Here's interesting.

"Ofsted has found "serious concerns" in two-thirds of councils that have undergone the first no-notice safeguarding inspections, sparking a rift with Children's Services chiefs..."

Do you think that this will equip local authority Children's Services with empathy when responding to the equally legitimate concerns expressed by home educating families in relation to the proposals for registration, monitoring and inspection? Let's do some fisking [my emphases]:

"The new inspections started four weeks ago and are designed to improve public confidence in councils' child protection services following the death of Baby P."

Might this be a PR exercise, rather than a proactive approach to protecting the most vulnerable children who are consistently failed? No way! It would be heresy to even suggest such a thing. It's all about the child, naturally.

"As of Wednesday last week, nine unannounced inspections had taken place, with Ofsted reporting "serious concerns" in six councils. While the results have not been published, individual councils have seen their own results. The findings are presented in a letter that, rather than giving a simple "pass" or "fail" judgement, covers strengths, areas for development and serious concerns."

A rather high proportion. Still, at least it's not a case of simple "pass" or "fail" - it sounds as though the councils are receiving what the DCSF would describe as "non-negotiable support". So what's the problem?

"But directors of children's services (DCSs) have told CYP Now that the large number of councils deemed to be failing reflects flaws in the system. The concerns have prompted the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) to call for the no-notice inspections to be suspended. ADCS president Kim Bromley-Derry said: "We have asked Ofsted to stop in order for us to take stock.""

Oh, those "service-resistant" directors! Asking for a halt to changes to the status quo? Surely no "flaws in the system" exist - this is a highly respected, expert inspection department we are talking about here. DCSs can be so hysterical and reactionary at times. Some might say anarchic.

"The ADCS says the phrase "serious concerns" is misleading. Bromley-Derry added: "It doesn't necessarily mean a child has been put at risk. It could mean someone hasn't filled out a piece of paper within a designated timescale.""

Well, I suppose it's better to be safe than sorry. And if it saves only one child...

"Many DCSs fear the results reveal a knee-jerk reaction from Ofsted, anxious to avoid a repeat of the Baby P tragedy. They also fear that the publication of no-notice inspection results in the current format will further undermine staff morale and public confidence in the child protection system."

A "knee-jerk reaction"? That just doesn't happen. What we can see here is an concerted effort to ensure that the right system of checks and balances is put into place. We have to make sure that the rights of the DCSs and their staff are balanced with the rights of the public to know that they are doing their jobs properly. Only no-notice inspections from Ofsted can adequately ensure this.

"Marion Davis, director of children's services for Warwickshire County Council, said: "The last thing we want to do is conceal or condone poor practice. But it's the basis on which these decisions are being made. It is about the credibility of the system.""

Is Marion Davis sounding a little like a NIMBY here? It seems as though she is perfectly happy to sacrifice less fortunate children in other local authority areas to the wolves, as long as she knows that the children on her workers' caseloads are safe and well. She ought to have a chat with Stephen Heppell - he cares about all children, not just the fortunate ones.

"A spokeswoman for Ofsted said: "No final letters have been published at this stage and we are currently considering their precise wording to convey accurately the extent of any weaknesses we have identified.""

See - it's OK. As long as the precise wording is clear, then future inspections will be clear, simple and straightforward. After all, if local authority Children's Services have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.

Isn't that right?