Scrap the standalone inclusion criteria, merge the teaching and curriculum judgments and rethink the “highly subjective” exemplary grade, Ofsted has been told by academy leaders.
The Confederation of School Trusts (CST), which represents almost 80% of academy schools and trusts, has submitted its formal response to Ofsted’s wide-ranging proposed reforms.
The proposals were drawn up alongside the group’s membership and elected policy group.
The proposed changes include merging judgments, rethinking the new ‘exemplary’ grade and warn that increasing monitoring inspections could clash with government improvement plans and put too much pressure on ‘stuck schools’.
The report added that “simplified grading scale, clearer toolkits, streamlined evaluation areas, and simpler framing of the inclusion evaluation area would help ensure the framework achieves its intended outcomes while minimizing unintended consequences”.
Here are the six key suggestions…
1. Remove standalone ‘inclusion’ criteria ...
Ofsted has proposed to introduce a new judgment area for ‘inclusion’. It has also threaded inclusion through all the other evaluation areas, to make it a core feature of inspections rather than an add-on.
But CST argues having a standalone evaluation area for inclusion complicates this.
It recommends removing the additional criteria for the inclusion judgment, and instead use intel gained from the inclusion threads in other judgment areas “to reach an aggregated indicator” of a school’s performance in relation to inclusion.
“This would maintain the focus of inclusion as something threaded through school and inspection practice, rather than being a bolt-on,” said CST.
2. … and merge teaching and curriculum judgments
CST also recommends merging the ‘teaching’ and ‘curriculum’ evaluation areas as inspection toolkits show the criteria for each “overlap significantly”.
“Merging these areas into a single category, such as ‘teaching the curriculum’ or ‘Quality of education’ would improve validity”, it said, while addressing CST’s concerns over an “excessive” number of evaluation areas.
3. Rethink ‘highly subjective’ requirements for ‘exemplary’
Ofsted is proposing to move from its current four-grade inspection system to a new five-grade one. Schools would be rated from ‘causing concern’, to ‘attention needed’, ‘secure’, ‘strong’ and ‘exemplary’.
CST suggests that the grading system should be simplified and made clearer.
It acknowledged Ofsted may not wish to impose a new four-grade system, to “reduce ‘read across’ from the old system to the new”.
Instead, it suggests removing the additional criteria for ‘exemplary’. Instead, any school that meets all ‘strong’ criteria would be judged ‘exemplary’ for that evaluation area.
CST says this would “remove the ambiguity” of the ‘exemplary’ grade, and its “highly subjective” criteria.
Ofsted plans to only award ‘exemplary’ if a school is at least ‘secure’ in all other areas. But CST says the requirement “undermines the stated desire for nuance…by disregarding the possibility that a school could be sector leading in one area but might need improvement in another”.
4. Remove ‘attention needed’ criteria
Similarly, CST says Ofsted should simplify grading by removing the ‘attention needed’ criteria.
Instead, it suggests, any school that does not meet the ‘secure’ criteria but does not fall into ‘causing concern’ should be awarded ‘attention needed’.
It said this “is preferable to introducing an additional set of criteria that could introduce ambiguity in the ‘attention needed’ and ‘secure’ boundary”.
CST says there are currently “too many criteria”. It questions whether trying to assess all the proposed areas in a two-day inspection could create “intolerable intensity for those inspecting and being inspected”.
5. Make grade boundaries clearer
For grading to be simplified as above, however, CST says the differences between the ‘secure’ and ‘strong’ criteria “would need to be significantly improved”. It said wording for the two grades is currently “too vague to support consistent grading”.
Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver has already confirmed work is being carried out to strengthen and clarify the differences between these two judgments.
6. Reduce monitoring inspection burden
Ofsted is proposing to increase monitoring inspections, carrying them out at all school with ‘attention needed’ judgments, as well as those that need significant improvements. The latter would get five monitoring inspections over just 18 months.
But this is not “a proportionate response”, CST says, that risks “adding additional burden to schools… without us being convinced of a demonstrable benefit”.
It said schools in need of serious improvement are also likely to receive help under the DfE’s new regional school improvement teams (RISE).
This creates a “risk” such schools getting support “from too many external sources – especially concerning if the advice differs”.
Responding to CST’s consultation response, an Ofsted spokesperson said: “We want our inspections to raise standards for all children and provide better information for parents. And it’s vital they are also useful and workable for education leaders, and inspectors.
“We would encourage everyone to look at our detailed proposals and respond to the consultation.”
Your thoughts