We can’t separate data on attendance and behaviour, says Ofsted chief

Ofsted’s chief inspector has said it is not possible to “reliably” identify how many schools are being graded down for “attendance and behaviour” due to concerns about performance in just one of the two areas.

Chief inspector Martyn Oliver’s statement has sparked a backlash from unions who say it is “hugely disappointing” and “raises serious questions about the robustness” of Ofsted’s approach to the merged grade.

Under the new inspection framework schools are given one overall grade for “attendance and behaviour”. Schools say this coupling is unfair on those who are graded down for one area despite success in the other.

When Oliver appeared before the education committee in June, Darren Paffey, Labour MP for Southampton Itchen, asked if he could “say what proportion of schools…might have good behaviour but poor attendance” or vice versa.

Oliver said this was “an interesting question” but admitted he had “not thought to do that before”.

“I am not sure that we have written the evidence base in such a way that we could tease that out,” he added.

‘It is not possible’

He agreed to go away and “look into” the analysis, which Paffey said the committee “would be grateful” to receive.

But, in a letter to the committee this week, Oliver said: “Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to reliably provide that information.”

He said Ofsted had looked at whether it could “split out the grades” and identify “how many of those schools given a ‘needs attention’ grade or ‘urgent attention’ [sic] grade were given it for attendance and how many for behaviour”.

While inspectors “do write separate narrative judgments about each section, without manually going through every inspection report it is impossible to reliably identify which area a school needs to work on more, and of course some schools might need help in both areas,” he said.

Oliver added that Ofsted “consider school attendance and pupil behaviour to be intrinsically linked, sharing mutual roots in a safe school climate, emotional wellbeing, and a sense of belonging”.

‘Hugely disappointing’

But Andy Jordan, inspection and accountability specialist at leaders’ union ASCL, said: “It’s remarkable that Ofsted refuses to separate these two distinct areas of provision and, as a bare minimum, has not created a mechanism to analyse their relative performance.

“How else is Ofsted supposed to understand if its framework is working as intended, what impact it is having on schools and if any changes need to be made?”

Combining grades leads to a lack of clarity about whether a school’s performance “is similar or different” for attendance and behaviour, Jordan said.

It is “hugely disappointing that Ofsted is either unable or unwilling to disentangle attendance and behaviour, as this would surely reveal the extent of the problem that has been caused by combining these separate areas.”

Oliver had previously said the merging of the two judgment areas “did bother” him “tremendously”, and it was something he was “watching”.

Ofsted ruled out separating the grades in May but stressed that inspectors write separate paragraphs for each area, in their narrative comments on report cards.

The watchdog will start using subheadings on report cards from this month in a bid to make comments refer to attendance and behaviour, respectively.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders’ union NAHT, said merging the two areas “has simply not worked” and “too often creates a misleading picture about school performance”.

He said the fact that Ofsted has been unable to provide the requested analysis to MPs as “troubling”.

“It raises serious questions about the robustness of the approach and, in particular, suggests that Ofsted itself may be unaware of the scale of the issue.

“Given the significance of these judgments for schools, staff and communities, it is essential that there is greater transparency about the impact of the methodology, and a clearer understanding of how many schools have been adversely affected.”

‘Distinct issues’

Education committee chair Helen Hayes told Schools Week it was “concerning” that Ofsted “didn’t appear to have looked at the issue of disaggregating data on behaviour and attendance until asked about this by [the committee]”.

“While we agree with Sir Martyn Oliver that the causes of low attendance and poor behaviour are often linked and overlapping, they are distinct issues and the lack of ability to separate out the data is therefore unhelpful in developing a more detailed understanding of these issues.”

Schools Week analysed the 20 most recent state mainstream schools which were graded ‘urgent improvement’ or ‘needs attention’ for attendance and behaviour.

It categorised the ‘attendance’ and ‘behaviour’ paragraphs for each report card as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ where this was clear, or ‘mixed’ where it appeared less clear.

While a small sample size, it gives an indication of the situation affecting schools.

Schools Week found 16 of the 20 schools were given positive comments for one of the two areas, and a negative comment for the other.

One, for example, was rated ‘needs attention’ despite inspectors describing pupils’ behaviour as “a strength of the school”.

Another report card for a school rated ‘needs attention’ for attendance and behaviour said: “Pupils behave well. The school is calm and orderly.

“Pupils are polite and interact well with each other. Leaders ensure that the school’s behaviour policy is well implemented by staff and understood by pupils.”