Teaching unions have stepped up their opposition to new Ofsted report card plans – demanding Bridget Phillipson intervenes to delay their introduction until next September.
Their letter, sent on Monday and which can be read in full below, expresses “profound concern” about the watchdog’s new plan to formally announce the new framework in early September before introducing it in November.
It highlights Ofsted’s previous assurance that schools would have a term’s grace to familiarise themselves with the revised framework, before new inspections are rolled out.
The letter, co-signed by NEU general secretary Daniel Kebede, NASUWT acting general secretary Matt Wrack, ASCL general secretary Pepe Di’Iasio, and NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman slams the new timeframe.
They say it “would create wholly unacceptable pressures on schools and their staff”.
They add that inspectors themselves “would have far less time than originally anticipated to familiarise themselves with reformed inspection arrangements and the expectations it would place on them”.
‘No time for significant revisions’
Writing to Bridget Phillipson on June 11 to notify her of the consultation response delay, Oliver stressed the consultation must be “meaningful” and that Ofsted’s proposals “were not set in stone”.
But union leaders say they “do not believe that these commitments can be honoured” in the current timeframe.
“If the responses to the consultation exercise indicate that significant revisions to Ofsted’s original proposals are required, then it is not clear how they could be made in the very short period of time that would be available,” they wrote.
“Therefore, we call on you to move the date you have set for the introduction of revised inspection arrangements to the beginning of the 2026/27 academic year at the earliest so that the commitments given by the Chief Inspector can be met.”
There have already been calls for inspections to be pushed back until the new year, but the request for them to be postponed by almost a full year marks a significant doubling down on this plea.
The DfE has been approached by Schools Week.
Ofsted revealed it is delaying the publication of its formal consultation response – which had originally been due this summer – until September, earlier this month.
Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver said the watchdog needed “a little more time” to analyse the 6,500 responses it had received, while Bridget Phillipson said the delay was “disappointing”.
Despite previously mulling delaying inspections, the watchdog said it still plans to roll out new-style “report card” inspections from November, giving schools potentially just weeks to prepare.
In its consultation document, Ofsted said its original timeline would ensure “a notice period equivalent to one term” between the publication of the post-consultation response, and start of education inspections. This would allow the inspectorate to “ensure that providers and inspectors feel well prepared for the new inspections.
News the watchdog was u-turning on this commitment has sparked anger from the sector. The plan has been slammed as “reckless”, giving schools and inspectors as “nonsensical” timeframe.
Phillipson has also expressed dismay, while stressing her hope that new inspections will be delivered from November as planned. She told Oliver it is “important that Ofsted delivers to the expected timescales, to build confidence in the inspectorate and avoid additional challenges for headteachers and leaders”.
The full letter sent by union leaders to Phillipson on June 23:
“Dear Secretary of State,
We write to express our profound concern about the implications of revised arrangements for inspection reform addressed in your letter to the Chief Inspector of 11 June.
As you will be aware, in its consultation document on its proposals for changes to inspection, Ofsted confirmed that there should be a notice period of the equivalent of one term between the publication of its post-consultation response and inspection materials and the start of inspections under the revised regime. Ofsted recognised that such notice was necessary to ensure that ‘providers and inspectors feel well prepared for the new inspections.’
In light of Ofsted’s decision to delay the publication of its consultation response until September, providers and their staff would be faced with a considerably shorter notice period if revised inspection arrangements are implemented in November as set out in your letter.
This timescale would create wholly unacceptable pressures on schools and their staff. While it may be the case that the number of schools subject to an inspection with less than one term’s notice would be relatively small, it is important to recognise that many more schools might reasonably anticipate an inspection during the shortened notice period and therefore be impacted adversely by it. In any event, every school would need to allocate time to consider the implications for them of the new arrangements before they were implemented. Given widespread concern about the impact of inspection on workforce wellbeing and workload, proceeding with inspection reform on this basis would be entirely unjustifiable.
We would further note that inspectors would have far less time than originally anticipated to familiarise themselves with reformed inspection arrangements and the expectations it would place on them.
Moreover, we are concerned about the implications of implementation of reformed arrangements in November for the integrity of the consultation exercise. You will be aware that in his letter to you of 11 June, the Chief Inspector restated his view that the consultation exercise should be ‘meaningful’ and that its ‘proposals were not set in stone.’ We do not believe that these commitments can be honoured in these circumstances. If the responses to the consultation exercise indicate that significant revisions to Ofsted’s original proposals are required, then it is not clear how they could be made in the very short period of time that would be available.
Therefore, we call on you to move the date you have set for the introduction of revised inspection arrangements to the beginning of the 2026/27 academic year at the earliest so that the commitments given by the Chief Inspector can be met.
Further, we remain clear that IET member organisations must be fully involved in the analysis of the outcomes of Ofsted’s consultation and in the development of any revisions to these proposals that the consultation responses indicate are necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Kebede, General Secretary, NEU; Matt Wrack, Acting General Secretary, NASUWT; Pepe Di’Iasio, General Secretary, ASCL; Paul Whiteman, General Secretary, NAHT”
Your thoughts