A new “similar schools” model to be used by Ofsted from September won’t consider a setting’s geographic location, leading to concerns it won’t adequately consider context. Ofsted has said the model will help “strengthen” how a school’s context is taken into account by inspectors, allowing them to examine performance “both compared to national benchmarks and to other schools in similar contexts”. The data will also be available to schools, to “identify areas for improvement” and connect with others. But experts say there are major oversights, including a lack of consideration of a school’s location, and the omission of data on pupil ethnicity. How it will work The model, developed by Ofsted and the Department for Education, will match each school with a list of 50 “similar schools”. These are found using 10 variables, across four different areas. They include prior attainment, the proportion of pupils eligible for pupil premium and the IDACI and POLAR4 deprivation measures. Pupil cohort information will also be considered, through pupil numbers and stability – the percentage of pupils admitted to the school at the standard admission time. Inclusion will also be measured, through the proportion of pupils with special education needs (SEN) support, an education, health and care plan (EHCP), and English as an additional language (EAL). No geographical context But experts say there are major oversights, including a lack of consideration of a school’s location. Ben Hardy, policy manager at Schools North East, said: “Nothing accounts for coastal or rural isolation, or the specialist capacity within reach when a school needs it. “That is the structural divide, and this model measures its consequences without capturing its causes.” He called on the DfE to publish a regional spread of comparator groups, and “a measure of how close each match really is”. “Our schools aren’t asking for lower expectations – they are asking not to be measured against a comparison that doesn’t hold.” Education consultant and former academy trust CEO Jonny Uttley described not considering a school’s location as “inexplicable”. Professor Georgie Leckie, a senior lecturer in social statistics at the University of Bristol, said: “If you are a coastal school in a deprived, predominantly white area, you may still find that many of your 50 matched schools do not really look like your school. “Some may be in urban areas, while others may have much more ethnically diverse intakes. “I would like schools to be able to filter by characteristics such as ethnicity or geography, giving them more influence over whether the set of 50 schools genuinely resembles their own context.” ‘Unlikely’ schools in very different areas will be ‘similar’ Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of leaders’ union ASCL, said schools in rural and coastal areas of high deprivation faced “complex” challenges and were already “being penalised by the new inspection framework”. He said the similar schools model is “a welcome first step but doesn’t yet fully recognise the unique characteristics and challenges these communities face. Including a geographical element may also make the data of greater use to schools themselves.” But Ofsted said while a school’s location is not considered, other variables are the ones that matter in explaining attainment – such as prior attainment, disadvantage and pupil characteristics. The DfE said: “It is extremely unlikely that a school in an affluent area of the country would be among the similar schools for one in a disadvantaged location due to the difference in comparison indicators.” It said it will “continue to improve” the model. Ethnicity not included ‘on legal grounds’ Experts also questioned why ethnicity data does not feature. Di’Iasio said while the model “seems pretty sensible” on paper, “it is odd that it includes only English as an additional language rather than wider ethnicity data which would seem to be an important factor in schools working together [on] challenges facing their cohorts”. Former senior inspector Adrian Gray said the EAL metric hides issues such as lower attainment by white working class pupils. Leckie was also “surprised” ethnicity was not included. His research, which looked at the impact various contextual factors had on the progress 8 measure, found ethnicity was the third most important factor, after prior attainment and free school meals eligibility. But the DfE said the omission was partly made on legal grounds. Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act. “We would not want to promote the idea that the ethnicity of school pupils should change the expectations for them, and to do so could invite legal challenge,” said the DfE. The department said it “did seek to understand” the impact of ethnicity during research, but it “did not add substantially to the model”. It said EAL is “a more useful variable”. Uttley said not taking into account schools’ use of permanent exclusion, or off-rolling, was “another major oversight”. “A school with zero or very low permanent exclusion over three years is in no way similar to one that permanently excluded 50 or more students in that period in terms of the impact on outcomes for those who remain on roll.” Onus on schools? Similar schools data “will not be used to make grading decisions”, said government guidance. “Instead, it will add an extra layer of information to support inspectors’ understanding of a school’s context and help with discussions around achievement and pupils’ progress.” It will give inspectors “a more rounded view” of a school’s performance. It will also “help schools to understand their strengths, identify areas for improvement, and then connect with other schools, helping enable a self-improving system”. But Leckie described the data as “a black box”. “You might discover a group of other schools achieve better results than yours despite appearing very similar, but the data [does] not tell you why.” He added it is then down to schools to engage with others, to learn. “Do schools really have the time to cold-call other schools and engage in these conversations?” Will it help? Di’Iasio said while the model “is a small step in the right direction”, it remains unclear how it will work in practice. Analysis has shown schools with more disadvantaged pupil cohorts are more likely to be handed lower ‘achievement’ grades by Ofsted inspectors. The similar schools model was supposed to help address this, but Di’Iasio questioned whether it will, while the inspection framework judges schools against national averages. “It is hard to see how the framework can be fairer on schools with the greatest challenges unless it expressly takes into account context in the inspection toolkits.”