The start of a new academic year is always a time for hope and optimism – a time for fresh starts.This year, with news that overarching Ofsted grades are scrapped with immediate effect, that is true not just in school but also within the wider education policy context.
This decision is undoubtedly an important step forward, and the government deserves much credit for taking bold, early action.
From now on, schools cannot and should not be described by anyone using simplistic, one-word terms. This should apply not just to schools inspected this year, but also to those inspected previously.
The profession itself has an important role to play here: the effect will be undermined if we continue to erect banners or use letterheads proclaiming this to be ‘a good school’. We need to move on. Now is the time for everyone to ditch the use of such reductive labels, whether good or bad.
Some may feel this change doesn’t go far enough and argue that sub-grades should also be removed. NAHT agrees, but it is important that we see this for what it is: an important interim step which allows much-needed time and space for more fundamental, systemic reform. This cannot happen overnight, particularly if it is to be done properly and sustainably.
In our most recent report on the future of inspection, we were clear that scoping and delivering a new approach, with proper collaboration and engagement with the profession, would take time.
However, we were equally clear that the current system was doing such harm that it could not be allowed to continue.This is why the removal of the headline grades represents a necessary and welcome first step, along several other relatively small-scale actions that should help reduce the current pressure on schools.
For example, notice of routine Ofsted inspections will now only be given on a Monday for a Tuesday inspection, so the threat of the looming visit should no longer hang over school staff for the best part of a week. Equally, the shift in emphasis from heavy-handed intervention to providing support for schools found to be struggling is a welcome reframing.
The removal of the headline grades is a welcome first step
There appears to be a genuine attempt to start tackling the enormous harms that the current accountability system is doing. However, what happens next is critical.
These interim measures are helpful, but they largely sit within the parameters and mindset that have remained unchanged for decades. Their impact, while largely positive, will be limited.
Ofsted’s response to the Big Listen states that the inspectorate is focused on ‘evolution not revolution’. We recognise the dangers associated with radical change, but there can be no disputing the urgent need for a fundamentally different approach. Building on the current system will not do.
All involved must understand that this is not about seeing how we can fit Labour’s idea for a report card into the current model, but to build a new model from the ground up.
In the past, whenever we’ve had a new framework, it has largely been designed behind closed doors in Ofsted HQ, only to be consulted upon and piloted once it has been effectively completed. Even when legitimate concerns have been raised (such as how problematic deep dives could be in primary schools), they have been largely dismissed until they became impossible to ignore.
This time, things need to be different. The new government would be making a serious mistake if it allowed the inspectorate to be solely responsible for the design of a new framework. Instead, there should be a process of genuine discovery, engagement and collaboration between all the major stakeholders.
That is the only way we can create a new system of accountability that avoids the mistakes of the past and will win the confidence of the profession. As representatives of over 38,000 school leaders, we expect to be fully involved in that process – and I’m sure others would too.
As we start a new school year, this is genuinely a hopeful moment for the profession. Now, a clear message that inspection reform will be done with the profession and not to it would be welcome.
Few actions could more powerfully signal the relationship reset the government seeks.
Your thoughts