First Report - Ofsted’s work with schools

There is general agreement among teachers, school leaders, parents, teaching unions and other organisations on the important role that an independent inspectorate plays, and on the need for strong accountability for schools. However, it is clear that relations between Ofsted and the school sector, teachers, and leaders have become extremely strained and that trust in the inspectorate is worryingly low. There is a perception that Ofsted has become more defensive of its practices in recent years and is unwilling to listen and be open to change. The appointment of the new HMCI provides a crucial opportunity to reset and restore these relations and doing so should be a key priority for the new HMCI in his first year in post. We welcome Sir Martyn Oliver’s proposal to conduct a “Big Listen” with the sector and hope that this will lead to tangible changes.

Following the tragic death of Ruth Perry, Ofsted has taken some steps to address the concerns raised about the school inspection process. The changes announced are welcome but these announcements, in and of themselves, do not appear to have alleviated concerns and restored Ofsted’s relations with the sector. Ofsted must ensure that they are the beginning, not the end, of a process of listening and reforming. Ofsted must also give careful consideration to the coroner’s judgement and the Prevention of Future Deaths report issued following the inquest into the death of Ruth Perry.

In his “Big Listen” with the sector, the new HMCI must ensure that he is listening to a wide range of views, including those of teachers, school and trust leaders, governors, parents, and pupils. In doing this, he must ensure that Ofsted is genuinely open to engage and willing to reflect on where it needs to improve.

The serious nature of a Prevention of Future Deaths report will not be lost on the new HMCI. We expect him to make every effort to address the coroner’s report fully. Ofsted should review the seven areas of concern set out in the coroner’s report following the inquest into the death of Ruth Perry and put in place changes to ensure that each of these have been addressed as a matter of urgency. They must monitor the impact of the changes they have already put in place and commit to making further changes if these have not been shown to have a meaningful impact. Going forward we expect HMCI to report to this Committee on a six-monthly basis on Ofsted’s progress in addressing these significant concerns. (Paragraph 17) The inspection process

There is broad agreement that inspections are not currently long enough to cover the full framework and give an accurate picture of a school’s performance. We accept that, in a context of finite funding, any increase to the length of inspections would require a decrease in their frequency. We are clear that we do not wish to return to the previous exemption for outstanding schools, which stayed in place for too Ofsted’s work with schools 49 long. On balance, we recognise that there is a case to be made for a small reduction in the frequency of inspection in order to increase the value, length and depth of inspections.

In the shorter term, the Department should work with Ofsted to enable the inspectorate to reduce the frequency of inspections to approximately 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. Ofsted should use the additional resource released by this change to enable inspections to be carried out in more depth.

In the longer term, the Department should support Ofsted in making a strong case to the Treasury for additional funding to carry out more in-depth inspections, without compromising on frequency or the principle that all schools are subject to periodic inspection. Funding for Ofsted should not be seen to be in competition with school funding, and any additional funding for the inspectorate must not result in less funding being made available for schools.

We have heard a range of views as to the appropriate notice period for inspections and accept that this is an issue that is difficult to fully resolve. While we do not believe that there should be a return to the much longer notice periods of the past, the current notice period appears to be causing operational difficulties in many schools, particularly smaller schools, and creating additional stress and anxiety for school leaders.

Ofsted should consider the case for a small increase in the notice period given to schools—we heard suggestions that around five working days would be appropriate. The notice period should remain relatively short in order to limit the pressure on leaders and avoid a situation where schools are spending a long time preparing for inspection, but should be long enough to ensure that waiting for an inspection does not cause undue difficulties in the way schools operate. Ofsted should also consider whether schools could be given a specific term in which to anticipate an inspection.

Ofsted should consider whether smaller schools could be given a longer notice period or greater flexibility around deferrals to take into account the particular operational challenges they face during inspections.

The short timeframe of inspections does not allow for in-depth engagement with different groups in the inspection process. While we do not believe that Ofsted should introduce feedback meetings with parents following an inspection, there is a case to be made for improving the ways in which the inspectorate engages with different groups, as long as this does not give undue weight to small but vocal groups of parents or pupils. Better engagement outside the inspection process would also be highly valuable and would support Ofsted to better assess which schools are in most urgent need of inspection. We are also concerned at the reduction in focus on school governance in Ofsted reports.

Ofsted should explore ways in which it can improve its engagement with parents, pupils, governors, and trustees before and during the inspection process, ensuring that opportunities are well-communicated and that those with additional needs 50 Ofsted’s work with schools are supported to engage. Our previous recommendation to extend the notice period would also help to address this. In particular, they must ensure that inspectors are fully engaging with governors and trustees during an inspection, and that governance, including the quality and regularity of engagement with parents, is sufficiently covered in the final report.

Ofsted should introduce regular surveys of parents, pupils and staff outside the inspection process and use this information as part of its risk assessment to identify schools most or least in need of inspection.

We are concerned that the lack of relevant phase-specific expertise among inspectors appears to be a widespread problem, particularly in primary schools and in specialist education settings. A high-quality inspection regime must ensure that inspectors have sufficient expertise to be able to accurately assess the quality of provision and offer useful feedback. We welcome the incoming HMCI’s call for more school leaders to move into inspection and hope that this will be reflected in recruitment of HMIs with expertise across all types of school. However, the Committee felt that Ofsted had not provided sufficient evidence to reassure that it was prioritising relevant expertise in all inspection teams.

Ofsted should publish data on HMIs’ and contracted Ofsted inspectors’ expertise regarding phase of education and subject, and the proportion of inspections led by at least one inspector with the relevant phase expertise.

Ofsted must ensure that they are matching inspectors’ expertise with the appropriate phase and subject as much as possible, and ensure that their recruitment processes are targeting particular gaps in expertise. At a minimum, they must ensure that the lead inspector always has expertise in the relevant type of school and, in larger teams, that a majority of members of the team have the relevant expertise.

We recognise the value and expertise that experienced inspectors can bring, particularly long-serving HMIs. Ofsted should commission an independent assessment of the factors affecting retention of experienced HMIs and take appropriate steps to address the issue.

We have heard that access to training materials gives school leaders working as inspectors a disproportionate advantage over those who do not, and that Ofsted does not make enough data available to qualified researchers. While we accept that Ofsted publishes many other materials to support schools with inspections and that there are some restrictions in publishing personal data, we believe that Ofsted should improve its transparency by publishing as much information as possible.

Ofsted must ensure that it is publishing as much information as possible to maximise the transparency of its work. In particular, it must make more data available to key educational research organisations to allow for high-quality research to be conducted. Ofsted must also publish the training materials which are available to their inspectors, with appropriate caveats where necessary to explain what they are, and are not, intended to be used for. (Paragraph 63) Ofsted’s work with schools 51 Following an inspection

There is widespread agreement amongst schools, governing bodies and other organisations that inspection reports are too short and formulaic and do not provide enough useful information, particularly for schools. Targeting the reports at a parent audience means that schools do not always receive an in-depth assessment of their strengths and areas for improvement, and there is conflicting evidence as to whether parents themselves find the reports useful. School leaders find the oral feedback given in meetings more helpful, but this is often not fully reflected in the final published report.

As part of our recommended increase to the length and depth of inspections, we also recommend that Ofsted increase the length and depth of analysis provided in inspection reports to ensure that they are genuinely useful in providing parents and schools with the information they need. This should be developed in consultation with representatives of schools, governing bodies, and parents.

Evidence from groups representing teachers, school leaders, parents and pupils was highly critical of Ofsted’s single-word overall judgements. There is much concern that they simplify the complex environment of a school and the many efforts of its leadership and staff into a single headline. We have heard many suggestions as to possible alternatives, including examples from other jurisdictions, which should be further explored to assess the benefits and disadvantages of different approaches. However, we recognise that the grades are closely linked to many Department policies and that any changes will require broader reform of the system. Any reforms must also be mindful of the use made by parents of Ofsted gradings in school choice.

The Department and Ofsted should work together as a priority to develop an alternative to the current single-word overall judgement 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 look at other jurisdictions both within and outside the UK, to assess what has worked well beyond the English context.

As a first step, Ofsted and Department for Education 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.

The ‘high-stakes’ nature of the current system is clearly causing a significant amount of stress and worry for school leaders. In particular, there is an overwhelming fear among headteachers that they risk losing their job following a less than ‘good’ judgement, and the Department’s guidance is unclear as to whether this is routinely the case. The extension of academy orders to schools with two consecutive judgements of ‘requires improvement’ has further exacerbated this problem. We are clear that there should be consequences for schools which are performing badly, but that this should be proportionate, and there must be suitable mechanisms available to support leaders.

The Department should assess whether the decision to impose academy orders on schools that have received ‘requires improvement’ ratings on more than one occasion 52 Ofsted’s work with schools is proportionate. As a first step, it should ensure that Regional Directors are genuinely taking into account the views of local authorities, trusts, and other relevant bodies before taking a decision, and that this consultation process is clearly communicated to schools. The Department should publish guidance setting out the criteria by which Regional Directors come to these decisions.

The Department and Ofsted should review the support mechanisms available to school leaders during and following an inspection and ensure that these are as strong as possible to support the wellbeing of school leaders. 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. We note that lessons could be learned from Ofsted’s approach to deferring inspections in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, but deferrals alone are not enough to resolve this issue.

We have heard that there is not enough support for schools to improve following a negative inspection judgement, and that the support available does not always arrive as quickly as is needed. We recognise that the role of school improvement no longer sits with Ofsted, and that much of this work is now commissioned by Regional Directors and undertaken by multi-academy trusts. However, the evidence we have received suggests that there is a desire for greater support to help schools improve.

It is essential that there is proper scrutiny of the regional system of school improvement. We do not agree with the former Schools Minister’s view that it is sufficient to scrutinise Regional Directors solely through parliamentary scrutiny of ministers.

The Department must conduct a full audit of the support available to schools to help them improve, reviewing whether the amount of support is sufficient and what more is needed. In the interim, the Department should ensure that all schools and trusts are aware of the support on offer and develop a ‘one-stop shop’ to signpost relevant support. It must also ensure that support following a negative inspection judgement is provided as quickly as possible.

The Department must improve the transparency and accountability of the work of the Regional Directors. At a minimum, it should provide an annual report to Parliament setting out the scope, detail and impact of their work and make Regional Directors available to give evidence to the Committee.

We have received substantial evidence suggesting that Ofsted’s complaints process is not seen to be working and amounts to Ofsted “marking their own homework”. The changes announced in Ofsted’s consultation on the process are welcome, and we particularly welcome the introduction of a telephone number which schools can call to raise concerns during an inspection, but these do not go far enough to address these concerns. In particular, there is tangible frustration that the role of the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO) is limited to looking at how Ofsted has handled the complaint, rather than managing the complaint itself, which has not been addressed in the consultation. (Paragraph 108) Ofsted’s work with schools 53

Schools have also told us that the complaints process is hampered by a lack of access to inspectors’ notes and documents that have been used to reach a conclusion. While we understand that there are considerations around confidentiality regarding these documents, schools cannot effectively challenge a judgement if they are unable to access the evidence base used to support this judgement. There is also limited data available as to the proportion of complaints upheld relating to schools and how this has changed over time. This has contributed to a perceived lack of transparency and willingness from Ofsted to listen to and respond to criticism.

The Department for Education and Ofsted should conduct an in-depth review of the complaints process to ensure that there is an efficient and independent process for schools to challenge the findings as well as the conduct of an inspection. In doing so, they should explore the option of setting up an independent body with the powers to investigate inspection judgements through scrutiny of the evidence base.

Ofsted must allow schools to gain access to the evidence base used to reach a judgement when making a complaint, making redactions to ensure that confidentiality and protection of the identity of individuals is maintained where this is necessary.

In its annual report and accounts, Ofsted should publish separate complaints data for each sector in their remit, including data on the number and percentage of complaints per inspection, whether these relate to conduct or judgements, and the percentage of complaints for each that have been upheld. The annual report should also set out what improvements Ofsted has made as a result of learning from complaints. (Paragraph 112) The scope of inspections

There is broad support for the move away from a data-driven approach to one that is more focused on curriculum in the new Education Inspection Framework. However, there appear to be problems with how this has worked in practice, in particular around the impact this has had on the consistency of inspection judgements, and some suggestions that Ofsted is imposing a particular view of curriculum planning on schools.

There is also widespread concern that the new framework is less suitable for primary and special schools, particularly smaller schools, who are finding it more difficult to meet its requirements. We appreciate that any change to the framework causes additional work for schools, which should be minimised, but we think there is a case for small adjustments to be made to resolve some of these issues.

Ofsted must publish their planned evaluation of the Education Inspection Framework as soon as possible. In this evaluation, 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, and consider ways in which it could be adapted to be more supportive of these schools. The inspectorate should clearly set out how it will 54 Ofsted’s work with schools take into account the context and capacity of individual schools when considering subject leadership. Ofsted should also consider whether sufficient time and emphasis is being placed on quality of teaching.

It is clear that many teachers and school leaders are struggling with workload pressures in their roles, which are exacerbated by perceptions of what Ofsted expects to see in inspections. There are also concerns that the new framework has caused additional workload pressures for teachers, particularly subject leaders, and school leaders. Ofsted has taken steps to address this through its ‘myth-busting’ work, but the evidence presented to us suggests that this has not been effective or reached all the audiences who need to hear it.

The Department and Ofsted must go further than simply ‘myth-busting’: they must undertake a programme of research to fully understand the causes of inspection- related workload pressure and assess what changes would be genuinely helpful in reducing this. The new HMCI should prioritise work in this area as part of his “Big Listen” with the sector.

We were concerned by the suggestion that Ofsted does not sufficiently take into account the challenges faced by schools with high numbers of disadvantaged pupils or those with SEND. We appreciate that the 2019 inspection framework aimed to improve the situation by moving away from outcome data, but there still remains a clear link between disadvantage and negative Ofsted grades.

Ofsted must ensure that inspectors are fully taking a school’s size and context into account in reports and judgements, in particular the numbers of pupils from disadvantaged groups and those with SEND, and other relevant factors such as recruitment and retention challenges. It must ensure that these factors are clearly described and visible in the final report. Progress for pupils in receipt of pupil premium should be a key measure on which schools are held accountable, and this should also be clearly set out in the narrative of reports, taking into account where this group is larger or smaller than the average.

Safeguarding is an essential aspect of every school’s work. We agree that there is merit in schools being audited more regularly for compliance with safeguarding procedures, especially as we are recommending that some schools be inspected less frequently than is currently the case. However, we still see a role for Ofsted in ensuring that schools are identifying and acting on serious safeguarding concerns and especially making an effective contribution to child protection.

The inquest into the death of Ruth Perry also raised concerns about the policy of judging a school ‘inadequate’ solely due to safeguarding. We accept that this only applies to a small number of schools and that Ofsted has taken some steps towards mitigating this issue through quicker re-inspections. Conducting more regular safeguarding audits should also help to reduce the number of schools to which this applies. However, it should never be the case that schools in this situation are judged as ‘inadequate’, and receive an academy order, solely due to minor administrative errors capable of being resolved within a short space of time.

The Department should consult on the best approach to increasing the regularity of safeguarding inspections through a less intensive compliance audit. In doing so, Ofsted’s work with schools 55 it should look at whether this should be done by local authorities or by a separate, independent body, and make the case for the appropriate resource to be provided. In its routine inspections of schools, Ofsted should continue to inspect how well schools respond to serious safeguarding issues and how effectively children are protected in practice.

In the interim, Ofsted should review its policy on ‘inadequate’ judgements due to ineffective safeguarding and ensure that schools are only being judged ‘inadequate’ in cases where they are fundamentally failing to keep children safe. In cases where the problems are uncomplicated and can be resolved within a short space of time, the Department should not issue an academy order until after the school has been reinspected.

We agree with the incoming HMCI that it is “inevitable” that MATs will be inspected, and we are frustrated that repeated calls for trust inspections from this Committee, its predecessors and others have not yet been acted upon by the Department. We recognise that Ofsted will need to develop their expertise and capacity in this area, and that the interaction of trust and individual school inspections requires further consideration. However, now that MATs are the largest part of the school system, with a key responsibility for school improvement, a process for MAT inspection should be delivered as a matter of urgency.

The Department 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. Ofsted will need to be appropriately resourced to develop their expertise in this respect and should continue to ensure that all individual schools are assessed on a consistent basis whether or not they are part of a MAT. (Paragraph 155) 56 Ofsted’s work with schools