School inspection must evolve. A valid, reliable and proportionate inspection framework is essential for a strong education system - but that framework must also be clear, coherent and responsive to the realities of schools today.
The draft framework currently out for consultation is, therefore, a significant moment of reform. It marks a step away from overall effectiveness judgements and proposes a more granular view of school performance, with a focus on important areas like inclusion.
But for all its intentions, the framework risks becoming more, not less, complex and burdensome - introducing new criteria, more evaluation areas and an approach to grading that could confuse rather than clarify.
These are not minor technical concerns. Unless addressed, they could undermine the very reliability and legitimacy that inspection requires to be effective.
How Ofsted can improve its inspection plans
That’s why the Confederation of School Trusts (CST) has worked hard on its response to Ofsted’s consultation. We’ve worked with trust leaders across the country, including our policy advisory group, an elected body of more than 30 leaders chosen by their peers in each region.
And we’ve spoken to hundreds more leaders over the course of the consultation period. Together we have developed, tested and iterated a response that is both pragmatic and principled.
Our response reflects what members have told us, describing the changes needed to make the framework work better - for schools, for inspectors and, above all, for the children and communities we serve.
Trust leaders have told us that they want to see changes that will make inspection clearer, more coherent and more likely to support valid, reliable judgements.
The following is not everything we say in our consultation response, but here are five important ways we think Ofsted can improve its plans:
1. The grading structure
We believe the proposed approach to grading is unnecessarily complex and should be simplified.
One option is to return to four grades, though we recognise Ofsted’s desire to break from the past. Another is to remove the faux criteria for “exemplary” and make it a secure-fit measure using the same criteria as the grade below (“strong”).
This would rightly position excellence as the consistent implementation of strong practice, not a vague set of additional attributes.
Similarly, the proposed grade “attention needed” could simply indicate that a school is not yet “secure”, as “requires improvement” does in the current model. The key is for Ofsted to land on a grading approach far simpler than what is currently proposed.
2. The evaluation criteria
The language in Ofsted’s inspection toolkit must be precise enough to support consistency.
This isn’t just a drafting issue - it relates directly to grading. Some of the current wording is so high-inference as to be unworkable. We will call for clearer distinctions between “secure” and “strong” and for a reduction in the volume of criteria overall.
3. The number and structure of evaluation areas
While there is some merit in a more nuanced framework, having too many evaluation areas risks overlap, incoherence and inconsistent outcomes.
In particular, “developing teaching” and “curriculum” should be re-coupled, as they are under the current Education Inspection Framework.
Evaluating the “how” of teaching without the “what” is likely to drive superficial compliance around pedagogy. The system has been here before - and should not go back.
4. The approach to inclusion
We support a stronger focus on inclusion. But the proposed approach - with inclusion both as a thread throughout and a separate toolkit - risks confusion.
A better solution would be to remove the additional inclusion toolkit and generate an inclusion grade from the inclusion criteria already threaded through other areas. This would strengthen, not dilute, the signal.
5. The methodology
The success of any framework depends on how it’s applied. While we understand the move away from deep dives, we’re not convinced that a “focus areas” approach, as used in this year’s ungraded inspections, will deliver greater consistency.
We want Ofsted to clarify what will replace deep dives - and ensure that inspectors are operating with a rigorous and consistent methodology. In a high-stakes system, the rules of the game must be known. We can’t have inspectors “sniffing the air” and forming their own hypotheses.
Will Ofsted change direction?
Perhaps inevitably, the proposed framework has emerged from the policy machine more bloated and complex than it needs to be. But this can be addressed. Our conversations with Ofsted suggest that it is willing to move and adapt.
We hope it will - and that our consultation response offers clarity and direction to support it in doing so.
Steve Rollett is deputy CEO of the Confederation of School Trusts
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
