Schools are set to be judged on a sliding scale from ‘exemplary’ to ‘causing concern’ against 10 evaluation areas including teaching, achievement, inclusion and preparation for next steps, proposals for new Ofsted report cards shared with leaders this week reveal.
It would mean schools would receive 10 separate ratings for different areas of their provision, rated ‘exemplary’, ‘strong practice’, ‘secure’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘causing concern’, the Financial Times reported.
The 10 judgment areas will be curriculum, teaching, achievement, leadership, behaviour and values, attendance, preparation for next steps, opportunities to thrive, inclusion and belonging and safeguarding, the newspaper reported.
The plans are still in development, and will also be subject to a consultation with the sector in January.
But the FT obtained slides showed to leaders this week setting out the details of what is currently being proposed.
In the leaked slides published by the Financial Times, the five proposed ratings are depicted with colour codes ranging from red to purple.
However, there are conflicting reports about whether Ofsted has settled on colour coding the system.
Single-phrase overall effectiveness grades were scrapped with immediate effect by the new government at the start of term.
This academic year, schools are receiving ratings from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’ in four to six existing sub-grades including quality of education and leadership and management.
10 grades for schools
The proposals from Ofsted would mean schools would receive 10 grades for their provision, which is likely to cause serious concerns among unions that have fought hard for the existing grading system to go.
Leaders have already raised concerns about Ofsted leading on the report cards design and the pace of their development. A formal consultation is due to be launched in January.
According to the slide published by the Financial Times, Ofsted wants report cards “to provide more nuance by inspecting each of the proposed evaluation areas against the proposed evaluation scale so that leaders and parents can understand the areas of strength and areas of development in the provision”.
An example text box, supposedly written by a parent, states (with their emphasis): “At my child’s school, the curriculum is strong, and teaching is secure. They offer an exemplary programme around the arts, music and sport but attention is needed around attendance.”
The slide also said Ofsted was “under a legal duty to report to DfE those schools it considers to be in a category of concern (designating schools as either ‘requires significant improvement’ or ‘special measures’).
“It is then a matter for DfE (as the regulator) to decide what action to take and how this aligns with DfE’s wider regulatory approach.”
Ofsted said it does not comment on leaks.
Union leader ‘worried’ about ‘direction of travel’
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the ASCL leaders’ union, said changes to inspections were “obviously a work in progress, but “it is fair to say that we are concerned about the apparent direction of travel which seems to us to be over-complicated.
He said the DfE and Ofsted “must take the appropriate time necessary to bring the profession and parents with them so that any changes can be communicated and considered before landing in schools and colleges”.
“While we cannot divulge the discussions taking place we are worried about what the DfE and Ofsted appear to have in mind.
“It feels as though they are engaged in a headlong rush to devise a new system against a very tight timetable in order to have it up and running by next September. We’d support them if they wanted to take longer as it is vital to get this right.”
A spokesperson for the NAHT said: “It is unfortunate that these matters are being openly debated in the press. The proposals have not been finalised, and we have no further comment.”
The proposal for separate judgments – including on attendance and teaching – was first revealed by The Telegraph last month.
An Ofsted source said the standalone focus on teaching would look at how well teachers are supported, and would not mean a return to inspectors doing lesson observations.
