the setting, such as when she takes children to and from school. Staff do not follow the setting's safeguarding procedures when they see marks or injuries on children. These practices place children at risk, particularly when the injury relates to a bump to the head.
- Partnerships with parents are not effective. Although the provider and staff share some information about children's learning, staff do not work closely enough with parents to find out about and build on what children know and can do at home. Many of the staff are new to the setting, and parents are not informed of the changes, so they do not know who is caring for their children. This results in key messages not being shared about the children's needs.
- The provider and staff do not prioritise children's personal, social and emotional development well enough and are often not sensitive and respectful towards the children. The provider and staff do not build warm and caring bonds with children. For example, they wake all children from their nap at the same time by opening the blinds and collecting the sleep mats, and they leave the children to sit and come around from their sleep by themselves without any comfort. Staff instruct children who are upset to get a flannel and wipe their faces to dry their tears, rather than offering reassurance and consolation. This does not support children's confidence or well-being.
- The provider and staff do not promote children's health and hygiene consistently. They remind some children to wash their hands before meals and after using the toilet. However, staff allow babies and toddlers to crawl across the floor and then eat without cleaning their hands. The provider changes all children's nappies one after the other without washing her hands or cleaning the changing mat in between each child. Two-year-old and pre-school children have daily opportunities to play in the fresh air. Children benefit from nutritious, home-cooked meals.
- Staff do not review children's learning frequently enough to know whether they have made any progress and to establish their current next steps. Staff carry out an initial assessment of children's starting points with parents. However, staff are not clear what children need to learn next and how to support them to close any gaps in their learning and help them to make good progress across the areas of learning.
- The provider is clear about the skills and knowledge she intends children to learn in preparation for later learning. However, the delivery of the curriculum is weak. Staff do not know the children or their next steps, so they are unable to provide targeted challenge through their support, the activities and routines. At times, staff do not engage children indoors or outdoors to provide any challenge or stimulation in their play.
- Children do not receive the high-quality interactions from staff that they need to support their communication and language development. Although staff model new words when speaking to the children, such as talking about wildebeest, chimpanzees and baboons while reading stories, they fail to support those with speech delays to develop their language as they play. Children are not expected to talk during mealtimes. They file silently into the dining rooms under the provider's supervision, sit without speaking and staff do not engage them in any discussions. The children continue to wait in silence until they are told they can start their meal and then eat without speaking.
While dates were given as to when improvements must be made, the setting’s closure means that the report is the issues are purely retrospective. Denise Tupman, the founder, owner and manager of Grafton has been approached for comment.