My last day working for Ofsted was early September 2012. It coincided with the start of what became known as ‘Wilshaw’s Framework. It was a Framework I had led the team in developing, trialling (a little), creating training materials and managing the plethora of departmental and political challenges associated with this sort of work. In my time I had either led or been a senior team member in the creation or revision to six inspection frameworks across a number of remits. So, I am always interested in any new Ofsted framework.

I appreciate the challenges this sort of work involves especially when you have a relatively new Government and HMCI. I never felt either the DfE or most Chief Inspectors really understood the demands of leading on this sort of work. But in addition to the ‘usual challenges’ there are the issues that arose from the tragic death of Ruth Perry at Caversham Primary School. These include the highly critical Coroner’s Report which was damning of Ofsted’s response at the time of the inspection and afterwards, the illuminating and worrying Learning Review about Ofsted’s culture conducted by Dame Christine Gilbert and the findings of Ofsted’s own Big Listen. If ever there was a time to get across a change of direction and approach, this was it.

I was tempted to get stuck into the proposed new inspection Framework when it was launched at the beginning of February but decided to let others share their thoughts and observations. Today (17 February) I devoted time to reviewing what is being proposed and considering some of the central issues that came to mind. My initial thoughts are that the critics of the proposals have been given quite a lot to attack Ofsted with.

Despite the Chief Inspector offering soothing words in the lead up to the launch where he suggested he wanted to see a more compassionate, understanding and reflective Ofsted, it is unclear how this is going to be delivered through the proposals. There is sadly little change in the inspection process and where it is being proposed (the addition of more judgement areas, grades and criteria) it is likely to lead to more challenge, less confidence in the process and more of a sense that Ofsted is there to try and catch schools out.

Tone of voice and culture

Anyone who has read the Regulation 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS produced by the Coroner towards the end of 2023, nearly year after Ruth died, will appreciate the scale of the challenge for Ofsted. The report indicated that the inspection process lacked fairness, respect and sensitivity. This is why many expected to see a different approach to inspection, a change in the tone used and a willingness to truly engage with parents, carers, and education professions to find a better way of inspecting provision and outcomes.

This is why I was attuned to the tone of the messaging used by Ofsted. It needed to be humble, reflective, contrite and provide a sense that a new leaf had been turned. I was sadly not surprised by the tone of the words used in the videos and in the paperwork. Yes, there was ‘we (Ofsted) needed to reset our relationship with the professions we inspect, reform our systems to be more consistent, and rebuild trust in the way we carry out inspections’ but they landed weakly with me. I wanted to see a new energy, a new approach to working more effectively and in a less confrontational way with those they inspect, a push for better inspection with a more reliable and skilled workforce. But, as I read through all I could gather is more of the same, with some reassuring words that the new Ofsted Academy is going to make all the difference. Really? Those of us long in tooth as HMI know that inspection skills take a while to develop, and no online training package is ever going to address the training needs of those who are not fit to inspect. There remain many excellent inspectors but far too many have left inspection. It is an indictment of the culture within Ofsted that on average HMI now stay for just 2.6 years in their role. A serious inspection organisation needs to look very carefully at how it is retaining experienced staff. This level of rotation is saying quite a lot about the job, the way staff are treated and the confidence they have in their ability to ‘do good as they go’.

Realistic timeline?

I am pleased to hear HMCI explain that the consultation is a start of the process of framework reform, but I believe it is naïve to suggest significant adaptation can take place when nudged up against an existing very challenging timeline and the delivery of existing inspection targets. HMCI stated in November 2024 that he did not agree with those of us who had been critical of the speed of the implementation which was initially planned for September 2025. It is probably right to delay until November 2024, but I would encourage further reflection if the consultation does result in more significant adaptation being needed. This is a time for Ofsted to recreate itself and show that it is more contrite, less confident and listening more. Currently, the proposals are too close to existing arrangements and the grade descriptors (I can’t bring myself to call them by their rebranded name of ‘Toolkit”) are confusing, lack clarity and open to far too much interpretation.

Increasing the number of grades and the Toolkits

Ofsted is proposing increasing the number of grades that can be awarded for each of the 11 areas covered by the new framework from four to five. These grades are awarded on the basis of professional judgement so you would hope there would be clarity in the Toolkits where criteria are offered to help inspectors (and schools) to judge their performance. Schools Week recently asked a number of professionals and inspectors to decide on the grade to be awarded simply by sharing the grade descriptor. Very few got the grade correct and it is easy to see why. Is it possible to reliably distinguish between school leaders who have “an accurate understanding of a school’s context, strengths and weaknesses” that “informs the actions they take” and those whose “astute understanding … informs and underpins their evolving response to priorities”. It doesn’t matter how much training you put on for inspectors it is pretty clear that increasing the grades available to be awarded is going to make the judgement making process more of a lottery and will inevitably lead to more challenges, more tension between the school and the inspection team and ultimately more complaints. Oh, by the way the new proposals say nothing about improving the complaint process. Ofsted clearly feel they have gone far enough down that road.

I welcome the focus on leadership in the new Framework. This is prioritised in each section and there is clarity on what to expect. What is less clear is the theme of inclusion. Too often this sits as a standard wording without the clarity to support what that actually means in each judgement area. Ofsted has used an external reference group to support its working definition of inclusion but what it has some up with is largely leadership and provision based. I was chatting to a former HMI and he stated that ‘inclusion is not about a vague general culture (I suspect the framework encourages this) but is tested by the experience, support and provision for all the students and those with similar characteristics whether SEN or race/ethnicity etc. something inspectors will be unable to delve into due to lack of access to data unless the school provides it.’ As it stands the inclusion section gives too little attention to the outcomes; if it had it would realise it may be creating some significant challenges for some schools that need further support rather than more negative judgements alone.

Has anyone modelled the likely outcomes of the Toolkits?

When developing a new Framework it is important to be mindful of the political consequences of what it being developed. Clearly, the Framework needs to be challenging but realistic and it also needs to embrace any shift in national education policy. For example, the Every Child Matters agenda became an important element of the 2005 Framework. The focus on disadvantaged and SEND pupils is useful in this framework but within the toolkit sit some standards that are unlikely to be met by many and could lead to swathes of schools being judged as requiring support and further intervention. A good example is contained within the Achievement section where the difference between the descriptors for the two lowest grades is the word ‘far’. That word is carrying an awful lot of weight when it comes to considering which grade to award. Has anyone sat down to consider the likely impact on the national profile for schools? I know we need to raise the bar but it is best to ensure what is being asked is realistic and achievable and won’t lead to the identification of schools without a mechanism to further support them. So, supply and demand needs to be considered against the bigger political impact.

Accuracy of inspection grades

Creating an additional grade for inspectors and schools to ponder over is in itself a challenge but the creation of additional grade boundaries increases the level of uncertainty over whether the grade awarded is correct or not. As I showed earlier the difference between grades appears to be very fine and any experienced and able inspector will tell you this causes some of the most stressful elements of their work. The grade descriptors for safeguarding are however somewhat different in that they are explained through being ‘met’ or ‘unmet’. So, for example, it is pretty clear to me that unmet is as clear as day here:

‘There is a closed culture. Leaders are not open to challenge and/or do not learn from issues or incidents.’ and ‘Pupils have little confidence that the school will tackle concerns about safety, including risk of abuse, because leaders have not taken their views seriously and/or dealt with relevant concerns.’

While met has a certain clarity.

‘Leaders and/or those responsible for governance have established a culture in which safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility and pupils are kept safe and feel safe’ and ‘All staff are vigilant and carry out their responsibilities effectively in keeping pupils safe. Leaders, staff and those responsible for governance are receptive to challenge and are reflective about their own practices. This means that the impact of safeguarding policies, systems and processes is kept under continual review.’

The certainty is what is lacking in many of the other descriptors. It begs the question as to why have five grades when two will do? Surely, parents, carers, the government, school communities want to know that the grades awarded are reliable? Is it helpful to have schools challenging the process and spending time question and complaining about the grades awarded?

Now some will argue that it is unfair for schools that are doing an amazing job to not be awarded the highest grades. But, it is possible, and in my opinion preferable, for inspectors to be given more freedom to describe the quality of the provision and the outcomes they observed during their inspections. For too long, reports have become inane, bland and don’t convey the challenges, context and circumstances the school finds itself in.

The knock-on effect on Report Cards

Is the tail wagging the dog? If a Report Card system is established that covers 11 areas of a setting or institution it shouldn’t mean that Ofsted needs to inspect all of those areas. It could be argued that all of this is fine when the Report Cards are established and there is no time lapse between the Ofsted inspection findings and the data contained within the Report Card. It is easy to see how a lack of alignment could develop where perhaps the Ofsted text that will sit within the Report Cards might not explain the sudden rise in Permanent Exclusions or an increase in attendance rates.

In my opinion it was a mistake to invite Ofsted to develop Report Cards. It seems to me as though they are proposing delivering a Framework that meets the needs of the Report Card rather than just ensuring that inspection findings are secure, robust and gain the confidence of those who need that information and those who are working to improve them.

Changes in inspection methodology?

Ofsted ‘We want to change both how inspection looks and how it feels. This is especially important at the point of professional interaction and conversation between inspectors and leaders. To do this, we will instil our core values of professionalism, courtesy, empathy, and respect.’ There is nothing new here. These have been Ofsted values and principles for inspectors for many years. It has too often failed to deliver against these ambitions. There is little change in the way inspection will be conducted. Yes, the deep dives have gone but they are being replaced with a Framework that will require evidence for eleven areas rather than four. Don’t get the impression inspectors will be able to engage more cos they will still be busy gathering the evidence to make judgements stick. I smiled when I read the section that suggested inspectors would move on to consider higher grades once secure had been established! This is what inspectors do all of the time and I found it patronising to both me as an experienced former inspector and to those who are being inspected. Once again Ofsted manages to get the tone wrong by trying to make it look as though things were going to change for the better when they are just explaining what current goes on.

The current draft Framework doesn’t suggest there will be any change to the day of the week a school will be notified of an inspection. The recently introduced approach is already distorting the days Primary Schools deliver particular subjects and there appears no way of changing this unless Ofsted made shorter inspections that were used to determine whether a full inspection would be helpful either because of significant concerns or some possible exemplary practice. I would prefer this approach and it is a shame it has not been suggested because it would have significantly reduced the burden on schools, made inspection less expensive and would enable a more open dialogue between inspectors and school leaders.

One final point is that the current Framework was heavily criticised because it felt it had been created with a large secondary school in mind and disadvantaged smaller primary schools. The focus on leadership in each of the eleven judgement areas runs the risk of perpetuating the disadvantage. More needs to be done to accommodate greater nuance and interpretation in the descriptors and in the way inspections are planned, triggered and conducted so that different schools can successfully engage with the process.