Summary
What we read, and from where
Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.
- Inspection datesingle source
7 Feb 2020
- URN verified
EY462236
Deep dive
What this report says
In plain English
Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.
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.
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.
No standout praise found.
Concerns
Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.
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.
Anatomy of the report
How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.
- Pages
- 2
- Words of findings
- 341
- about usual (typical 281)
- Reading level
- Hard
- Flesch 45, typical 42
- Average sentence
- 19 words
- Next steps
- 1
- typical 1
- Hedged sentences
- 6%
- “some”, “not always”, “most”…
Where the words go
Full report text
Summary of outcome
All early years providers must meet the legal requirements in the 'Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage', which you can find at www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2 . If we find that a provider is not meeting the requirements, we can take action to ensure they put matters right. On 16 May 2019, we received concerns that the childminder was not meeting some of these requirements. We suspended the childminder's registration because we believed children may be at risk of harm. Suspension allows time for the childminder to take steps to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to children. We have now lifted the suspension because the concerns which that led to the suspension were concluded and we were satisfied that there was no risk of harm to children.
p.1
Summary of outcome
We carried out several visits and interviews with the childminder. Following on from our investigations we had concerns that the childminder was committing an offence by operating as childcare on domestic premises, something that she has previously been warned about. In addition, we were concerned about staff: child ratios and the number of children being cared for, meeting their individual needs and the lack of accurate record keeping.
p.1
Summary of outcome
Because of our concerns, we took steps to cancel the childminder's registration. The childminder objected to us taking this step. Having heard the childminder's reasons for objecting to this step, we have not upheld their objection and have decided to proceed with cancellation. The childminder has appealed against this step to the independent external tribunal, the Health, Education and Social Care First-tier Tribunal.
p.1
Summary of outcome
The childminders appeal has been dismissed. Their registration is therefore cancelled and they are no longer registered with Ofsted.
p.1
Publication of complaints
We publish details of complaints made against childminders, home childcarers and childcare providers where we or the provider have taken action in order to meet legal requirements.
p.1
Publication of complaints
We publish details of complaints for five years commencing on the date we complete our investigation. For further information about the complaints process please view the Concerns and complaints about childminders and childcare providers leaflet .
p.1
Discuss this inspection
Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.
Join the discussion