The Association of School and College leaders has floated the idea of a “3+ point scale” for Ofsted judgments, as it called on the government and inspectorate to delay reforms to 2026.
In its official response to Ofsted’s consultation on new report cards, the union warned moving to a five-point scale would leave “leaders in a worse position than they are now” and “undermine trust in the inspection process”.
The watchdog proposes judging schools on a five-point grading system across up to 11 areas. The current system sees them given one of four grades across up to six areas.
Union would prefer binary ‘met/not-met’ approach
In its submission, ASCL said its “preferred approach” would be that schools are “inspected against a binary model of whether they either meet or exceed, or don’t meet, statutory standards”.
But it recognised such a model was “not possible within the current legislative framework, which requires Ofsted to identify schools and colleges that are causing concern”.
The union acknowledged there was “no indication that the government is intending to introduce legislation which would enable our preferred approach”.
It would therefore “be comfortable with a model based on what we have called a ‘3+ point scale’”.
“This would enable Ofsted to meet its statutory requirements, and also enable the identification of exceptional practice, without the latter needed to be a graded judgement.”
Three-point grading system suggested
The approach would “consist of three grades for each evaluation area – causing concern, attention needed and secure – with exemplary practice in any area optionally included as a narrative description”.
At ASCL’s conference earlier this month, Ofsted chief Sir Martyn Oliver lashed out at the “most vocal critics” of his proposals, accusing them of seeking a “low-accountability system”.
In its response, ASCL said it “strongly” refuted the suggestion “that individuals or organisations who don’t support the proposals in this consultation are coming from a position of ignorance or misunderstanding, or are hoping for less accountability”.
“Many of us have studied these proposals carefully, and are committed to robust accountability for schools and colleges, but disagree that this approach is the right way to achieve that end.”
Reforms ‘nowhere near’ addressing weaknesses
Ofsted’s reforms were prompted by a coroner’s ruling in late 2023 that an inspection contributed to the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry.
A review into Ofsted’s response by former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert found the watchdog appeared “defensive and complacent”, urging it to move away “from the discourse that ‘inspectors are never wrong’”.
But ASCL said it was “extremely disappointed that the proposals set out in this consultation go nowhere near addressing the serious weaknesses of the current system” outlined in the inquest and Gilbert review.
“While we strongly believe that the current system needs to change, we think the proposals set out here will leave school and college leaders in a worse position than they are now.
“They do not address the acute concerns about mental health and wellbeing, will lead to perverse incentives in the system, and will not provide more reliable information for parents.”
Five-point system proposal ‘biggest concern’
ASCL raised “particular” concerns that increasing the number of sub-judgment areas “will not reduce the stress and anxiety created by inspection”.
“This will create more grading, not less. This is contrary to Labour’s manifesto pledge and contrary to the messages from both the government and Ofsted in September 2024, when overall effectiveness judgements were removed.”
But the union’s “biggest concern is the proposed move from the current four-point grading scale to a five-point scale”.
“Far from addressing the concerns about school and college leaders’ wellbeing, this is likely to introduce even greater anxiety. We also fear it will mean less reliability between judgements: the proposed toolkits are wildly open to interpretation.”
Timeline ‘extremely problematic’
Ofsted has said that “nothing is set in stone” and insisted it will listen to consultation responses. But the watchdog has also said it has “clear plans to introduce changes in November”.
ASCL said this timetable was “extremely problematic”, and breaks the DfE workload protocol, which demands a lead-in time of at least a year for significant accountability changes.
The union pointed to the fact trials of the proposals are taking place at the same time as the consultation. This “reinforces the view of many of our members that these proposals are a fait accompli”.
It called for the current transitional arrangements – under which schools are only graded on the existing four-point scale for sub-judgments alone – to be extended. This would “give leaders time to prepare for the introduction of whatever the final approach looks like in September 2026”.
Set out schools’ minimum requirements in law
ASCL has also responded to the government’s separate consultation on accountability reform.
It said that “while there are some positive aspects to this consultation, we do not think that, taken together with the Ofsted proposals, this will result in an intelligent accountability system”.
“We would like to have seen the government set out in the children’s wellbeing and schools bill the statutory requirements that all schools and colleges must meet, then to have built a proportionate, intelligent and useful system of accountability and support around that.”
Your thoughts