Ofsted is more likely to downgrade schools with poorer intakes or more pupils with SEND for their achievement, attendance and behaviour, new union analysis suggests. The use of national averages to grade achievement and attendance in the new Ofsted framework has caused criticism from leaders since it launched in December. They argue it is unfair on more inclusive schools and could penalise those serving disadvantaged communities. New analysis of 650 Ofsted inspections by school leaders’ union NAHT has renewed these concerns. To achieve the middle ‘expected standard’ grade for attendance and behaviour, overall attendance must be “broadly in line with national averages or shows an improving trend over time”, according to Ofsted’s inspection toolkit. Meanwhile the ‘expected standard’ for achievement requires pupils’ attainment and progress in national tests and exams “are broadly in line with national averages”. Schools with higher disadvantage graded down NAHT’s analysis shows one-third of schools with above-average pupil eligibility for free school meals – a proxy measure of deprivation – received a ‘needs attention’ judgment for achievement. Meanwhile, less than one-fifth (18 per cent) of schools with below-average free school meals eligibility were rated ‘needs attention’. There was a similar pattern for attendance and behaviour. Almost one-quarter (23 per cent) of schools with above-average free school meals eligibility received ‘needs attention’, compared to just 10 per cent of schools with below-average eligibility. SEND inclusion link Schools with a higher proportion of pupils with special education needs and disabilities also appeared more likely to be graded down on attendance and behaviour. NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman said this “should ring serious alarm bells” for the government’s ambition for more pupils with SEND to be educated in mainstream schools. Twenty per cent of those with above-average numbers of SEND pupils were graded ‘needs attention’, compared to nine per cent of those with below-average SEND. The analysis showed that across all schools, achievement had the highest proportion of ‘needs attention’ (25 per cent) or ‘urgent improvement’ grades (3 per cent), followed by curriculum and teaching (19 per cent and 2 per cent), and attendance and behaviour (13 per cent and 1 per cent). ‘An impossible demand’ from Ofsted Whiteman described the requirement for schools to meet or exceed national averages as “an impossible demand”. “While it may not have been Ofsted’s intention, the expectation that results meet crude statistical averages means that schools serving the most deprived communities face an uphill battle.” Ofsted declined to comment. The inspectorate will be publishing official data next month on inspections that have taken place since the revised framework was launched, along with analysis. At leaders’ union ASCL’s annual conference last month, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver attempted to address the criticism. He said he would “never acquiesce to the quiet curse of low expectations that would see Ofsted prioritise context over outcomes for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children”. He claimed that where disadvantaged and vulnerable children were underperforming, critics “argue we should recognise the work and the effort – and downplay disappointing outcomes”. He said Ofsted would “identify the contextual challenges being faced, but we can never downplay the disappointing outcomes”. ‘Some schools face greater challenges’ Whiteman said leaders wanted pupils “to achieve the very best outcomes they are capable of” but due to context, “for some schools that is a significantly greater challenge than others.” “Recognising the challenges and barriers to pupils’ progress is to engage with their lived reality. It does not signal any kind of ‘bigotry of low expectations,’ as Ofsted’s HM chief inspector has claimed.” “Under Ofsted’s system, schools may do an incredible job in helping pupils who face all manner of challenges in their lives to progress from a poor starting point but still be marked down if overall test scores are below national averages.” He said it also “actively penalise[s]” schools that are more inclusive of children with SEND. The findings came ahead of NAHT’s annual conference, which is taking place in Belfast this weekend (May 1-2). Delegates will debate and vote on motions, including a call for “urgent, meaningful reform of the inspection system…which continues to present a danger to the health and safety of school leaders” and a concerns that “data driven performance measures…unfairly penalises inclusive schools”.
Gameskasino_835 30 April 2026 Sounds like the inclusivity topic is getting complex. What specific factors do you think are influencing Ofsted’s decisions?
Peter Gresswell 30 April 2026 Ever since the days of secondary modern schools government inspectors have been labelling poorer pupils and their schools failures before they’ve even started. Nothing much changes.
Daniel Ricketts 30 April 2026 There appears to be a fairly simple and transparent solution to this. Ample evidence exists that shows the link between pupil deprivation and lower attainment. If the national average attainment (a) divided by a school’s level of pupil deprivation (b), we should see a clear change in the expected attainment for that school. A school in a wealthy area will have its expected attainment raised (as the pupil deprivation score will be less than the average). Therefore school’s in poorer areas will have a breathing space to explain their context but also demonstrate that they are helping to achieve social mobility through high attainment. Then if pupils from low deprivation areas attend that school, the expected attainment will gradually shift in line with the school’s demographic? Surely thats too simple?
E. Joyce 1 May 2026 At one time progress was a bigger key indicator of the effectiveness of a school’s teaching & provision. Selective schools & schools whose catchment are mainly children / young people from families with further/ higher educated parents are almost bound to have test/exam outcomes higher than schools whose intake are living in poverty, are transient, have higher SEND, do not go on overeas /cultural holidays etc. There will be individual students in all schools who ” buck the trend” but if we measure the impact of a school based on progress it would go a little way to redress the balance.