HELPHELPHELP!

[narnia]

Indeed, though they now accept that he didn't jump over the fence. But I am going over the statutory framework and for the life of me all I can find is that we must take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised persons entering etc and that we must ensure children are adequately supervised. The new framework says that outdoor spaces must be fit for purpose. Neither says anything about fencing,walls etc. I know I'm letting this eat away at me, but............

Edited August 19, 2014 by narnia

[Panders]

Again, very woolly 'fit for purpose'. Open to a wide interpretation. Not exactly helpful

[Melba]

Well they answered me. Quick at least.

I am just warming up the frying pan as the hat is going to be a bit chewy raw!

Nothing I think is new, nothing about fences.

As already said, open ended comments to allow them to make it mean whatever they want.

[narnia]

That's what I suspected would be the case. All down to the person on the day. Loss of good rating, loss of income, loss of faith in my own ability to protect the children. Because she didn't see what actually happened. Guess I shall just have to suck it up.

[Pimms o'clock?]

I would be inclined to ask Ofsted if they can categorically tell you where this "new safeguarding" information is because I for one don't know about it. What about everyone else?

Edited August 19, 2014 by Pimms o'clock?

[Sox]

Stand up and fight Narnia we are behind you

[Cait]

I seriously think that this is time to involve your MP. Send him everything you have, copy this thread if everyone is ok with that, copy the relevant statutory framework references. Ask for a face to face meeting and a walk through of your site. Get signatures of support from parents and friends. Copy past Ofsted reports, EYQISP, SEF

 

But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't let it make you ill.

[narnia]

Pimms, I have taken your advice. I slanted it that I don't want to be fault again, so could they please point me to any and all new legislation specifically relating to safeguarding and protection as I am unable to locate it. I said i was working with current standards 3.61 relating to premises ( taking all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised persons etc............and given that they now agree to remove that sentence about an unauth person etc, I wonder what they will say?)........plus 3.27 staff: child ratios, 'providers must ensure that children are adequately supervised' ( and they stated that we are extremely vigilent)

Even under the new ( from Sept ) guidance (3.54) I can only find 'providers must ensure their premises, including overall floor space and OUTDOOR spaces are fit for purpose and suitable for the age of children cared for' etc

I did say that I was just keen to get things right, so they will have to bear with me asking so many questions, but I suspect they will have me carted off!!! ( Oh, and I refrained form saying they will have to make appointments in future as my policy has been tweaked to say we don't accept cold callers to the premises)

[sunnyday]

Good for you!

[Fredbear]

Oh Narnia I had hoped on my return from my holiday, that your nightmare had subsided and common sense had come into play.

But I find myself reading your posts with utter despair.

Please please take care of yourself too, as you know deep in your heart you do all you can to safeguard the children in your care.

Virtual hugs.

[Pimms o'clock?]

I'm so pleased my few words have provoked this reaction.

I'm not so sure that they will have an answer because I'm positive that there has been no 'new' safeguarding legislation or guidance.

Fingers crossed that they back down on this, sending positive vibes your way :-)

[narnia]

what would you make of the following statement?

 

I also acknowledged your comments about the workmen and gentleman who stopped to chat being upstanding members of the community and well known to you. However, as I explained when we spoke, it is your responsibility to ensure that the premises, including outdoor spaces, are safe and fit for purpose and also to ensure that all adults who have unsupervised access to children are suitable to do so, even if this is only for a very short time. I also stated that adults being upstanding members of the community, and/or knowing them for a long time, did not guarantee that this was the case.

 

Answers on apostcard please and then I'll tell you what this relates to!

Edited August 21, 2014 by narnia

[Cait]

But surely the main thrust of one of your arguments is that NONE of these people had unsupervised access to the children at any time! There were staff outdoors and the man on the fence was talking to staff. Nobody was unsupervised

Edited August 21, 2014 by Cait

[narnia]

That's exactly it, Cait. NOW they are saying that the old man actually leaned over the fence and into the play area...............which is interesting, because that's not at all what happened and if they thought it had then why didn't they say so before today? It just goes on and on. I have asked that the inspection be declared null and void and that we start again. I have also said that I don't want Tribal to conduct it as I have no faith in them. Oh and she's now saying there's no direct regulations about fencing etc but those that are there, should be fit for purpose. What................you mean like err, stopping the children getting out and unauthorised people getting in?

[sunnyday]

what would you make of the following statement?

 

I also acknowledged your comments about the workmen and gentleman who stopped to chat being upstanding members of the community and well known to you. However, as I explained when we spoke, it is your responsibility to ensure that the premises, including outdoor spaces, are safe and fit for purpose and also to ensure that all adults who have unsupervised access to children are suitable to do so, even if this is only for a very short time. I also stated that adults being upstanding members of the community, and/or knowing them for a long time, did not guarantee that this was the case.

 

Answers on apostcard please and then I'll tell you what this relates to!

Clutching at straws now ('her' not you).........

There was no 'unsupervised access' - end of.......

[SueJ]

what would you make of the following statement?

 

I also acknowledged your comments about the workmen and gentleman who stopped to chat being upstanding members of the community and well known to you. However, as I explained when we spoke, it is your responsibility to ensure that the premises, including outdoor spaces, are safe and fit for purpose and also to ensure that all adults who have unsupervised access to children are suitable to do so, even if this is only for a very short time. I also stated that adults being upstanding members of the community, and/or knowing them for a long time, did not guarantee that this was the case.

 

Answers on apostcard please and then I'll tell you what this relates to!

Ask them to flag up in their report e.g., page and paragraph exactly where it states that these "intruders" had unsupervised access to the children. You could also using a Freedom of Information request ask for a copy of the inspector's evidence if you really want to shake them up!

On a lighter note does that mean that I must now DBS check all my parents?

"ensure that all adults who have unsupervised access to children are suitable to do so, even if this is only for a very short time."

If you take that statement on it's own then I can think of occasions when parent's have popped to the loo whilst waiting for us to open leaving their child in the porch with other parents "watching over them" - but as I haven't DBS checked these parents I don't know if they are suitable and whilst it might be just before opening hours they are still on the premises but we are setting up inside the hall so are not directly supervising anyone at that juncture!!!!!!!

[Panders]

Exactly SueJ!

 

I find what Ofsted are saying to Narnia very worrying, they are throwing all kinds of woolly phrases at this trying to cover their a@&£s . I agree with Narnia that the only fair thing is to void that inspection and start again with a different team of inspectors.

[sunnyday]

Exactly SueJ!

 

I find what Ofsted are saying to Narnia very worrying, they are throwing all kinds of woolly phrases at this trying to cover their a@&£s . I agree with Narnia that the only fair thing is to void that inspection and start again with a different team of inspectors.

.......and take the report offline - that's an awful system - if a report is 'challenged' it should not be available until this has been resolved (so there!)

[LKeyteach]

Narnia

 

I am sorry I have been away and am just catching up with what is happening. I am really sorry about your "experience."

No setting premises can ever be 100% safe but as you have said and the report has claimed that the children are not left unsupervised there was not any threat to the children.

I do not wish to play down our safeguarding of children role it is hugely important. But surely we must also show children that we can talk to people such as over the fence it is about making relationships. We should not be encouraging children to ignore that would be wrong, but we do have to show them how to maintain these types of communication safely and everything you have done demonstrates this.

You have my support and if you require to use my response as evidence (for Ofsted or your LEA) of what other professionals in your field think of this stupid, stupid judgement then you have my permission.

As hard as it is please keep up your high standards which you have set for yourself for the children in your care.

Keep us all posted about any new developments if you continue to take things further.

Hugs from me too!

[Rea]

I've just been catching up with this. Speechless but cynically not surprised.

Really hope you get this sorted, if the wording continues to be against you and they refuse to remove to from the web site, I'd amend my prospectus to say 'Ofsted sent an idiot to do the inspection hence the inaccuracies, but please feel free to speak to any and all previous families and professionals who have been to our setting to put your mind at ease.'

Good luck narnia, keep smiling

[Melba]

How can the inspection document be online when it is so much in contention! How awful is that.

[LKeyteach]

Rea that's a bit strong - ("Idiot")

I wonder what other terms we could use -" unauthorised visitor with some knowledge of the safeguarding and welfare requirements"?

 

[sunnyday]

Rea that's a bit strong - ("Idiot")

I wonder what other terms we could use -" unauthorised visitor with some knowledge of the safeguarding and welfare requirements"?

 

Call a spade a spade I say!

[Rea]

Thank you Sunnyday, I thought i'd used one of those words your mom would throw the dishcloth in your face for (just my mom?!)so i had to look it up noun

1.

Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person:

"If you think you can wear that outfit to a job interview and get hired, you're an idiot!"

[eyfs1966]

Oh Narnia..

I would go back to them again now and reitterate that since they have now agreed that

1. no one jumped over the fence

2. There was no unsupervised access

3.they have made reference to changes in safeguarding rules but have despite being asked to have failed to to elaborate and indeed seem to have implied that this is actually now not the case......

it would appear that there is now real cause for concern about the validity of the inspection judgement. I would go further and say that you would now like to escalate your complaint and ask them to supply you with a written copy of their own complaints procedures.....

 

 

Frankly, it appears to me that you now have Ofsted on the back foot. Keep it up and I am sure they will eventually cave in....just keep going back and nit picking until their case has more holes than a doiley!!!! Do not give up....what do you have to lose at this point? The damning report is already on their site, you've had the trauma and heartache, so now just keep at it until you get the victory you deserve!

[Rea]

Can you get you MP, newspaper, EY dept involved?

[narnia]

I have been out all day and tribal have twice tried to call me. No message left. But two emails sent to me as well............the chap i have been corresponding with says he has not yet taken out the bit about the man jumping over the wall......................and do i want that removed. he says the female investigation officer didn't say i would lose if i complained to Ofsted and doesn't see why they should take out the bit about unauthorised people having access even if only for a short while.

So, I have requested that all inaccurate statements be removed. I havesaid I have no faith in the report which is flawed due to sevral serious innacurracies. I have asked to see the inspectors report files under freedom of information and I want this escalatedinto a fomal complaint to Ofsted, not an in-house investigation of Tribal, by Tribal. I have explained too that the lead inspector was referring to 'crib cards' all the way through, that she constantly had to ask advice of the other inspector and i have no faith in her reporting/ I told them I have been working in early years for 40 years and the reports errors are an insult to me, my staff and to the parents, children and community we serve. If i go down, I go down fighting.

[Pimms o'clock?]

Now that's the spirit Narnia, go get 'em, oh now wait you've already got 'em by the short and curlies :1b :1b

[Rea]

Well done Narnia, keep that spirit

[Guest]

Heaven help ofsted if you plan to go down fighting Narnia, I've seen what happens when you take on the big C. Invincible xxxxx