For over a decade, the NAHT has been at the forefront of calls for meaningful reform of the inspectorate. What Ofsted has presented with the launch of its long-awaited consultation today is not that. Instead of the radical overhaul we need to fix our broken system and restore trust and effectiveness, what we have here feels more like a rebranding exercise.
We welcomed the government’s decision to scrap single-word judgments in September. We also stand ready to share the views of school leaders with the consultation on school accountability.
However, we are very concerned about these proposals on a number of fronts.
Causing concern
The confirmation that these will form no part of a new framework is therefore positive. However, the proposal to retain (and indeed expand) graded sub-judgments in the new framework has landed extremely badly with the profession. And rightly so.
These sub-judgments replicate many of the worst aspects of the current system, perpetuating high stakes and undue stress for leaders and staff. Retaining grades fails to address the toxic culture that inspections have fostered over decades.
Of particular concern is the lack of clarity around how these sub-judgments will work with other accountability measures like league tables and performance metrics. Without addressing these broader systemic issues, any changes risk being superficial at best.
There is also a fundamental question about the ability of inspectors to make such precise judgements reliably across a broader range of areas. Given that they struggled to do this with four grades, it is very hard to see how they will do it with five.
Recent reports that senior inspectors within Ofsted – the very people who will have to implement this new framework – are also deeply concerned about the nature of the reforms only serves to reinforce our worries. They also echo our concerns about a rush to meet arbitrary deadlines.
History repeating
These proposals appear likely to entrench many of the problems that have plagued inspections for years. Schools, parents, and teachers would all benefit from detailed and precise narrative reports that provide nuanced insights rather than simplistic labels.
Meanwhile, Ofsted’s conduct since it promised reform has further undermined trust. Over Christmas, we learned that it had already begun trialling elements of its proposed framework in a small number of schools before launching its consultation.
This move put the cart before the horse and suggests that Ofsted is more interested in rubber-stamping its own ideas than in genuine consultation.
And then, just like the Big Listen, the consultation is once again framed with open-ended, free-text questions. This refusal to ask simple and straightforward questions shows a wilful denial od the extent to which stakeholders really support these proposals.
Worse, the lack of quantitative data and precise, clear questions allows Ofsted to cherry-pick responses, supporting what we fear is a pre-determined agenda. We deserve more transparency and accountability from those holding us accountable.
Palpable frustration
This should have been an opportunity for Ofsted to reset its relationship with schools and deliver a fairer, more humane accountability system. It was a chance to demonstrate the new, more collaborative, more supportive approach we have been promised.
But there is precious little evidence to suggest a genuine shift in culture demanded by Dame Christine Gilbert’s report last year. Where, for example, are any proposals to overhaul Ofsted’ complaints system?
The frustration among school leaders is palpable. Our recent survey reveals that 93 per cent of leaders lack confidence in Ofsted’s ability to design an effective new inspection framework. Over three-quarters (76 per cent) believe a completely new framework and methodology are needed – not just an evolution of the current system.
We cannot go on with Ofsted’s approach distorting the sector’s priorities and driving extraordinary workload and ill-health. None of this in the best interests of the children and young people in our schools.
NAHT will continue to push for meaningful reform, and we will ensure the voices of our members are heard loud and clear. But let me be unequivocal: what we cannot accept is a revised version of an existing system that has caused untold harm over many years.
I sincerely hope that my worst fears are proven wrong. Anything less than a genuine consultation would be a betrayal of this critical moment for reform.
