Let me be clear on Ofsted inspections. I am not naïve to believe that all State provision for children and young people is functioning as well as we would all expect. The reasons for this are many but there are very few professionals who go to work wanting to be ineffective. Those who are ineffective need support and then if this fails need to consider their position and move out. Thankfully, the number of colleagues in this position is relatively few. The role Ofsted has played in improving provision in England has been significant.

I recall my first inspection in 1995 being a mystery in terms of what priorities the inspection framework was pursuing, and I was grateful to be leading an amazing group of teachers who were totally committed to the pupils. I was offered a year’s secondment with the inspectorate shortly after and was mentored by a future Chief Inspector who many would argue was a firm but fair colleague. She taught me so much about effective inspection practice and was not shy in telling me straight. During that secondment I saw some amazing practice but also some deeply concerning ones. Over the years inspection has strongly challenged the ineffective elements of the sector, and I see much higher quality now. It isn’t all perfect, but it is much better.

The most significant change that has happened since 1995 is the way inspection has gradually been assimilated into the national accountability Framework. In fact, looking at the current inspection proposals and the planned Report Cards published by Ofsted recently it appears that the inspectorate sees itself as the accountability Framework. This is a deeply worrying situation because, if not handled delicately it can have devastating negative effect on the decisions made by senior leaders, governors and trustees and can recreate the toxicity and overwhelming sense of dread for senior leaders in our schools. The death of Ruth Perry, the Headteacher at Caversham Primary School who took her own life, was a seminal moment in my attitude towards inspection and Ofsted in general. I had seen first-hand weak inspection practice and had challenged it but for those senior leaders who are not as well rooted in how inspection should be managed and have felt professionally isolated and ignored following a poorly led and managed inspection it was for me the lowest point, so far, in the history of school inspection.

It would be wrong to assume that the reasons for Ruth’s death were an isolated incident. As a rather vocal opponent of some of Ofsted’s work I have been approached by many senior leaders, trustees and governors seeking support following, what they believed to be an unfair inspection. We know that these events have caused significant mental anguish with some colleagues speaking openly about the end of their careers and the devastating effect judgements will have on them, their families and the wider community.

These are the factors that have encouraged me to comment on each of the main points highlighted by Ofsted as they herald a sea change in the way Ofsted inspects. I should add that there is not much material change to the way inspections were carried out at the time of Ruth’s death and what is being proposed. I don’t want to state this, but I need to, their will continue to be toxicity and significant risk to some senior leaders caused by what Ofsted is proposing. A colleague from a suicide prevention organisation told me recently that suicide should not be a bi-product of inspection, it can be undertaken safely.

So, let’s get stuck in.

The new inspection report card

I thought this was going to bring together all of the evidence available to government, including Ofsted and present it in such a way that it was more accessible to parents and carers. Anyone who has bounced around the government portal to extract information on a trust or school will no doubt be disappointed. The government will make this happen with the School Profile sometime next year. In effect the much-lauded Report Card is just the extraction of the judgements, nicely (or not) colour coded, if you like that sort of thing, along with the limited contextual information that used to sit within the inspection report. That’s all folks!

A new 5-point grading scale and the Toolkit

It is important to connect the grading with the areas that will be graded. Increasing the number of grades increases the possible challenge inspectors face when they are asked to judge and then have to convince the provider that the grade is correct. The new Toolkit (what are in effect, grade descriptors), do not really help because they are pretty broad in nature. They were problematic when there were four but by increasing them Ofsted has created more potential for challenge both within teams and with the provider.

I’ve reviewed the Toolkit and it is clear to me that the differences in the grade descriptions between the two lowest grades appear pretty fine, to say the least. Ofsted appears to view more areas for grading as an asset but it is the Achilles heel in the way inspection is conducted and will probably lead to more challenge after the onsite inspection element has been completed. A former colleague I deeply respect told me today ‘it takes a particular sort of genius to respond to criticism of unreliable judgments by having more judgements.

I’m not sure it is necessary to have an “Exceptional’ grade, but the intention is similar to the approach we took in 2005 when the small group of HMI responsible for Framework Development introduced the ‘outstanding’ grade. This was meant to be provision you would travel 50 or so miles to observe. That didn’t work because so many schools had an expectation that they would be awarded the highest grade.

A new ‘inclusion’ evaluation area

I understand what Ofsted is trying to do by focusing more on particular groups of pupils, but their attention appears far too narrow. In trying to be clear what groups they are predominantly want inspectors to give attention to they are by default missing out a host of other groups and individuals that should be part of any school’s evaluation of effectiveness. I have experienced an unwillingness of a family member to attend school due largely to the austere behaviour policy rigorously and un-mercilessly pursued. For me, at the moment, this is a major reason why the school is not effective in its approach to inclusion. There are countless other incidences and aspects that cover inclusion. It seems at least a decade since the outcomes for Gypsy Roma pupils were a national concern. I wonder why?

I’m intrigued by the suggested start and end time for each school day for inspectors. There are some pretty big assumptions that inspectors with more grades and more aspects to inspect will have more time to gather secure evidence and undertake evaluations than they did before. It was always considered poor practice to keep a Headteacher or his governing body waiting. This approach ensured that a high level of respect was being afforded. Time will tell whether the ‘suggested’ end of the day timings are adhered to.

Evaluation of providers’ work to support and promote leader and staff well-being. This will be considered as part of the leadership and governance evaluation area.

This is important and remains a major concern. I find it rather hypocritical for Ofsted to inspect these areas when it is clear their own house is far from right. Within the various publications issued with details of the new Framework is an independent report on the wellbeing impact assessment of the revised Ofsted Framework undertaken by Sinéad Mc Brearty, CEO, Education Support. It includes the following recommendations

• Explore and implement changes to reduce the isolation and individual responsibility felt by headteachers and principals.
• Invest significantly in the wellbeing and professional development of the HMI workforce. Specifically, this means addressing the workload of HMIs in a meaningful way and ensuring that they have access to high quality professional learning and peer support. It also requires investment in consistent line management, performance management and support practices across all regions.
• Introduce an unequivocal mechanism for independence in the complaints process.
• Develop a clear protocol for responding to individuals in acute distress or at risk of suicide.
• Monitor the unintended consequences of the revised framework highlighted in this report and take action to address issues arising quickly

Interestingly, a further recommendation stated Ofsted needed to

• Develop a plan to address the particularly low level of trust in Ofsted among primary schools. There are a lot of primary schools. Ofsted cannot afford to be trusted by so small a proportion of that leadership community.

I would add further that small schools will continue to feel underappreciated. It is often impossible to provide a senior colleague to speak with an inspector between 9.30am and 10am and the role of a nominee just adds to the sense of bewilderment small leaders and their governors/trustees will feel.

The report goes on to state,

‘What is clear, however, is that the available evidence indicates that the overall wellbeing of the education workforce is materially below the general population: in particular, the relatively high levels of stress, burnout, anxiety, depression and loneliness noted in section two, part one. All else being equal, this adds to the vulnerability faced by people working in schools and colleges. There is a wide variety of events that cause significant acute stress in the working life of an educator. A challenging inspection experience is undoubtedly one such event.”

It is well worth reading the report in full. It doesn’t make clear that Ofsted has made substantial improvement since Dame Christine Gilbert’s damning Learning Review published in summer 2024.

Contextual understanding

I am intrigued by the assertion that Ofsted’s inspection findings will ‘be grounded in a clear understanding of each provider’s unique circumstances. The documentation does not place an expectation that the Headteacher shares a formal evaluation of recent progress, which is an essential element for keeping governors and trustees informed of progress. It emphasises the rather narrow group of pupils that the framework is focusing in on in terms of inclusion and it doesn’t give much time for the explanation of any particular contextual challenges and concerns the school may have.

It is helpful for inspectors to have access to a wider range of information about the school in terms of inspected services locally. This isn’t quite as dramatic as it seems because it is largely Ofsted signalling to inspector’s services they have inspected. It is a shame the role of the Local Managing Inspector, where a particular HMI has oversight of a particular local authority has not been reinstated. It would ensure a clear view of the quality of local services but also allow consideration to be given to targeting inspections where they are most likely to have a positive impact. This would assist in the monitoring of weaker schools and enable some early intervention when inspections appear to be going awry.

More training for HMI and greater responsibility for them to manage inspections

Yes, yes, yes. This is welcome because it was obvious in 2005 that there was a risk that they would become ‘jobbing inspectors’ and lose their strategic importance. I’ve written before on the difference between induction for HMI in 2025 and what it was like in 2001. We need to get back the role’s pre-eminence in the education eco-system.

Increasing the inspection tariff and the role of the nominee

It is helpful that Ofsted has begun to realise that inspector time is crucial for gathering, evaluating and making judgements. By adding an extra inspector, it will help the role of the Lead Inspector but it will need careful monitoring and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in small schools. They were poorly treated in the previous Framework and the role of the nominee suggests to me that not all of the lessons have been learned. The arrangements for initial contact with schools assumes senior managers will be available and this also goes for the role of nominee. I urge Ofsted to test these arrangements out fully in very small schools and take stock of what they are learning.

Let’s get back to where all of this started

The need for a sea change in Ofsted’s approach to inspection came to the fore when the coroner indicated clearly that Ofsted was a key factor in Ruth Perry taking her own life. Do I think they have been radical enough? No! Are there better alternatives? Yes! What supports my view are the comments made by Sinéad Mc Brearty in her deeply worrying report on wellbeing. Just to remind you of the salient comment from a former HMI

‘It takes a particular sort of genius to respond to criticism of unreliable judgments by having more judgements’

And finally

As someone who in an earlier role was responsible for Framework development at Ofsted, I have always been interested in how inspection is carried out elsewhere. A colleague, Adrian Gray, was responsible for those engagements in Ofsted so I used to look on as he hosted a series of delegations from overseas. Nonetheless, there were occasions when he wasn’t available, and I would step in. Adrian’s interest in the history of inspection led to him writing an amazing book called ‘European School inspection and evaluation: History and Principles’. It’s not a bedside read but it outlines how other countries have grappled with inspection and how they have undertaken significant reform. He posted this yesterday,

‘One obvious conclusion – especially today as Ofsted publish their new framework – is that there really are CHOICES about how inspection is done. It varies greatly from one country to another as people make choices based on local conditions and priorities. It is also clear that inspection is now deeply embedded in many countries, in fact an increasing number, and it is not going away – although it should always be open to improvement.’

When Prof Colin Richards and I established the Alternative Big Listen and the Alternative Big Consultation we did not have a particular way of improving inspection methodology. We were governed by what respondents to our surveys told us. Earlier this year we pulled these issues together and called it ‘Let’s Imagine’ (with thanks to John Lennon). We have slightly amended this in the light of Ofsted’s recent announcements, but I think it’s worth reflecting on how many respondents wanted to see the future of inspection. It provides a clear indication of the gap that exists between Ofsted’s way forward and those who provide the service.

LET’S IMAGINE (with thanks to John Lennon)

It is excellent news that Dame Christine Gilbert is to be the new chair of the Ofsted board. At long last, with her appointment, the government is recognising the need to tackle the profession’s lack of confidence in, and respect for, Ofsted.

The future of school inspection in England remains in the balance, as never before.
The recently published findings of The Alternative Big Consultation gave an opportunity for respondents to indicate how they wanted to see inspection in the future and allows us to imagine what inspection could look like if a radical approach was adopted.

So, let’s imagine the possibility of a very different inspection scenario introduced later in 2026 after in-depth discussion with school leaders, teachers and parents. This could include some or all of the following characteristics:

The culture of inspection is sustained by the deployment of highly experienced inspectors with a more collaborative and far less confrontational approach.

Trust in inspection and increased confidence in this new approach are built up gradually, so a slow introduction to any changes.

Headteachers and Education Advisers are trained and accredited in offering peer group support for schools and are deployed in pairs to support a school’s self evaluation. Schools are responsible for sharing their self-evaluations on their websites and identifying the peer reviewers.

HM Inspectors quality assures the work of peer-group evaluations and use the evidence to indicate whether a school should be inspected by HMI either because it is struggling or because it has pockets of noteworthy practice that need sharing more widely.

Any follow-up visits are a kind of educational ‘health check’ which includes the schools’ self-evaluations and peer group reviews. These follow-up visits would be rare.

Inspectors visit classes and engage in dialogue with pupils, teachers and school leaders.

No grades are given but expert opinions are offered. Inspectors use their own evaluative terms to fit what they see.

An overall judgment is offered on whether the school is providing an acceptable quality of education

Brief letters are sent afterwards setting out inspectors’ impressions of schools and
inviting schools’ reactions. Both are published on the schools’ and Ofsted’s websites.

Full inspections with highly detailed reports and with a minimum of grading are undertaken only where significant shortcomings are identified during ‘health checks’ or through other channels.

Lengthy and thorough periods of induction and ongoing CPD are provided for all HM inspectors.

Bi-annual safeguarding checks are undertaken and operated by an independent body which reports its findings to schools and to Ofsted.

The Education Select Committee and the Secretary of State are jointly responsible for appointing His Majesty’s Chief Inspector, with neither having a veto.

The re-configured Ofsted inspects all educational contexts but not social services which has its own inspectorate.

An independent complaint process is created drawing on experienced former HMI who undertake a review of evidence and engage with those who are complaining and those who inspected the settings.

Ofsted’s governance and procedures are reviewed on a regular five-year basis.
It is renamed the National School Inspection Service or even HM School Inspection Service.

“Imagine all those features”.

That might be difficult at first given the lack of confidence in, and respect for, Ofsted currently; the adversarial, fearful culture it fosters; the out-dated inspection model it perpetuates; and its knock-on effects on staff morale, mental health and the wider issues of retention and recruitment especially for leaders of early years settings, schools and colleges. It would begin to address some of the serious concerns raised by the coroner, that remain unresolved following the death of Ruth Perry. It would be a safer environment for school leaders and school inspectors but would still retain a high level of rigour.

The appointment of a new chair of the Ofsted board is a good start, but we need a delay before the development and introduction of a new inspection framework shows it really isn’t “so hard to do”?