Ofsted chief inspector Martyn Oliver has been blasted for an “incendiary” speech to school leaders, as headteachers insist schools’ contexts are not being adequately considered in inspections.
Oliver told the ASCL conference on Friday he would “never acquiesce to the quiet curse of low expectations that would see Ofsted prioritise context over outcomes for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children”.
He claimed that where disadvantaged and vulnerable children are underperforming, critics “argue we should recognise the work and the effort – and downplay disappointing outcomes.
“Of course we will recognise the work, celebrate where that school is doing well and identify the contextual challenges being faced. But we can never downplay the disappointing outcomes.”
The comments have been widely condemned by leaders and unions, amid growing frustration at Ofsted’s use of national averages in new report cards. Leaders claim the new framework is unfair on schools with higher levels of disadvantage and SEND.
But Ofsted argued this week the entire point of Oliver’s speech was to “take-on the claims that Ofsted is not doing enough to take account of context in its achievement grades.
“He was clear that consideration of context is central to our grades. But he was also clear that children have one chance at education and it is right that Ofsted has exacting standards in the interests of all children.”
‘Nobody is disregarding outcomes’
But Richard Sheriff, former chief executive of Red Kite Learning Trust, described Oliver’s speech as “incendiary”, calling his language “brutal” and “Trumpian”.
“It basically says ‘you lot are not doing enough … what you need is Ofsted to set the bar higher, to make you jump higher and run faster’.”
Richard Uffendell, headteacher of Ashton Park School in Bristol, said Oliver’s approach “ignores the daily realities of a stretched education system and suggests a profound lack of connection with the sector”.
“There was genuine hope that new leadership in Ofsted would usher in a more humane accountability system. Instead, we are left with a framework that fuels despair.”
On social media, leaders, teachers and education experts described Oliver’s approach as “tone deaf”, “disrespectful” and having “done serious harm”.
Amid growing tensions, ASCL general secretary Pepe Di’Iasio said no leaders had “low expectations” of pupils, adding they “work tirelessly…often in very difficult circumstances” to achieve the best for them.
“Nobody is seeking to duck accountability, disregard outcomes, or lower the bar in any way.”
Context ‘not being properly factored in’
Oliver said that Ofsted would recognise schools working in challenging contexts to deliver positive outcomes.
He acknowledged claims the achievement grade “is intertwined with outcomes data”, and therefore puts those working in difficult circumstances “at a disadvantage”.
But he added: “It is not true that we ignore context entirely and automatically grade 49 per cent of schools ‘needs attention’ for achievement.”
“I will ensure context is seen as a core part of the assessment.”
But leaders claim this is not happening, and inspectors are relying too heavily on schools’ data.
To be graded ‘expected standard’ for achievement, inspectors must be satisfied that “on the whole” pupils at a school “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,” the inspection toolkit states.
Analysis by education consultant Steve Wren of the 69 first secondary report cards suggests a correlation between lower achievement grades, and schools with below-average prior attainment or above-average disadvantage.
Of the 18 with ‘very low’ prior attainment, more than half (55 per cent) were ‘needs attention’ and 45 per cent ‘expected’. Of 15 with ‘very high’ prior attainment, 40 per cent were ‘expected’ and ‘strong’, and 20 per cent ‘exceptional’.
Wren said Ofsted’s use of national averages in toolkits seemed to directly conflict with its “rhetoric around published data being only the starting point and understanding context being crucial to the inspection process”.
“We know that the published data predominates inspector thinking.”
Ofsted said the data it used was “mostly composed of the DfE’s published performance data.
“Any statistical calculations and presentation of the data are made to support inspection and help inspectors interpret the data in a consistent and fair way, including understanding a school’s context.
“We know that starting points are not always reflected which is why data only forms part of the picture on inspection. For example, the case sampling methodology that happens on site helps us understand individual pupils’ starting points and progress and the impact of the support they receive.”
‘Virtually impossible’ to hit expected standard
Cheshire Academies Trust has had two inspections under the new framework.
CEO Steve Ellis claimed the toolkit “put a ceiling on achievement and affected other grades like leadership as well”, particularly in the school with higher disadvantage.
Meanwhile Oakmoor School in Hampshire scored strong and expected standard across the board, except for achievement which was graded ‘needs attention’.
Its report card said pupils “do not achieve as well as they should” in national assessments, though noted progress and attainment “are improving” and pupils with additional needs “achieve in line with their peers”.
Part of the issue is a lack of Covid-era key stage 2 SATs results, meaning progress made for pupils with low prior attainment is not demonstrated in schools’ statistics.
Oakmoor headteacher Nigel Wright said this meant the inspection failed to take into account its year 11 pupils’ “very low start points”.
He added it would be “virtually impossible” for the school’s results to be “broadly in line with national average”.
New framework fails to lift confidence
The speech and fallout come after the watchdog recently reached a deal with leaders’ unions to increase monitoring of headteacher wellbeing.
But Oliver sparked anger last week for saying Ofsted issuing more ‘needs attention’ grades than it issued ‘requires improvement’ grades under the old framework is a sign it is “raising standards” and “being more exacting”.
NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman believes Ofsted “has seen fit to ratchet up pressure” despite the fact its recent reforms were prompted by the death of headteacher Ruth Perry.
A Teacher Tapp poll from Wednesday suggests that confidence in the inspectorate has not increased in the last year-and-a-half despite Ofsted’s reforms.
Of more than 9,000 teachers and leaders polled, just 12 per cent agreed Ofsted “acts as a reliable and trusted arbiter of standards across all different types of schools”, virtually unchanged on the 11 per cent who said the same in September 2024.
