In a comprehensive report, the Education Committee calls for significant changes, including revising single-word judgements, re-evaluating academisation policies, addressing workload concerns, and enhancing transparency in Ofsted’s procedures
The report reflects that whilst there is widespread agreement on the importance of an accountability system and the role of an independent inspectorate, there are concerns around stress and anxiety experienced by school staff due to the high-stakes nature of Ofsted’s inspections. The report highlights the policy of compulsory academy orders, criticisms of how inspections are carried out and reported, the workload they generate, and the complaints system.
A summary of the report’s main findings and recommendations follows.
Single-word judgements
The Committee heard a great degree of concern about single-word judgements, including that they can be seen as reductive or simplistic. It recommends that the Department for Education (DfE) and Ofsted should, as a priority, develop an alternative to the single-word judgements that better captures the complex nature of a school’s performance, and ensure that these changes interact effectively with Department policies. In doing so they should examine alternative systems used inside and outside of the UK.
Whilst there is recognition that the current regulatory system requires clear thresholds for intervention, as a first step the Committee recommends that Ofsted and DfE’s websites should always show the full list of judgements, not just the overall judgement, and encourage schools to do the same on their websites and published materials.
Academisation following ‘requires improvement’
In conjunction with its recommendation on single-word judgements, MPs say DfE should assess its policy of maintained (council-run) schools which receive two ‘requires improvement’ judgements being required to become academies in the majority of cases. Witnesses said this raises the stakes for headteachers who then fear losing their job.
As a first step, DfE should ensure its regional directors, who decide academisation orders, genuinely take into account the views of local stakeholders when taking a decision. DfE should also publish guidance setting out in more detail the criteria for academy orders.
Support for school leaders
The Committee also calls on DfE and Ofsted to review the support mechanisms available to school leaders during and following an inspection, and ensure these are as strong as possible. Ofsted must publish a clear policy, and train inspectors, on their approach to dealing with distress among school leaders during an inspection, and in what cases inspections can and should be paused or deferred.
‘Inadequate’ judgements based on safeguarding
If problems are found in a school’s safeguarding practices, current policy makes it “likely” that an overall ‘inadequate’ judgement will follow. This can even apply in cases where those problems can be fixed within the two-month window before an inspection report is published.
Ofsted should review this policy and ensure schools only receive ‘inadequate’ judgements where they are fundamentally failing to keep children safe. In cases where safeguarding problems can easily be resolved, DfE should not issue an academy order until after the school has been reinspected. Whilst some welcome steps have been set out in Ofsted’s initial responses to the coroner’s report, the Committee heard widespread support for looking at alternative approaches to safeguarding.
The Committee concludes that DfE should consult on a new approach where routine elements of safeguarding are removed from general inspections and could instead become the subject of more frequent safeguarding audits, either by an independent body or local authorities. Ofsted’s focus should be on how well schools respond to serious safeguarding issues and how effectively children are protected in practice.
Workload pressures
Evidence from school staff regarding workload said the need to be prepared for Ofsted inspections can feel “crushing” and “relentless”. Witnesses said the current inspection framework also places ongoing stress on schools due to the breadth of issues it includes and its emphasis on subject ‘deep dives’, which is particularly difficult for small primary schools where teachers teach across subjects.
Ofsted should review the implementation of the new framework, in particular looking at the impact it has had on primary schools, special schools and small schools. It must also undertake a programme of research to fully understand the causes of inspection-related workload pressure and assess what changes could genuinely help reduce this. The Committee also makes recommendations on reviewing notice periods, particularly for smaller schools.
Ofsted ‘marking its own homework’
MPs heard strong criticism of Ofsted’s complaints procedures, some suggesting Ofsted was “marking its own homework”. There was frustration that attempts to appeal against judgements were limited by Ofsted’s policy of not sharing the evidence base it collects during inspection. The Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted was criticised for only being able to look at how the inspectorate has handled a complaint, rather than managing the complaint itself.
The report recommends that Ofsted should conduct an in-depth review of the complaints process; explore setting up an independent body with powers to investigate judgements through scrutiny of the evidence base; and allow schools access to the evidence used to reach a judgement, with redactions made where required.
The Committee recommends that in its annual report and accounts, Ofsted should publish more data on complaints and set out improvements made from learning from complaints.
Inspectors’ behaviour and expertise
MPs heard some sharp criticism of the way school inspections are carried out. Lord Knight told the Committee the process could resemble “a sort of sausage machine”; inspections were often rushed and sometimes carried out by inspectors who lacked experience of the type of school they were visiting. Former inspectors referred to the shortness of inspections leading to a “sampling” approach and a lack of opportunity to engage with teachers. However, Ofsted’s post-inspection surveys found that 96% of respondents felt that inspectors behaved in a professional manner.
The report recommends that Ofsted should ensure, as a minimum, that a lead inspector has expertise in the type of school they are inspecting, e.g. a primary school or special school. The majority of inspectors visiting a school should also have relevant experience of said school type. After hearing concerns about high turnover of experienced inspectors, Ofsted should commission an independent assessment of the factors affecting retention and take appropriate steps to address the issue. The Committee also recommends that Ofsted publish more of its training materials for inspectors and improve transparency of data on inspections.
Call for more in-depth inspections and MAT inspection powers
MPs heard broad agreement that inspections are not long enough to give an accurate picture of a school’s performance. The Committee says that, where possible, inspections should be more in-depth and take longer. Acknowledging constraints on Ofsted’s resources, inspections could happen less frequently as an interim measure, taking place every five to six years for ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schools, and three to four years for schools judged ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’. This should be supported by better use of risk assessment to identify schools in most need of inspection.
The Committee concludes that DfE must authorise Ofsted to develop a framework for the inspection of MATs as a matter of urgency and set out a plan for building the appropriate expertise and capacity in this area.
Disadvantage not sufficiently taken into account
Ofsted must ensure that inspectors fully take account of factors such as a school’s size, the number of its pupils with SEND, recruitment and retention challenges, and, as a key measure, progress for pupils in receipt of Pupil Premium. This should be clearly set out in inspection reports.
Regular scrutiny of Ofsted
In the year ahead, the Committee will seek regular updates from Ofsted on how it is responding to the seven areas of concern set out in the coroner’s regulation 28 report regarding the death of Ruth Perry. We expect HMCI to report to this Committee on a six-monthly basis on progress in addressing these significant concerns, and this report’s recommendations.
Be the first to comment