Childminders were pleased to have achieved an ‘outstanding’ judgement; however, 15 felt that some aspects of their practice and provision were not acknowledged in the final report, reflecting findings that Ofsted inspections should be viewed as only part of a quality judgement (Mathers et al., 2012, p.93).
Childminders felt most strongly that the holistic and personal service offered to children and families was not brought out in final reports (Figure 5.6). Respondents reported that they regard parents as being part of the childminder family; it is the flexibility and support offered that enable parents to remain in employment. The importance of the childminders’ empathy cannot be underestimated; structured hours of other forms of childcare preclude parents from taking up employment and training (Ben-Galim, 2011; Callender, 2000), one of the objectives to reduce child poverty (Pugh, 2010; Sure Start, 2004).
114
Some childminders proactively used strategies to ensure information was brought to the Ofsted inspector’s attention and acknowledged. Louise pointed out things she considered to be important, the inspector “filling in the gaps where she felt it was necessary, mostly to do with paper work though”.
Chloe was inspected by a former childminder who had a greater understanding of home-based childcare:
That made a huge difference compared to my previous inspection, in terms of her understanding of what we were trying to do or what it is you’re trying to deliver....we try to offer them something that is much more home from home, much less institutionalised...we don’t want it to feel like a nursery or an institution when you walk in, you want it to feel like a home and I think that she understood that very much...And I think she acknowledged that in a way that I don’t think – having spoken to other childminders - all Ofsted inspectors would.
Ten childminders considered that recognition of a home-based setting and the family relationships that develop was missing from the final report. There were extensive discussions about the involvement and support for families that went far beyond caring for children; some childminders had taken on a much wider responsibility and caring extended to the whole family. Maria provides “a service to the mums - and dads too of course - but mainly to the mums because most of my mothers are single parents, it’s just the way it is”. This included picking up from and delivering children to home; looking after them when they were ill as well as taking them to clubs and after school lessons. This finding reflects that of Fauth et al. (2011, p.92) but contradicts that of Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002, p.106) who found only one childminder regarded childminding as a parental service. However, Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002) did find childminders were sympathetic towards parents’ situations (p.112). Lydia summed up childminders’ feelings concisely:
It seemed to be so sort of factual...I would have liked to have seen more about the holistic side of care that I do; you couldn’t even put a label on it probably. I think I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the nurturing side; the relationship with parents that nobody could ever see.
115
Kirsten suggested, “It was very much a paperwork report and less to do with the emotions that are involved”. The emotional investment made was explained by Esther who works with her husband:
I think when you have them in your life, and some of the children do long hours here, some of them are full time, I just think of us as a family...our funny little family, we sit round at night and we have supper together, this is our family for that period of time ... I am really conscious of not making anybody feel different, you know, from our children. I hope when we are out and about people can’t tell who my children are and who the minded children are, other than the fact that they address us as Mum and Dad.
Connie felt paperwork influenced the final judgement rather than the “ability to care”. Sonia commented, “I do believe the onus now is on how good are office skills”.
Childminders regretted parents were not asked for their opinions. Hannah commented, “You don’t hear the parents’ side of it”. It was thought that examples from practice to illustrate the dry terminology would have brought the reports to life by linking their practice to the phraseology used. This would make reports more meaningful to parents; comments reflected in research by Mathers et al. (2012), who found parents felt the “format and language of the report... make[s] it difficult to understand” (p.50).
Some childminders were disappointed that issues that are important to them and their practice, influencing the ethos of their setting were either not included or the positive impact it had on their work with children was not reflect. The Montessori philosophy was very important to Josephine and recent Montessori training had prompted Maria to reassess areas of her provision; Cheryl was very keen to raise children’s awareness of the environment and the importance of recycling which she proactively promoted. None were commented on; it was felt childminders’ individuality was not recognised fully in the final report. Mathers et al. (2012) found parents agreed that Ofsted reports did not identify the aspects of quality they were looking for in a setting.
116