91����

Schools with the highest proportion of disadvantaged pupils are almost three times more likely to be marked down by Ofsted on their achievement grade than schools with the lowest proportion, 91���� can reveal.

An analysis of grades awarded under the new inspection framework shows that schools with higher proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) are less likely to achieve the “expected standard” grade or better for achievement.

It comes after Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver acknowledged concerns about the grading of this evaluation area, but said that the inspectorate would not “downplay disappointing outcomes” for disadvantaged children.

Headteachers working in deprived areas have called their grades for achievement “demoralising”, and argued that the schools watchdog is inspecting attainment rather than achievement.

A school leaders’ union has also urged Ofsted to scrap its secure-fit approach in inspections, which it says means that inspectors can make “no allowance” for schools whose results are below national averages.

Ofsted grades questioned

As of this week, Ofsted has published inspection reports for around 500 schools that have been graded under its new report-card framework.

91���� has looked at the inspection outcomes of the 100 schools with the highest proportion of students eligible for FSM and the 100 schools with the lowest proportion eligible for FSM, using data provided by Watchsted from 498 published inspection reports.

Ofsted now inspects schools using a five-point grading scale across six different evaluation areas - including achievement - after it launched its new inspection framework in November. It no longer gives schools an overall effectiveness rating.

Schools can be rated as “exceptional”, “strong standard”, “expected standard”, “needs attention” or “urgent improvement” in each category.

The analysis shows that 33 schools with the highest FSM numbers received an achievement grade below the “expected standard”. Of these, 31 grades were “needs attention” and two were “urgent improvement”.

Looking at the 100 schools with the lowest FSM numbers, just 12 schools were below the “expected standard” on achievement, and all of these received “needs attention” grades.

��

According to the that Ofsted uses for deciding how to grade schools, the achievement category includes whether the school provides a high-quality education for all pupils, especially disadvantaged pupils and those with special educational needs and disabilities.

It also considers pupils’ attainment and progress over time in national tests, and the progress that pupils make across the curriculum from their starting points.

Ofsted uses a secure-fit approach to grading, which means that for the “expected standard” and “strong standard” grades, inspectors have to decide that every descriptor has been met in order for the grade to be awarded.

Regarding the “expected standard” grade on achievement, Ofsted’s toolkit says: “On the whole, pupils achieve well. Typically, this will be reflected in their attainment and progress in national tests and examinations, which are broadly in line with national averages, including for disadvantaged pupils.”

‘Calling it achievement but judging attainment’

Louise Kirby, acting headteacher at Burlington Junior School on the coast in the East Riding of Yorkshire, told 91���� that she felt disadvantaged schools were being “penalised” by the new inspection framework.

Burlington Junior School received a “needs attention” grade for achievement when it was inspected in January.

Over half of the pupils attending the school are eligible for FSM.

“We had everything in the achievement category except for the data. Schools are being penalised because their data does not reflect the national average,” Ms Kirby said.

“They are not taking context into account,” she added, saying that Ofsted was instead paying “lip service” to it.

Dr Siobhan Sanders, a primary head in the West Midlands, whose school was also graded as “needs attention” on achievement, shared Ms Kirby’s concerns.

“Many leaders will say that achievement is different in practice compared to how Ofsted measures it. Is it truly achievement or is it attainment?” Dr Sanders asked of the schools watchdog’s inspection framework.

“If a school takes a pupil with significant barriers and moves them on, that is achievement. That is not captured in the framework.”

Dr Sanders also raised concerns about how the new Ofsted framework will impact the retention of headteachers working in disadvantaged areas.

“The system needs to accurately recognise the challenge and the distance travelled for those children. Ofsted is calling it achievement but judging attainment,” Dr Sanders said.

‘Secure fit’ approach challenged

Andy Jordan, the inspection and accountability specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said that the achievement area of the new framework is “not working at all well for schools in disadvantaged areas”.

“These areas reference national data as a benchmark, and it is clearly more challenging for these schools to reach this level,” he added.

Mr Jordan carried out research last month into grade disparities from more than 200 inspections.

He warned at the time that schools serving disadvantaged communities were at risk of being penalised unfairly in the grading of achievement because of how the Ofsted inspection toolkit is worded.

Mr Jordan said that one solution could be to change the secure-fit model, which means every standard within a grade must be met before it can be awarded .

“The simplest fix would be to move away from the ‘secure fit’ model and allow professional judgement to be made in cases where schools are meeting expected standards in most but not all elements of an evaluation area,” he said.

Ms Kirby backed this call. She said: “We have really high expectations but it’s demoralising - you feel you will never achieve that grade.”

Ofsted has that it moved to a secure-fit grading approach in response to concerns that the previous inspection methodology “left too much up to inspectors’ discretion”.

Moving to a secure-fit approach “will help keep grading as consistent as possible”, the watchdog said.

Early Ofsted outcomes ‘should give us all pause’

Dan Morrow, the CEO of Cornwall Education Learning Trust, said: “The early data from Ofsted’s new report cards should give us all pause.”

He added that schools serving the most disadvantaged communities are disproportionately receiving a “needs attention” grade on achievement.

He warned this was “not because they are failing their children, but because the ‘secure fit’ methodology requires inspectors to be satisfied that attainment and progress are ‘broadly in line with national averages’ before awarding ‘expected standard’”.

“That is a structural problem, not an inspector problem. When half of all children - by definition - sit below the national average, building a floor-level grade descriptor around that average does not measure quality; it measures postcode,” Mr Morrow added.

“The new report-card model has real potential: the granularity is right, the focus on inclusion is right, and the removal of the single-word judgement is the correct call.

“But a framework that systematically signals ‘needs attention’ to schools doing extraordinary work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances is not a fairer system - it is the old system wearing new clothes.”

In a speech to the annual conference of the Association of School and College Leaders in Liverpool last week, Sir Martyn defended the inspectorate’s approach to grading achievement.

He said: “People point out that the achievement grade is intertwined with outcomes data and that, therefore, those working in difficult circumstances are at a disadvantage.

“It is true that I believe that outcomes matter. And it’s true I will not expect less because of geography or socioeconomic status.”

However, he said it was “not true that we ignore context entirely”.

Sir Martyn added: “Children don’t take good intentions into their next phase of education. They take exam grades, reading proficiency and, importantly, the character you imbue in them.”

91���� has approached Ofsted for comment.

��