Opinion: Accountability

Ofsted’s consultation process is as worrying as the proposals in it

From the proposals to how they were arrived at and how they will be assessed, nothing suggests Ofsted has learned from its recent troubles

From the proposals to how they were arrived at and how they will be assessed, nothing suggests Ofsted has learned from its recent troubles

3 Feb 2025, 15:55

For over a decade, the NAHT has been at the forefront of calls for meaningful reform of the inspectorate. What Ofsted has presented with the launch of its long-awaited consultation today is not that. Instead of the radical overhaul we need to fix our broken system and restore trust and effectiveness, what we have here feels more like a rebranding exercise.

We welcomed the government’s decision to scrap single-word judgments in September. We also stand ready to share the views of school leaders with the consultation on school accountability.

However, we are very concerned about these proposals on a number of fronts.

Causing concern

The confirmation that these will form no part of a new framework is therefore positive. However, the proposal to retain (and indeed expand) graded sub-judgments in the new framework has landed extremely badly with the profession. And rightly so.

These sub-judgments replicate many of the worst aspects of the current system, perpetuating high stakes and undue stress for leaders and staff. Retaining grades fails to address the toxic culture that inspections have fostered over decades.

Of particular concern is the lack of clarity around how these sub-judgments will work with other accountability measures like league tables and performance metrics. Without addressing these broader systemic issues, any changes risk being superficial at best.

There is also a fundamental question about the ability of inspectors to make such precise judgements reliably across a broader range of areas. Given that they struggled to do this with four grades, it is very hard to see how they will do it with five.

Recent reports that senior inspectors within Ofsted – the very people who will have to implement this new framework – are also deeply concerned about the nature of the reforms only serves to reinforce our worries. They also echo our concerns about a rush to meet arbitrary deadlines.

History repeating

These proposals appear likely to entrench many of the problems that have plagued inspections for years. Schools, parents, and teachers would all benefit from detailed and precise narrative reports that provide nuanced insights rather than simplistic labels.

Meanwhile, Ofsted’s conduct since it promised reform has further undermined trust. Over Christmas, we learned that it had already begun trialling elements of its proposed framework in a small number of schools before launching its consultation.

This move put the cart before the horse and suggests that Ofsted is more interested in rubber-stamping its own ideas than in genuine consultation.

And then, just like the Big Listen, the consultation is once again framed with open-ended, free-text questions. This refusal to ask simple and straightforward questions shows a wilful denial ofd the extent to which stakeholders really support these proposals. 

Worse, the lack of quantitative data and precise, clear questions allows Ofsted to cherry-pick responses, supporting what we fear is a pre-determined agenda. We deserve more transparency and accountability from those holding us accountable.

Palpable frustration

This should have been an opportunity for Ofsted to reset its relationship with schools and deliver a fairer, more humane accountability system. It was  a chance to demonstrate the new, more collaborative, more supportive approach we have been promised.

But there is precious little evidence to suggest a genuine shift in culture demanded by Dame Christine Gilbert’s report last year. Where, for example, are any proposals to overhaul Ofsted’ complaints system?

The frustration among school leaders is palpable. Our recent survey reveals that 93 per cent of leaders lack confidence in Ofsted’s ability to design an effective new inspection framework. Over three-quarters (76 per cent) believe a completely new framework and methodology are needed – not just an evolution of the current system.

We cannot go on with Ofsted’s approach distorting the sector’s priorities and driving extraordinary workload and ill-health. None of this in the best interests of the children and young people in our schools.

NAHT will continue to push for meaningful reform, and we will ensure the voices of our members are heard loud and clear. But let me be unequivocal: what we cannot accept is a revised version of an existing system that has caused untold harm over many years.

I sincerely hope that my worst fears are proven wrong.  Anything less than a genuine consultation would be a betrayal of this critical moment for reform.

Latest education roles from

IT Technician

IT Technician

Harris Academy Morden

Teacher of Geography

Teacher of Geography

Harris Academy Orpington

Lecturer/Assessor in Electrical

Lecturer/Assessor in Electrical

South Gloucestershire and Stroud College

Director of Management Information Systems (MIS)

Director of Management Information Systems (MIS)

South Gloucestershire and Stroud College

Exams Assistant

Exams Assistant

Richmond and Hillcroft Adult & Community College

Lecturer Electrical Installation

Lecturer Electrical Installation

Solihull College and University Centre

Sponsored posts

Sponsored post

It’s Education’s Time to Shine: Celebrate your Education Community in 2025!

The deadline is approaching to nominate a colleague, team, whole school or college for the 2025 Pearson National Teaching...

SWAdvertorial
Sponsored post

Navigating NPQ Funding Cuts: An Apprenticeship Success Story

Last year’s NPQ funding cuts meant that half of England’s teachers faced costs of up to £4,000 to complete...

SWAdvertorial
Sponsored post

Embedding Formative Assessment: not just a box-ticking exercise but something long-term and meaningful for all

Our EFA programme has been proven to help schools achieve better GCSE results, as evidenced by the EEF. Find...

SWAdvertorial
Sponsored post

Building capacity in family support to tackle low school attendance 

Persistent and severe school absence impacts children, families, and communities—especially in disadvantaged areas. School-Home Support’s Attendance Support and Development Programme...

SWAdvertorial

More from this theme

Opinion: Accountability

Report card reforms run critical reliability risks

Introducing a new school grading system also brings new risks that outcomes won’t reliably measure school quality

JL Dutaut

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 Comments

  1. Poor Richard

    Ofsted never had the slightest intention of listening. They were founded by individuals fundamentally antagonistic to all education since 1945, to serve the ideology of a Govt which despised the teaching profession, and later given a mandate designed specifically to privatise state schools by the next Govt which was too afraid or too indoctrinated to challenge it. Since then, nothing has occurred to challenge its position in the establishment. Even being complicit in the deaths of school staff isn’t enough to disabuse politicians of an organisation that conveniently allows them to look like they’re ‘doing something about education’ without actually having to bother doing anything or spending money. What we actually need is an institute which can simply be called upon for advice and support in implementing new ideas and support schools in need, ‘grades’ be damned. Instead, we’ll still have this pointless system of busybodies in 10, 20, and 30 years time.

  2. Christina

    It sounds to me that ofstead just can’t get it right ,the NAHT will never be happy with accountability in schools . Accountability needs to be at the fore front of school standards . As a parent I am happy with the new report cards it leaves with full clarification of how a school is doing .

  3. Accountability is is fine – and needed. But – what people on the outside of the school gates do not see is the disproportionate amount of pressure put on people who work in schools, particularly senior leaders, to get through inspections. It exploits the very human trait of the fear-of-consequence and wanting to ‘be good’ in the eyes of people in authority. As a direct result, and something I have experienced myself for two years on the run up to a recent inspection, was the massive, relentless rounds of ‘weighing the pig’ from the Academy. It drove up workload and stress to unimaginable heights and we felt like bugs under a hot microscope lamp for two years. Now, to be crystal clear, we have no objection to working hard – that is the nature of working in a school. But that work should be directly supporting children with their learning – rather than creating document-after-document “just in case”. The objection is the amount of UNNECESSARY work and stress that was created as a direct result of a top-down fear of inspection. And for what?

    What has been proposed by Ofsted is a very, very poor rehashing of what was already there. Despite every ‘we care’ and ‘we are listening’ nugget in the media – what we are seeing is very much to the contrary. They are in fact a contradiction in themselves. They often say they are raising standards through their work. But in their own words, they are not school improvement, they just report what they see. ‘Raising standards’ is a politically powerful strapline to tickle the ears of people who do not understand what the reality is.