Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s recent announcement of long-overdue reforms to Ofsted’s school inspection model is a step in the right direction. A single-word judgement is not an effective measure of quality in education. But this raises an important question:

Why isn’t the same conversation happening for early years at the same pace?

Early years settings have been trapped in a flawed, high-stakes accountability system for far too long. A system that does not drive improvement but instead fosters fear, compliance, and instability. And yet, this sector is responsible for laying the foundations of lifelong learning. Why are we still being left out of the reform discussion?

What needs to change?

1. A move from compliance to collaboration

Why do we continue to accept a regulatory model that forces providers to operate in fear? Ofsted’s binary judgements, tick-box inspections, and punitive consequences do not improve quality.

Instead, we need a developmental, strengths-based approach, where regulation is a support process, not punishment. We should be building capability, not crushing confidence.

2. Investment over marketisation

We fund early years through fragmented, market-driven policies prioritising private expansion over universal access.

Yet, the funding model is flawed. It expects providers to deliver high-quality care while underfunding them per hour. If we truly value early education, we must fund the system, not just the child.

Proper investment means:

• Fair funding rates that reflect real costs (including rising wages and operational expenses).
• Stable financial support to prevent closures and ensure every child has access to quality care.

3. Measuring what matters

A system that relies on data points and algorithm-driven risk assessments cannot capture the true impact of early years education.

Countries like Scotland and Finland have moved towards holistic, trust-based inspection models prioritising professional judgment, collaboration, and ongoing development.

Why aren’t we doing the same?

4. Dismantling the power imbalance

Ofsted holds the power to define what “good” looks like, yet the voices of those delivering care are absent from decision-making.

A regulatory system that holds providers accountable must also be held accountable itself. We need:

• Transparency in inspections and decision-making.
• Checks on inspector bias and inconsistencies.
• Meaningful complaint resolution processes that are fair, open, and not designed to protect the system over the truth.

What comes next?

Phillipson’s announcement acknowledges that Ofsted’s framework for schools is broken. Early years deserves the same recognition and urgency.

The neoliberal, market-driven approach to early years regulation has failed. What we need now is a fair, human-centred system that:

• Supports providers rather than punishes them.
• Values educators and respects their expertise.
• Delivers the best outcomes for children through collaboration, not fear.

If we rethink Ofsted for schools, it’s time to rethink it for early years too.