Ofsted has defied calls to reinspect hundreds of schools already visited under its new framework once measures to better understand local context are introduced. The watchdog announced this week that, from September, as well as comparing a school’s performance to national averages, inspectors will also consider the performance of “similar schools”. It follows growing concern among school leaders that Ofsted’s new framework penalises schools with poorer cohorts because of its focus on attainment and use of national averages. Those concerns deepened when Ofsted acknowledged this week the “relationship” between disadvantage and performance against its ‘achievement’ judgment. Its analysis of more than 900 inspections conducted since November revealed schools with above-average free school meals rates are almost three times as likely as those with below-average levels to be graded ‘needs attention’ or ‘urgent improvement’ for achievement. Schools Week analysis of further data published by Ofsted on Wednesday suggested a similar pattern for attendance and behaviour – which also uses national averages to assess school performance. Almost one-quarter (24 per cent) of schools in the top quintile – those with highest deprivation – failed to meet the ‘expected standard’ for attendance and behaviour. This compared to just 5 per cent of those in the bottom quintile. Ofsted has defended its framework, pointing out that 57 per cent of schools with an above-average proportion of FSM eligibility had been graded ‘expected standard’ or higher for achievement. The watchdog also said that, as part of the inspection process, inspectors compared the performance of disadvantaged pupils to the national average for the same cohort. ‘Similar schools’ measure It has now set out plans to add a new “similar schools” measure to the information that inspectors review, meaning they will take into account the performance of schools in similar contexts from September. Richard Sheriff, a former academy trust CEO and ASCL council member, welcomed news that the inspectorate has “taken seriously” concerns he and other leaders have long raised. But he added: “You’re already a year into using the inspection framework, and these things should have been done from the start.” He said he feared for the impact on leaders “adversely affected” who had either already been inspected or are due to be inspected before the similar schools model comes into force. The new framework “from the get-go was fundamentally unfair in how it treated schools serving disadvantaged communities”, he added. He called on Ofsted to allow a senior HMI to “look again” at these schools. Even if this only led to “a subtle change … it might be very important for the school,” he said. Jonny Uttley, another former CEO and visiting fellow at the Centre for Young Lives, said it was “very clear that the new Ofsted framework has punished schools serving more disadvantaged communities, because the approach to judging achievement has been far too blunt. “This is something that Ofsted was warned about long before they began inspecting and it is a shame these warnings were ignored.” He too questioned what the change means for schools “downgraded on achievement this year”. No reinspections Despite the calls from leaders, however, Ofsted said schools will not be reinspected. The watchdog said inspectors “use national averages cautiously” and already compare the performance of disadvantaged pupils with national averages for disadvantaged pupils. Its analysis suggested inspectors were doing this, it added. Ofsted plans to update its inspection toolkit in June, for introduction in September. But a spokesperson said these changes “are about clarifying the data we already compare when evaluating achievement. They do not reflect a change to the way we reach our judgments. “We will not be revisiting schools that have already been assessed under the new framework, as we are confident the report cards and grades awarded were a fair and accurate evaluation of the school at the point it was inspected.” Leaders now await details on what the “similar schools” model will comprise. The tool, developed by Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE), is due to launch in September. As well as being available to inspectors, schools will get access to the data so they can compare themselves to similar settings. It is understood the system will bring together existing data in a new platform, to make it easier for inspectors to compare schools. The DfE said it will “add to schools’ and inspectors’ understanding of how schools in similar circumstances tackle shared challenges and create opportunities for their pupils”. Uttley said he hoped it would help inspectors to better acknowledge “the extraordinary work so many schools do in serving the most disadvantaged communities”. And he hopes it will help schools to compare a range of metrics such as suspensions, exclusions, and movements off-roll, to bolster accountability and inclusion. Complex school contexts Sheriff questioned how complex school contexts will be compared. He added that proxy measures of disadvantage – such as the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals – may not always reliably capture the challenges pupils and staff face. Ofsted’s data shows that, of 294 schools with an above-average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals – a proxy measure for disadvantage – 43 per cent fell below the ‘expected standard’ for achievement. This compares to 33 per cent of schools with a “close to average” level of free school meals eligibility, and just 16 per cent of those with below-average eligibility. To hit the ‘expected standard’ grade, pupils’ attainment and progress in national tests and exams must be “broadly in line with national averages”, according to the inspection toolkit used by inspectors. For the new framework, Ofsted also adopted a “secure fit” model of evaluation to award judgments, meaning each standard within each grade must be met before it can be awarded. This was a change from the inspectorate’s “best fit” model under the previous framework, which allowed inspectors to award grades by determining a “best fit” across a range of standards. Not a level playing field Andy Jordan, inspection and accountability specialist at leaders’ union ASCL, said that “while national benchmarks are the default, and the secure fit methodology remains in place, it is not going to be a level playing field”. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of leaders’ union NAHT, described the introduction of “similar schools” as “seemingly a tacit admission that the current system is flawed”. But he said it “seems very unlikely to wholly mitigate the illogical use of national average performance measures”. He added: “What would really make a difference would be a lower-stakes, more supportive system, with narrative judgments which identify a school’s strengths and identify areas for improvement, without the risk of unfair, unreliable graded judgments which may harm the wellbeing of dedicated school leaders and their staff. “We need a system which acknowledges the context and communities in which professionals work from the outset, rather than hanging inspection outcomes on performance measures and national averages.”