Last academic year, formerly exempt outstanding schools became eligible for inspection again after a hiatus of up to 15 years. For first and infant schools, the result was devastating.
Of seven first schools and 36 infant schools in this category, all the former and 34 of the latter lost their ‘outstanding’ status – most downgraded to ‘good’, and nearly one-third to ‘requires improvement’. Overall, 95 per cent were downgraded – a significantly higher proportion than other phases and almost double the 50 per cent overall reduction predicted by Amanda Spielman when the exemption was lifted.
What’s more, the vast majority were not judged higher than ‘good’ in any section of their reports. And of the other 112 routine section 5 inspections carried out in the same period, only one infant school and no first schools were upgraded from ‘good’ to ‘outstanding’.
In my interviews with a cross-section of headteachers, staff, governors and parents of the formerly exempt schools, the overwhelming reaction was one of demoralisation and embitterment. ‘Brutal’ and ‘unfair’ were often used to describe process and outcome. After all, these schools didn’t ask to avoid inspections since 2007, much less be judged according to a framework that is no longer consistent with their vision.
A framework unfit for purpose
The framework is at the epicenter of the problem. It is clearly unfit for purpose in the lower primary age range and early years, its ‘outstanding’ criteria mainly unattainable due to a secondary model-dominated, subject-driven, knowledge-based agenda.
Subject leaders in first and infant schools are being interrogated with the same questions as secondary heads of department. The crucial difference is that the former are responsible for delivering the whole curriculum with limited non-contact time to develop and monitor a subject throughout the school. They succeed in most subjects, but inspectors can usually find at least one that is not perfect to justify a downgrade.
Moreover, important skills and competences that are highly valued in this phase are rarely mentioned. A further anomaly is that Ofsted’s inspection of providers on the early years register uses a different framework, that is specific and more suited to that age range. This enables many of these settings to attain higher grades than local authority school-based reception and nursery classes. This is unfair to the schools, and confusing for parents and carers.
Unrealistic expectations
The most widely shared criticism from the previously exempt schools is that inspectors appear to set out to compile evidence to justify a lower grade rather than reach a conclusion based on the evidence they gather.
Meanwhile, the judgements they reach are only as valid as their experience and their depth of knowledge of the subjects and phases they inspect. Inspecting several subjects in key stages 1 and 2 and possessing a regional and national overview of standards and quality in early years education poses a major challenge.
This shows in the reports. Some of my interviewees said inspectors were apologetic about the blandness and brevity of their work, and evidence suggests a range from well written and informative to compilations of overused stock phrases. And despite assurances before the framework was introduced, there is little evidence in the reports that Ofsted is recognising improvements in the schools it no longer deems ‘outstanding’.
Morale busting
Statistics from all 155 infant and first schools inspected so far follow the same trend: the vast majority remain ‘good’ with little chance of moving to ‘outstanding’. As a result, entire local authorities with long histories of excellence in these phases face losing their flagship schools to a new norm of mainly ‘good’ – a demoralising prospect for schools as they continue to fight the effects of the pandemic and now face an impending financial crisis.
Without reform, the ‘outstanding’ grade might as well be removed altogether in favour of a two-tier pass/fail system, at least where infant and first schools are concerned.
It would be preferable to keep it, but it must be made attainable for these schools. That means ensuring inspectors are better trained and more appropriately matched to the contexts they are inspecting, as well as looking again at the framework itself.
Your thoughts