Early years · Early years inspection (EIF)
Park Hall Forest Preschool
Summary
What we read, and from where
Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.
- Group verified
Ahmad, Rebecca
- Group reference verified
RP909528
- Inspection date verified
16 Dec 2019
- Inspectors verified
Anne Dyoss
- Behaviour and attitudes verified
Inadequate
- Leadership and management verified
Inadequate
- Overall effectiveness verified
Inadequate
- Personal development verified
Inadequate
- Previous overall verified
Inadequate
- Quality of education verified
Inadequate
- Postcode verified
SY11 4AS
- Name on report verified
Park Hall Forest Preschool
- URN verified
EY544693
Deep dive
What this report says
In plain English
Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.
Grade profile
Each judgement on its scale, weakest to strongest.
- OverallInadequate
- Behaviour and attitudesInadequate
- Leadership and managementInadequate
- Personal developmentInadequate
- Quality of educationInadequate
5% of comparable inspections in the last three years were graded Inadequate (17,905 inspections).
Tone of the report
How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.
Reads more critically than most reports of this type graded Inadequate.
Markers show where typical reports of each grade sit.
How the report reads, start to finish
Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.
Strengths
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
Concerns
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
- weaknesses in safeguarding procedures and poor systems for reviewing accidents and injuries. p.3
- There are serious concerns about the provider's ability to meet the safeguarding and welfare requirements of the early years foundation stage. p.2
- Further weaknesses have been identified and the quality of the provision has declined even further. p.2
- Children's welfare and safety are significantly compromised. p.2
- Risk assessment is poor and children's health and welfare are not prioritised. p.2
Next steps
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
What the report dwells on
Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.
Teaching & assessment9
“Risk assessment is poor and children's health and welfare are not prioritised.” p.2
Anatomy of the report
How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.
- Pages
- 8
- Words of findings
- 1,089
- about usual (typical 972)
- Reading level
- Fairly hard
- Flesch 51, typical 51
- Average sentence
- 15 words
- Next steps
- 1
- typical 1
- Hedged sentences
- 7%
- “some”, “not always”, “most”…
Where the words go
Full report text
Inspection of Park Hall Forest Preschool Park Hall Farm, Burma Road, Park Hall, Oswestry SY11 4AS
p.1
Overall effectiveness Inadequate
The quality of education Inadequate Behaviour and attitudes Inadequate Personal development Inadequate Leadership and management Inadequate Overall effectiveness at previous inspection Inadequate
p.1
The provision is inadequate
Children's welfare and safety are significantly compromised. There are serious concerns about the provider's ability to meet the safeguarding and welfare requirements of the early years foundation stage. This has a significantly negative impact on children's experiences at the pre-school and they are not safe. The provider fails to ensure that staff are clear about their roles and responsibilities. Safeguarding arrangements are weak. The provider has not appointed a member of staff to take responsibility for safeguarding matters. This compromises children's safety. Risk assessment is poor and children's health and welfare are not prioritised. They are exposed to health risks due to poor hygiene practices at the pre-school. Staff do not maintain an accurate record of children's accidents. Children do not receive the support they need to prepare for the next stage in their learning and school. The monitoring of teaching and learning is ineffective and the
p.2
The provision is inadequate
key-person system is weak. Staff do not plan activities that target children's individual needs and interests. Staff fail to exchange information with the other settings that children also attend. Children do not receive learning experiences that challenge them and help them to build on what they know and can do. Children have a clear understanding of the behaviour that is expected from them and understand the boundaries that staff set.
p.2
need to do better?
n The provider does not fulfil her statutory duties or support the daily running of the pre-school. Having received a recent welfare requirement notice relating to safeguarding matters, she has failed to address this. Further weaknesses have been identified and the quality of the provision has declined even further. The provider has not appointed a designated safeguarding lead or a named deputy manager to be responsible in the manager's absence. This means that staff are unsure who holds responsibility for the running of the setting in the manager's absence. The provider fails to support the manager of the pre-school. This has a significantly negative impact on children's safety, welfare and learning experiences. n Although the manager offers staff some training and coaching, she does not provide effective ongoing support so that all staff are clear about their roles and responsibilities. The provider fails to ensure that staff have all the necessary
p.2
need to do better?
skills to support children's learning and development well. n The manager has taken some steps to respond to the actions set. However, these have not been effective in raising the quality of the planning for children's learning experiences. Although she has implemented a key person for each child to liaise effectively with parents, staff know very little about children's achievements and learning needs. Staff do not monitor children's progress well. Most children attend another early years setting. Staff do not liaise with them to
p.2
need to do better?
16 December 2019 exchange information about children's learning and care needs. As a result, gaps in children's learning and development are not identified and addressed. Staff fail to meet the individual learning and development needs of children. Although staff make some effective use of learning opportunities as they arise during children's play, they do not identify how they are going to support each child's learning further. This significantly hinders the progress that children make. n Hygiene practices are poor and children's health and safety are not prioritised. The provider fails to ensure that staff follow good hygiene routines. Staff expect children to wash their hands in a bowl of dirty, muddy water used by other children, after going to the toilet and before they eat. They leave a bucket of rotting fruit and vegetables in stagnant water in the area where children play. This exposes children to risks to their health. Children are not safe as a result of
p.2
need to do better?
weaknesses in safeguarding procedures and poor systems for reviewing accidents and injuries. n Children enjoy the opportunities to be physically active and explore the natural environment. They embrace the adventurous play experiences and learn to assess risks. Children carefully climb up ladders and balance a plank of wood to create their own see-saw. n Children relate well to staff and each other. They happily involve friends and staff in their play, and develop their social skills. Children gain their independence and attend to their personal-care needs. They confidently explore through their self-chosen play, although due to weaknesses in planning and teaching, the experiences do not offer them sufficient challenge. n Self-evaluation is ineffective. The provider does not recognise, identify or address weaknesses in teaching and practice. This has a negative impact on children's experiences and welfare at the pre-school.
p.3
Safeguarding
The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
p.3
Safeguarding
Although the manager and staff demonstrate an understanding of potential signs that might indicate a child protection concern, there is no member of staff on site who has completed the required training to take lead responsibility for safeguarding. This puts children at risk. Staff make some appropriate risk assessments to minimise hazards to children. However, these are not rigorous. All records relating to accidents, injuries and first aid administered prior to November 2019 have been lost. Therefore, the provider is unable to monitor accidents and injuries in order to manage risks. Staff supervise children effectively as they play in the woodland and move around the farm. That said, it is unclear how staff manage every accident that happens in the outdoors, where children spend much of the day. The manager completes all necessary checks to verify the suitability of new staff and volunteers.
p.3
Due date
designate a practitioner, who has attended an appropriate child protection course, to take lead responsibility for safeguarding 20/01/2020
p.4
Due date
ensure that all staff implement effective risk assessment and good hygiene practices to promote the good health and hygiene needs of all children attending the setting 20/01/2020
p.4
Due date
ensure that staff keep an accurate record of children's injuries and the first aid administered 20/01/2020
p.4
Due date
ensure there is a named deputy who can take charge in the manager's absence 20/01/2020
p.4
Due date
implement effective arrangements for the monitoring, support and coaching for staff, to identify and act on weaknesses in practice, to meet children's care needs and improve the quality of teaching and learning 20/01/2020
p.4
Due date
implement an effective key-person system to ensure staff know children well and support their individual needs, plan accurately for each child's learning, and liaise successfully with the other settings that children attend 20/01/2020
p.4
Due date
16 December 2019 use effective systems to observe, assess and monitor children's progress, to accurately plan for their next stage in learning and help them to make progress, and gain the skills needed in preparation for school. 20/01/2020
p.4
Setting details
Unique reference number EY544693 Local authority Shropshire Inspection number 10120876 Type of provision Childcare on non-domestic premises
p.6
Registers
Early Years Register, Compulsory Childcare Register, Voluntary Childcare Register Day care type Full day care Age range of children 2 to 11 Total number of places 20 Number of children on roll 42 Name of registered person Ahmad, Rebecca
p.6
reference number
Telephone number 07791509072 Date of previous inspection 16 August 2019
p.6
Information about this early years setting
Park Hall Forest Preschool registered in 2017. The pre-school employs seven members of childcare staff. Of these, three hold appropriate early years qualifications at levels 2 and 3, one is qualified at level 6 and one has qualified teacher status. The pre-school opens from Monday to Thursday during term time only. Sessions are from 8am until 5pm. It also operates a holiday club during the school holidays, Monday to Friday from 8am until 5pm. The pre-school receives funding to provide free early education for three-year-old children.
p.6
Inspection activities
n The inspector and manager completed a learning walk across all areas of the setting to understand how the early years provision and the curriculum are organised. n The inspector carried out joint observations with the manager. n The inspector held discussions with staff and parents, and interacted with children at appropriate times during the inspection. n The inspector looked at a sample of the setting's documents. This included evidence about staff's suitability and training. n A meeting was held between the inspector and the manager.
p.7
Inspection activities
We carried out this inspection under sections 49 and 50 of the Childcare Act 2006 on the quality and standards of provision that is registered on the Early Years Register. The registered person must ensure that this provision complies with the statutory framework for children's learning, development and care, known as the early years foundation stage.
p.7
Inspection activities
16 December 2019 regulates and inspects to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children's social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, further education and skills, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children's services, and inspects services for looked after children, safeguarding and child protection.
p.7
Inspection activities
If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk .
p.8
Inspection activities
You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
p.8
Inspection activities
Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .
p.8
Inspection activities
T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: www.gov.uk/ofsted
p.8
Discuss this inspection
Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.
Join the discussion