With inspections under Ofsted’s new framework now being rolled out nationally, leaders are beginning to discuss and compare their experiences of the new arrangements.
Confederation of School Trusts (CST) member trusts are telling us that the early weeks of Ofsted’s new framework have brought a noticeable shift in the way inspections feel on the ground.
Many trusts report that the tone has improved: conversations are more constructive, and inspections appear to be carried out with a greater degree of sensitivity.
For a system that places such weight on the quality of professional dialogue, this matters. It is a positive start.
Early signals also point to some areas that “need attention”, though, to borrow a new Ofsted phrase. One important caveat needs to be placed up front: we’re talking here about feedback from a very small number of inspections.
It is plausible that the issues members have raised with us are isolated and not representative of the wider picture that we’ll see emerge over time.
New Ofsted inspections: insights from trusts
But, with caution, we feel there are a few themes beginning to emerge that signal areas Ofsted might want to explore and respond to as implementation proceeds.
The rarity of ‘exceptional’ outcomes - and what this means
The most striking issue is the shift from a four-point to a five-point grading scale. This is not about whether this is the “right” number of grades, as was hotly debated during the development of the framework.
Rather, the change to five grades reflects a genuinely very different approach to inspection than we had before.
“Exceptional” really will be a judgement reserved for just a few. “Expected standard” is a higher bar than some had anticipated, and schools that felt comfortably “good” may find themselves receiving “needs attention” judgements in one or more areas.
This change means some schools will receive what feel like lower grades than before when the quality of education has not deteriorated. It is the test that has changed.
For leaders, staff, parents and regulators, this is a significant adjustment and it must be handled with care if we are to properly support our leaders and staff.
A new bell curve - and how we explain it
As well as reworking the grades of each individual school, the changes will inevitably recalibrate the profile of grades nationally.
Most likely they will move the centre of the bell curve to the middle of three grades, which looks - and feels - lower than where it sat before when grades clustered in the top two of four grades (around 90 per cent of schools were judged “good” or better by the end of the previous framework).
Tackling this is about more than explaining to parents what the new grades are, as welcome as Ofsted’s recent video on that is.
It’s about helping everyone to understand that we can’t infer a fall (or rise) in real standards based on the difference between old grades and new grades.
Inadvertently painting a picture of decline in a school - or nationally - is in no one’s interests, including those of the government, which could find itself having to answer for what is essentially a structural reclassification rather than a fall in performance.
Work is needed from Ofsted and the government to mitigate this risk - one exacerbated by the plan to monitor any school with a “needs attention” area.
While responsible bodies and leaders can reassure staff, and we’re hearing many examples of this happening, the task of communicating the changes, and supporting schools through it, can’t fall on them alone.
Schools in challenging contexts
Words like “typically” were included in the framework to ensure that inspectors apply professional judgement rather than a mechanistic test.
There is work for Ofsted to do to check how well these are being used by inspectors and to provide reassurance to the system if necessary.
Some questions are emerging about how well the framework will work for schools in challenging contexts.
Early feedback suggests that reference in the toolkit to national averages for outcomes, coupled with a secure fit approach, is emerging as a particular pressure point.
Leaders are clear that they don’t want Ofsted to adopt lower standards in challenging contexts, but they also don’t want there to be an implicit ceiling for schools working in areas of deep disadvantage.
Only Ofsted will know at this stage how real concerns about contextual sensitivity are at system level and it may be able to bolster confidence by illustrating whether grades are correlating with particular school demographics.
Recognising immediate impacts
One further concern that some members have flagged is the way “sustained” impact is being interpreted in some inspections.
There are a few reports of schools that have made recent, sensible changes being told that - because impact cannot yet be demonstrated over time - they cannot achieve particular grades.
If correct, this risks creating a perverse incentive: discouraging improvement activity at the very moment it should be supported.
This doesn’t sound right and, while it could be one or two isolated incidents, it’s important that Ofsted explores this issue early and remedies it if required.
Five key actions for Ofsted
To its credit, Ofsted has shown willingness to listen and adapt. The issues emerging in these first weeks of inspection rollout can be addressed - but they require early and decisive action:
1. A more proactive communication campaign on the grading changes that goes beyond explaining the new five-grade structure. It must explicitly help the public to understand the implications of the recalibration of grades that is taking place nationally.
2. Reconsider the plan for routine monitoring when a school receives a “needs attention” grade.
3. Reinforce through inspector training, and refine in the toolkit if necessary, the nuance that exists within the secure-fit approach.
If there are particular criteria that are consistently dragging down an otherwise “expected standard” or “strong” rating, these should be reviewed because this could signal a problem in the toolkit.
4. Clarify how references to national averages should be interpreted, including how performance of disadvantaged pupils is evaluated.
5. Ensure that well-planned change is not disincentivised.
A positive start so let’s build from here
Within the sector there appears to be a willingness to support an inspection framework and grading approach that offers greater differentiation than we saw before.
But that support depends on leaders feeling that the new approach is fair, intelligent and proportionate.
They also need confidence that the public understands that any shifts in grades are as likely to reflect changes in how schools are evaluated as much - or possibly more than - real changes in performance.
Early feedback suggests that Ofsted has made meaningful inroads in improving the tone of inspection but there is more work to do to support the implementation of the new framework.
Steve Rollett is deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get 91 magazine on and on
