School accountability reform and the planned introduction of report cards in 2025 are keeping Ofsted and the DfE busy. But while progress might feel pacey in Whitehall, my analysis of the first 200 primary reports published this term shows there’s still a lot to do to meet this ambition – and meet it well.
Sadly, it’s clear that removing the overall effectiveness grades has made no real difference due to the retention of the four subcategory grades.
Schools formerly judged to be ’Outstanding’ overall are still instantly recognisable, because the section in the report on what a school needs to do to improve is omitted.
Meanwhile, the 80 per cent of schools which are clearly ‘Good’ overall mainly have that same grade for all sub-categories.
The few schools requiring overall improvement are also self-evident, and none have yet been given the lowest grade.
Moreover, the widespread criticisms that ultimately led to these reforms extended well beyond the grades and into the realms of dissatisfaction with the substance of the reports themselves.
Parents generally found the reports ‘bland’ and ‘patronising’, while schools felt that inspectors were not consistently communicating specifically enough what they needed to do to improve.
If report cards are to be effective, urgent changes in Ofsted’s writing and inspection methodology are essential, so are these evident in this first tranche of reports?
Unhelpful commentary
Parents will not feel reassured by the following Ofsted statements from this term’s reports on those schools which were judged ‘Good’ in all or most categories:
- “Pupils like their teachers because they are helpful and look after them.”
- “Although pupils’ attendance is not as high as it should be they behave very well.”
- “A small number of pupils can be talkative in class.”
- “Break times are a highlight of the day.”
These are not care settings; they are learning communities. Readers would expect stronger evaluations from the outset as to how the above statements impact the learners, the quality of education and pupils’ achievements.
Generic feedback
Across all of the reports, examples of specific learning lack detail other than in reading, phonics and some aspects of mathematics. Oracy, broader aspects of literacy and science only feature sporadically.
A welcome exception was the observation that, “in mathematics, through regular practice, pupils can differentiate logarithmic functions rapidly with fluency and consistency”.
It is this scarcity of subject-specific exemplars which adversely affects the recommendations in the final section on, ‘What does the school needs to do to improve?’
The vast majority of suggestions here relate to generic weaknesses in the curriculum and gaps in the pupils’ learning and knowledge. For example:
- “In a few subjects, misconceptions in learning are not always identified promptly by the teachers.”
- “Learning is sometimes not sequenced as well as it should be.”
- “Some pupils have gaps in their knowledge.”
The fact that subjects are not always named and there is little or no quantification is confusing. By contrast, more detailed exemplars help schools to understand precisely what they need to focus on to move forward. This, for example, is far more constructive:
- “Early reading strategies are not consistently taught well and a significant number of pupils are not learning and remembering the sounds that they know.”
If report cards are to be comprehensive, clear, nuanced and informative by next September – and not repeat the failings of the system we are aiming to replace – the current issues arising from the examples above need to be resolved quickly.
The biggest challenge will be the next step of removing the sub-grades, because it is proving impossible to abolish overall grades while retaining them for each domain.
If schools and communities are to rely less on scores, grades or single-word judgements, it will be essential to have stronger evaluations of what pupils learn, their rate of progress and their achievements.
Accurate, evidence-based, unambiguous written reports can negate the need for grades because the standards of pupil performance will be obvious from the quality of the text.
This will involve inspector training, recruitment of headteachers and other expert practitioners, and high-quality, phase-related frameworks to replace the current secondary-oriented one.
If Ofsted don’t pick up the pace, Labour’s best-laid plans could go awry.
Your thoughts