Ofsted has tweaked its inspection framework to tackle concerns raised during pilot inspections – just days before its new report cards are due to be rolled out.
The watchdog has today published findings from 115 pilot inspections it carried out at schools, using the new report cards and inspection framework that are due to launch on Monday.
In a narrative summary, Ofsted claimed feedback has been “really encouraging”, but said some leaders “did raise concerns”.
“A few mentioned increased workload and pressure on staff, particularly in smaller schools or those with more complex circumstances, where logistics could be challenging. Others had worries about how achievement is evaluated.”
Ofsted has now “[taken] steps to address concerns, offer clearer guidance, and make the logistics smoother”.
This includes changes to the size of inspection teams at small schools and tweaking its inspection toolkits.
New approach for small schools
Ofsted originally said inspections lasting two-days under the new framework would have an additional inspector on-site during day one (meaning there would be three, instead of two inspectors).
During pilots this “gave the lead inspector more time to engage with leaders…and helped everything run more smoothly”, said Ofsted.
But in smaller schools, or those with more “complex” contexts, “logistics often needed extra thought”, the watchdog said on the lessons learned from its pilot inspections.
The watchdog also trialled a different approach for small schools, which involved them having their extra inspector on day two, instead of day one.
“We found that having two inspectors on each day made things much more manageable for everyone involved.”
Ofsted has confirmed to Schools Week that small schools will now have two inspectors on both day one and day two, going forward.
Small schools had raised concerns about “unrealistic” demands new inspections will have on heads with small staff numbers. The inspections will include three learning walks and at least five ‘reflection meetings’ with leaders, and will be preceded by a planning call that can take up to 90 minutes.
Oftsted said pilots also showed “how important it is to anticipate the potential impact on staff right from the planning call.”
“Involving leaders in shaping the timetable, deciding who is best placed to accompany inspectors, and planning how case sampling and learning walks will work can help keep things calm and avoid overwhelming staff,” added Ofsted.
Toolkit updated
Concerns have also been raised about the new “achievement” area schools are to be judged on.
Some leaders fear schools could be tempted to be less inclusive, so they can score more highly on “achievement”.
Ofsted now appears to have tried to address this, by adding the single word “typically” to one of its ‘expected standards’ for achievement.
The toolkit now reads: “On the whole, pupils achieve well. Typically, this will be reflected in their attainment and progress in national tests and examinations, which are broadly in line with national averages, including for disadvantaged pupils.”
Ofsted said this change “helps to acknowledge that sometimes, due to limitations in the data, pupils’ achievement might not be fully reflected in published outcomes. This could be, for example, where there is a very small cohort.
“It also takes account of when there is no published data about pupils’ achievement, particularly in special schools and alternative provision.”
Ofsted has also made a “small correction” to its toolkit for the ‘leadership and governance’ judgement area. It has removing a duplicated sentence that appeared in both the “strong standard” and “expected standard” requirements, so it now appears only for “strong standard”.
‘Many found process fairer’
Despite the changes, Ofsted said many providers that received pilot inspections found the toolkit and methodology “a positive step forward”.
The inspectorate said “the collaborative tone, regular reflection meetings, learning walks with headteachers, and the move away from deep dives are all being well received”.
Meanwhile leaders “highlighted that inspectors were approachable, professional, and genuinely interested in understanding each school’s unique context”, and “valued being kept informed of emerging findings”.
“Many felt the process was fairer and more inclusive than previous inspections.”
Your thoughts