Ofsted will be back (too?) soon
So, the new Ofsted inspection framework is finally with us, almost exactly two months before it will be used in earnest for the first time. To sweeten that bitter pill, the announcement on Tuesday indicated that they will “prioritise schools that volunteer for inspection” in November. Which means that schools ‘in the window’ will have almost three months to ready themselves before routine inspections begin on 1st December, unless there are a lot of schools volunteering.
The thesaurus has been well thumbed, but five grades remain
One key headline change from the consultation document is the names of the new gradings.
- ‘Exceptional’ replaces ‘exemplary’, and inspectors giving this judgement will not need to evidence it, as per the consultation.
- ‘Expected standard’ is preferred over the rather ambivalent ‘secure’.
- ‘Urgent improvement’ replaces ‘causing concern’, presumably to add some urgency. But am I alone in thinking that it needs the word ‘required’ to scan better?
Words matter. The key takeaway for me is that, whilst there is at least some greater precision around the woolly term ‘secure’, the sum of these changes is to not-so-subtly heighten the sense of accountability around the judgements by making the language a touch more robust. This feels like a retrograde step in light of the key findings from the Big Listen process, a reminder that inspection can seem like a ‘done to’ rather than ‘done with’ process.
Two fewer (but still too many?) areas for inspection
All-through school leaders will be delighted to know that instead of eleven separate judgements on their provision, they will now have only nine to deal with during their inspections, up from six on the outgoing framework. The decision to re-merge curriculum with teaching, and attendance with behaviour, is welcome in some ways, but neither significantly reduces workload. As Ofsted says, this is a more “streamlined” framework but only in comparison to February’s proposals. By any other measure, this is the least streamlined framework since before the 2012 version.
Fewer tools but a bigger toolkit
I’m still digesting the new toolkit in comparison to the version published during the consultation phase. I’m looking forward to discussing my findings with you and understanding your thoughts in our Readiness for inspection online seminar on 9th October. But one thing that is immediately apparent, is its size. Despite having two fewer areas of inspection, and a “slimmed down” set of standards, the number of pages has increased from 30 to 80. The is because the final version (unlike the one released during the consultation phase) includes explanations of what the area considers, how it will be used differently for different settings, and how evidence for that area will be gathered.
How will we see the stories behind the data when there is so much of it?
One key issue with a framework that has more gradings as well as more areas of inspection is that it threatens reliability. This was mentioned by several data-savvy respondents to the consultation process, and their arguments were persuasive for me, a moderately data-savvy former school leader. Two examples of why this matters for our system may be helpful.
Firstly, it harms consistency within the new framework. Under the now-defunct 2019 EIF, there were four key judgements for all providers with four grades, giving a total of 256 possible permutations of inspection outcomes. I have tracked every inspection in 2024-25 and only 57 of those possible permutations were utilised (e.g. GOGG). Under the new framework there are – for schools without sixth form or early years – 6250 different possible permutations of outcome.
In 2023-24, when there were single-word judgements, there were only 4 permutations. Everyone associated with supporting schools could spot the issues across types of school, regions and so on. With 57 used permutations in 2024-25, it was still possible to spot these issues and think about how they could be addressed (as SSAT’s previous Readiness for Inspection webinars explored last year).
With thousands of possible different inspection outcomes and report card permutations, not only will we lose the ability to easily spot patterns of need, but it is also difficult to see how quality control of inspections and inspection teams can be guaranteed based on inspection data. Quite simply, when there are too many data points, there are too few data stories.
How will we know if things are getting better when so much is changing?
The other key area of reliability that the sheer volume of potential grading profiles leads to is a lack of continuity over time in looking at inspection outcomes. Remember when GCSE grades changed and trying to explain what a C equalled in the numbers? I have a similar feeling about what a good equals in the new framework gradings.
Over time, of course, we will forget all about that and get used to the expected and strong standards split (which I assume to be covering good in the same way that a C was part 4 and part 5). I even remember when Ofsted had seven different gradings, so I know things will settle down. But there’s an inevitability that changing what we judge schools for and how we judge them will mean a period of discontinuity immediately ahead of some significant reforms.
What I most respected about the previous framework was that it was designed to flow from the curriculum and assessment reforms that had preceded it. The 2019 inspection regime provided a way of measuring the impact of these reforms on schools and students. Coming ahead of changes to curriculum, assessment and SEND provision, this doesn’t feel like a strategically thoughtful change of framework. The inspection cart has been placed in front of the provision horse.
The sound of one-handed clapping
The reception of the new framework has been interesting. The image of Ofsted “ploughing on…” and “pressing ahead despite…” and “Nando’s style ratings” would be at the centre of the word cloud of press clippings, whilst others have reported Ruth Perry’s sister saying the framework is a cosmetic change that doesn’t do anything to reduce the risk to school staff and leaders.
Teacher and leader unions have responded by calling the framework bad for all involved in education (NEU), failing to offer accurate information about schools without being excessively burdensome (ASCL), and creating more problems than it solves (NASUWT). 91% of NAHT members responding to a snap poll said that they opposed the framework. If school inspection, like policing, functions by consent, the responses of the profession should worry the HMCI.
A reorganisation of the deckchairs whilst the band plays on?
Ofsted was created not long before I became a teacher and so I have seen most of its iterations and periods of crisis. Something feels different here. The effects of the pandemic may well be a factor, as may be the challenges with recruitment and retention, but without a doubt the impact of Ruth Perry’s death upon the profession has been crucial. The fact that Ofsted under Oliver seemed to ‘get’ this, earned them plaudits during and immediately after the Big Listen exercise.
What is clear from the reception of this new framework is that such positive expectations of meaningful change have dissipated or disappeared. There has not been a significant change in the way in which Ofsted works. The methodology remains the same. The different headings are looking at mostly the same things. A few more wellbeing check-ins for leaders is not enough.
An opportunity missed or squandered?
I spent Saturday at a conference where I was engaged in a conversation with a group of school leaders about how inspection could be done better. I counted four ideas that would represent a radically new approach to accountability, each of which might garner more support than our current model and most of which might offer better outputs. None was perfect, but the chat made me realise just how much of a missed opportunity this new framework represents.
One other conversation on Saturday also resonates in the light of this new framework. It was with a newly former headteacher who, like me in my final year in the role, had seen one final and successful inspection through at their school, having decided that this was the last inspection cycle through which they would put themselves.
SSAT’s Rethinking Headship work, DfE data and a host of research reports suggests that neither this person nor me are outliers in terms of calling an early end to their headship, in large part because of the inspection system as it stands. Given this, and the reluctance of senior leaders to take up the role, this new framework feels more like a squandered than a missed opportunity.
Next steps: putting one foot in front of the other
Despite these concerns, and unless there is an earthquake at the heart of the inspection service or in Whitehall, this is our new framework. As inspection is underpinned by legislation, only the withdrawal of labour by Ofsted Inspectors, who are themselves school leaders, can stop what has begun. What the framework says is what school leaders must address in their practice. This is where SSAT can help and support, based on our close tracking of inspection in the last two years.
Because, despite all the claims of radical change, this framework does not represent a notable shift in focus, methodology or even (despite the Nando’s charts) in reporting of outcomes. Our inspection tracker has given us insights into every ‘need to improve’ (now relabelled ‘next steps’) across the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic years for every school inspection done in that time.
At our Readiness for Inspection online seminar on Thursday 9th October, we will share with you what we have learned as Ofsted has been moving towards its replacement – and what this means for your setting. This will include insights about how the inspection of the new areas such as inclusion, wellbeing and achievement has changed. We will also look at how the inspectorate has adapted in its judgements about attendance and teaching in recent times
You can book your place on SSAT’s Readiness for Inspection online seminar here.
If you would like more targeted, tailored and personalised insights for your school, based on our unrivalled analysis of every individual inspection report, trust or other school-supporting organisation, you can book a 121 call with me using this link.
Dr Keven Bartle, Senior Education Lead, SSAT
Keven has been a teacher for almost three decades and was headteacher at a richly diverse secondary school in London for nine years. Through his career, Keven has been committed to the power of education for social justice and transformation, working in schools where staff make a difference to the lives of children, families and communities.
