Shifting the goalposts on inspections has only underlined further just what a blunt tool they are, says Tiffnie Harris.

Muddled thinking

Maintained and academy schools judged as ‘outstanding’ were exempt from routine inspections from 2012 to 2020. Then, new regulations came into force that required all outstanding schools to undergo either an initial section 5 or section 8 inspection within six years. 

In 2021/22, 266 primary schools that had previously been judged outstanding were inspected and 14% of them remained so. Of the others, 65% were changed to good and 21% were judged either requiring improvement or inadequate. 

For most of the schools that lost the overall outstanding judgement, most were graded less than outstanding for both quality of education and for leadership and management. 

Difficult to dispute 

According to Ofsted’s statistical report (tinyurl.com/4u39w6ve), of the 2,768 primary schools previously classed as exempt from inspection until the exemption ended in 2020, 42% had not had a graded inspection for at least ten years. 

Many of these schools had had a change of leadership, governance or staff; some may have converted to an academy trust. Incredibly, in a lot of cases, they had leapfrogged two frameworks since the last time they were inspected. So, the decision by Ofsted to return to inspection for schools previously exempt was difficult to dispute and welcomed by ASCL. To put it another way, it had been seen as unfair to the schools that were not inside this exemption bubble. It is perhaps also unfair that pupils in previously exempt schools didn’t have the reassurance of oversight by the regulator. 

But what was unfair were comments made by Ofsted’s Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman in November 2022, following an Ofsted commentary (tinyurl.com/4ntth6j6) on inspection outcomes for previously exempt outstanding schools: 

“Exempting outstanding schools … left a lot of schools without the constructive challenge that regular inspection provides. 

“The exemption was a policy founded on the hope that high standards, once achieved, would never drop, and that freedom from inspection might drive them even higher. These outcomes show that removing a school from scrutiny does not make it better.” 

These points suggest that, without the rigour of inspection that Ofsted provides, schools do not make improvements on their own. 

ASCL’s response in our press release (www.ascl.org.uk/OfstedReinspection) was as follows: 

“Schools judged as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted were previously exempted from inspections because the government decided that would be a good idea. 

“It has since changed its mind and Ofsted is now inspecting schools that have not been inspected for many years and were previously inspected under a different inspection framework with different criteria. 

“Unsurprisingly, all this shifting of goalposts is leading to changes in the graded judgements of these schools. 

“Most are still rated as either good or outstanding, but some are now rated as less than good, and this will be a very challenging situation. 

“Ofsted graded judgements are a woefully blunt tool and where these are negative it is often stigmatising and makes improvement harder to secure. 

“We need to move towards a more supportive and less punitive inspection system as this would clearly be in the best interests of the children and young people served by these schools.” 

Out of reach 

Primary schools that have had a positive experience in a recent inspection after a previous exemption may wonder what else they need to do to retain an outstanding judgement. The education inspection framework (EIF) has indeed changed since the last time they went through the process but there is a feeling that, rightly or wrongly, ‘outstanding’ is seen as the holy grail of judgements. It may arguably be even further out of reach for those smaller primaries who feel that there is insufficient opportunity to present their school in the short inspection timeframe. 

This January, ASCL launched The Future of Inspection (www.ascl.org.uk/futureofinspection), a discussion paper calling for an end to overall graded judgements, alongside other recommendations. 

Meanwhile, many of our members’ inspection concerns relate to how parents and the community react when a judgement is dropped from outstanding to good. ASCL’s Curriculum and Inspection Specialist, Tom Middlehurst, has drafted a letter, available on our website here www.ascl.org.uk/OfstedChangePrimary that might be helpful. 

Your thoughts on inspection in general, and on our paper, can be shared through the dedicated email address Future@ascl.org.uk 

Tiffnie Harris
ASCL Primary and Data Specialist
@tiffnieharris

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us