Leaders fear schools will be tempted to exclude pupils who are less likely to hit top grades so they can score highly in Ofsted’s new “achievement” evaluation.
Ofsted has said “inclusion” will be a key focus of its new framework, with schools to be judged on a standalone “inclusion” area.
But Jonny Uttley, the chief executive of the TEAL trust who led an inclusion study for the Centre for Young Lives charity, said this was offset by the achievement judgment being “heavily geared towards achievement above-average”.
For instance, the Ofsted toolkit states to achieve a “strong standard” grade, pupils – including those with SEND – must “consistently achieve well, develop detailed knowledge and skills, and produce high-quality work across the curriculum”.
“Typically, this achievement will be reflected in above-average outcomes in national tests and examinations over time, including for disadvantaged pupils,” it adds.
To hit the top “exceptional” grade, “exceptionally high standards of achievement” must be “sustained”. This will be reflected in “consistently high outcomes” in national tests and exams.
Uttley told Schools Week: “To do really well on ‘achievement’, [a school] would have to be performing above-average – so there’s an incentive to curate your roll.”
‘You could continue to curate the school roll’
Schools could find it easier to achieve higher grades for inclusion and achievement if they had fewer pupils with EHCPs, he said. The new framework also fails to account for “subtle versions” of off-rolling.
“A school could turn away children with new EHCPs…they could have lots of kids going into elective home education, lots of kids leaving on suspensions, exclusions, managed moves…and still score highly on inclusion.
“You could continue to curate the school roll, and then do a really good job for the kids who actually come to school.”
An independent wellbeing report, commissioned by Ofsted, found stakeholders were concerned the new framework would affect “selection at the point of entry to a school”.
This would “increase the incentive for ‘cream-skimming’ in the sector”, and leave schools committed to inclusivity “with an ever more challenging intake”.
At a press briefing on Monday Lee Owston, Ofsted’s national director for education, refuted this, saying: “There is no tension between inclusion and achievement.”
He said achievement “is around national outcomes” but “is also about broader outcomes”.
“For those children with SEND, that can be about their preparation for adulthood and the opportunities they may have for training and employment.”
Ofsted ‘missed a trick’
Kiran Gill, the chief executive and founder of The Difference, also welcomed Ofsted’s expanded definition of inclusion “to acknowledge poverty and safeguarding concerns”, as well as SEND.
But she said Ofsted had “missed a trick” in “not taking a data-led approach to inclusion accountability”.
“Inclusion is measurable by students’ wellbeing and belonging, and by levels of absence from class…and sanctions,” she said.
Ofsted must also “provide a clearer definition of what constitutes ‘inclusive practices’”.
Caroline Barlow and Keziah Featherstone, co-chairs of the Headteachers Roundtable, said the creation of a standalone judgment for inclusion “runs counter to the widespread understanding across the system that this should be an embedded design principle for schools, not a separate consideration”.
However, Owston and Adam Sproston, senior inspector for SEND, have previously said inclusion “will also be a golden thread that run through all evaluation areas”. The toolkits suggest inspectors must look for inclusive practice when assessing other areas.
But Uttley said Ofsted “has missed the key point”, with inclusion “almost bolted on to each section”.
What kind of monster of an education system have we created when a reputable source like Schools Week can start an article with a statement that leaders believe schools will be tempted to exclude pupils who are unlikely to make the grades to support the highest ‘achievement’ judgement of the new inspection framework.
The sadness is further deepened when experience suggests the Schools Week article is absolutely correct. Why is it that more politicians, more professionals and more journalists are not enraged that such a comment can even be published, let alone evidenced as true for decades. So much is written about integrity and values-based school leadership, yet in the same system we read about schools being tempted to exclude pupils for the shameful reason that they might not make the grades. Let’s not gang up on the Chief Inspector of Schools for a less than perfect framework, when he has had to introduce it in an education landscape that has for many years eroded its own value base through party political pressure and abrasive populist policies. Campaigners for greater inclusion in schools, like Thomas Keaney at TCES (no exclusions in 25 years), are not alone in demanding real change. I have worked with Academy Trusts such as Reach South, Unity Schools Partnership and the independent/not for profit sector including NAS, Aurora, Phoenix Bay and others, who are demonstrating great integrity with their drive for Inclusion, but remain thwarted by the pressures of success being measured in such narrow terms as they have been. At least now inclusion is a key indicator of schools’ success and central when recognising truly courageous leaders. Whether the judgement is termed Exemplary or Exceptional doesn’t really matter one jot…….let’s just value it and applaud it!
Thank you Ofsted for raising the profile of inclusion as a small step on the path to ensuring I never read again that schools might be tempted to exclude pupils for anything other than the most serious reasons and only as an attempt to offer further support and more appropriate resources for the excluded pupil……that is very unlikely to be true if they are simply not going to make target grades! I sincerely hope that I am not alone to feel a little ashamed to have read those words in your article.