Ofsted has won a legal battle with a school it rated ‘inadequate’, with a judge declaring the High Court is “not a proper forum for policy disagreements” about the inspectorate.
All Saints Academy Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, took legal action over Ofsted’s alleged refusal to provide sufficient evidence, explanations or reasons for the report published in July last year.
The school launched the judicial review after it was inspected twice, due to issues with the evidence base the first time, and inspectors came to different conclusions.
But in a judgment handed down this morning, Mr Justice Cavanagh ruled: “The school was provided with sufficient reasons, explanation or evidence to enable it fairly to contest the findings the defendants proposed to make in the final version of the report.”
He said “it would be an impossible job to require the inspectors to provide all the sources of information which fed into a particular judgment”.
Responding to the verdict, Ofsted said it was always confident its inspection process was “procedurally fair”.
All Saints said it was “disappointed” but that it tried to establish how two teams of inspectors arrived “at seemingly different conclusions, whilst following the same framework”.
Process caused ‘inevitable upset’ to school
A two-day inspection of the school in November 2022 failed Ofsted’s quality assurance and moderation processes, prompting a “gathering additional evidence” visit in January 2023.
During the first visit, Ofsted indicated the provisional gradings would be ‘good’ for quality of education, sixth form, personal development and leadership and management; but ‘requires improvement’ for behaviour and attitudes, and RI overall.
But in the final report, the school was rated ‘inadequate’ overall after being given the lowest grade for leadership and management and behaviour and attitudes.
The second visit was triggered by concerns the provisional judgments did “not appear to correlate with the experience of staff, pupils and parents”, the judge said.
The second team of inspectors was “selected for their experience and reputations for fairness, objectivity and integrity… because Ofsted recognised the delicacy of the situation”, he added.
The judge noted the “inevitable upset caused by an adverse Ofsted report was inevitably exacerbated because the feedback at the end of the first inspection was significantly more positive than at the end of the second inspection and the final report”.
But he said this does not mean Ofsted “were under any obligation, as a matter of procedural fairness, to provide the school with a detailed comparison between the provisional judgments of the first inspection team and the draft conclusions of the second team”.
In July 2023, All Saints failed to obtain an injunction to stop Ofsted publishing the report while it pursued legal action
‘Not a challenge to systemic fairness of Ofsted inspections’
In April, barrister Paul Greatorex, for the school, said Ofsted reports changed lives and “trigger statutory power to have schools taken over, closed down”.
They can also cause people to “lose their jobs” and “in the tragic case of Ruth Perry, their lives”, accusing the inspectorate of “losing its way”.
But Cavanagh today stressed proceedings were “not concerned with a challenge to systematic unfairness in Ofsted inspections”.
“This court is not a proper forum for policy disagreements about the way in which Ofsted functions,” he added.
In April, Greatorex claimed Ofsted reports only provided an “executive summary” and “it might be immensely helpful for the school to have more detail”. But Toby Fisher, for Ofsted, accused him of “inviting the court to stray into a policy or political argument”.
Fisher argued: “The draft report alone was sufficient to enable cogent representation on the adverse findings and judgments.”
Cavanagh concluded the school’s argument amounted to a “root-and-branch challenge to Ofsted’s practices, rather than a challenge to the reasons given in this particular inspection”.
He rejected the submission and said there is nothing in the statutory framework which required a more detailed report format.
‘Unavoidable degree of subjectivity involved’
The judge also said there was a “practical limit to the time and resources that can be allocated to any one inspection”.
He warned that if schools that receive adverse feedback are allowed to make lengthy, detailed submissions before a report is finalised, and if inspectors are required to provide the full evidence base pre-publication, “the whole system will grind to a halt”.
But there is “nothing to stop” a school communicating to parents and pupils its criticisms of an Ofsted report, he added.
Another criticism levelled by the school was that the draft report contained “subjective” judgments which are hard to quantify.
But the judge said this is “an inevitable consequence of the inspection process, and does not invalidate it”, stressing that inspectors were experienced professionals
“There is an unavoidable degree of subjectivity involved. The conclusions cannot be reduced to independently verifiable and objective criteria.”
A spokesperson for the school said: “To be given permission for a judicial review is a rare event and we are proud of the challenge we have levelled at Ofsted.”
It comes after Thomas Telford School, in Shropshire, also lost a High Court showdown with Ofsted in April.
