Ofsted has claimed its current inspection framework led to curriculum improvements, but is facing criticism for basing the finding on just 20 school visits.
The watchdog committed to evaluating its education inspection framework (EIF) after the death of headteacher Ruth Perry.
The evaluation, published Thursday, claimed “overall, curriculum quality had improved. The schools in our study were more focused on curriculum quality.”
But the report was based on visits seven HMIs made to just 20 schools last year. The schools were among 64 visited in 2018 as part of curriculum research by Ofsted before the EIF was introduced.
Sample size ‘shocking’
Former senior HMI Frank Norris described the size and nature of the cohort used in the study as “quite shocking” and “deeply worrying”.
“No empirical study worth its salt would try to draw conclusions from such a small number of schools,” he said.
There are more than 24,000 state-funded schools and nurseries across England. Last year alone, Ofsted carried out 6,930 inspections at state-funded schools.
Norris also said the evaluation should have focused on more than just the curriculum and quality of education.
“We know how the various aspects of a framework impact on others so why hasn’t there been a focus on leadership or safeguarding? Is this an attempt to try and identify some good news at a time when there is little good Ofsted news?”
Adrian Gray, another former senior HMI, described Ofsted’s much-awaited evaluation as “entirely inadequate. A major problem to me is that there is no genuine survey data involved.”
The report acknowledges the small sample size in a footnote, saying: “It is worth noting the limitations of this study, especially its small scale. This must be considered when interpreting our findings.
“The experiences of the schools in this study are not necessarily representative of schools more broadly.”
But Ofsted said “in-depth” interviews were carried out with the 20 school leaders who took part in research visits. These combined with the inspectors’ measures of education quality provided “compelling” evidence about the EIF’s impact.
The inspectorate says it chose to focus on curriculum and quality of education because the most major changes of the new EIF were putting the curriculum at the heart of Ofsted inspections, and the creation of a new “quality of education” judgment.
Focus on reading sees maths ‘left behind’
But some leaders said the focus on curriculum quality across all subjects “put pressure on staff” who teach multiple subjects or are not subject specialists.
Others said the focus on reading has resulted in other areas, such as maths, being “left behind”.
But Ofsted said school leaders were broadly “positive” about the EIF’s greater focus on quality of curriculum, and said inspectors saw “broader, more in-depth, ambitious curriculums, in most of the [20] schools we visited”.
Around one-third of the 20 schools had made “major changes” as a “direct result” of the EIF’s new focus on curriculum, it said.
Many had already been in the process of developing their curricula when the EIF was introduced, but said the new framework had helped them “speed up the changes”.
Ofsted said the EIF “played a part” in the improvement to curriculum quality.
But they added: “What is included in our inspection frameworks, and what we inspect, have obvious consequences for practice in the sector. Yet we are only one part of the education system.”
It acknowledges that there have been myriad reasons for curriculum changes in the six years between the 2018 study and last year’s revisits. These include DfE-led changes, new school leaders, schools joining MATs, and academic-led developments.
“Fundamentally, improvements were driven by school leaders and staff who aimed to give children a high-quality education,” the report added.
Ofsted is currently consulting on proposals for a new inspection framework, which it hopes to launch in autumn 2025.
Visit the consultation website here.
Your thoughts