School leaders have expressed significant relief at Ofsted’s announcement of the removal of single-grade judgments. The hope is that this will alleviate some of the pressures associated with Ofsted inspections, allowing them to better fulfill their intended purpose of fostering improvement. But will it?
This change has been anticipated for some time, amid growing criticism regarding the adverse effects of these judgments. The tragic death of Ruth Perry underscored the distress caused by the inspection regime.
However, to assess whether this change will achieve its intended goals, it is worth reflecting on why the single-grade judgment became so problematic in the first place.
Ofsted-like agencies exist in many countries. They play a crucial role in monitoring school quality and supporting improvement efforts. While many of these agencies also grade schools, they do so without the significant controversy observed in England.
In a recent literature review, I examined the effects of school inspection grades across nine countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, my findings indicate that grading school quality leads to undesirable outcomes when a failing grade carries high stakes.
In other words, it is not the single grade itself that causes adverse outcomes, but rather how it is utilised and the pressure it creates for rapid change and strong inspection performance.
Research shows that the stakes associated with these grades are particularly high in England compared to other countries. This becomes evident when examining the written evidence submitted by the Department of Education in the 2023 inquiry into Ofsted.
This document reveals that the DfE has 17 programmes of work built around Ofsted grades. For example, schools need a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ grade to qualify as maths, science, or attendance hubs, and headteachers can only become national leaders of education if their school has improved by at least one grade in their most recent inspection.
Too many stakeholders use Ofsted judgments for their decision-making
Ofsted grades are also high stakes because parents rely on them for school choice, job-seeking teachers prioritise ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools, and school leaders often face dismissal following a failing inspection.
In short, too many stakeholders use Ofsted judgments for their decision-making.
It’s easy to see why. Numerous studies explain why quantitative measures like those issued by Ofsted wield significant power and tend to be viewed as more legitimate than qualitative information.
In essence, reducing school effectiveness to a four-point scale is straightforward and powerful: simplifying complex information and conveying accuracy and validity. It also provides a sense of control, which is often welcome when dealing with complex issues like improving student wellbeing and learning outcomes.
The result, however, is that Ofsted’s focus on quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management ostensibly mean these are considered important, to the exclusion of all else.
Yet school quality is multifaceted. Measuring it effectively requires attention to local practices and the collection of information on approaches worth sharing across different contexts. To genuinely improve school quality, inspections must yield more nuanced information and support more informed decision-making.
It is presumably with this in mind that the new government is planning to introduce its new report card system from September 2025. It aims to provide a more comprehensive assessment of school performance and enhance the effectiveness of inspections in driving improvement.
However, these report cards will still categorise schools based on a set of standards, essentially continuing the practice of comparing schools against standardised measures, albeit a broader set. This risks producing similarly reductionist outcomes.
What we truly need is a more nuanced perspective on what constitutes school quality. The challenge lies in providing more refined insights into each school’s strengths and areas for development, enabling parents, school staff, and policymakers to use inspection information for its intended purposes.
This is no easy task, and would constitute a departure from current practices which would undoubtedly complicate decision-making. Nevertheless, we must recognise that simplifying something as complex as education does not make it any less complex.
Ultimately, inspections can only lead to improved outcomes if we embrace a more comprehensive and open discussion about school quality. That starts with thinking about who is using the information and, crucially, to what end.
Professor Melanie Ehren is a member of Ofsted’s new reference group for education
