The debate around Ofsted’s proposed September inspection reforms has understandably focused on how schools will respond. But there is another group whose perspective deserves attention: the inspectors who will be responsible for implementing the changes. I represent hundreds of His Majesty’s inspectors (HMI) and have been speaking with them about the reforms. There is a broad sense that several of the proposals move inspections in a more constructive direction, with perhaps the widening of Ofsted’s approach to inclusion the most welcome development. For too long, discussions around inclusion have focused on SEND provision and placed significant scrutiny and accountability on individual members of staff, particularly SENCOs. The revised framework takes a broader view, recognising that inclusion encompasses barriers to learning and wellbeing. Inspectors see this as an important shift because schools do not become inclusive based on the efforts of a single individual. Inclusion is the product of leadership, culture, curriculum, pastoral support and teaching practice working together. By broadening the criteria, Ofsted appears to be moving towards an understanding of inclusion as a whole-school responsibility. Equally significant is the revised wording around outcomes and achievement. The proposed framework states that: “On the whole, pupils, including those with barriers to their learning and/or wellbeing, achieve well. Typically, this will be reflected in their attainment and progress in national tests and examinations, which are broadly in line with national averages.” Accounting for context Inspectors have noted the inclusion of phrases such as “on the whole”, “typically” and “broadly”. In practical terms, this could allow them to better account for context and recognise situations where headline data does not tell the entire story. This is crucial for schools serving communities that face significant deprivation or high levels of need that may be making remarkable progress, despite attainment data having not yet fully caught up. But recognising context must never come at the expense of ambition. The framework should support inspectors to recognise progress without lowering expectations of what disadvantaged pupils can achieve. Greater flexibility inevitably brings new challenges and more room for disagreement. If judgments rely less on rigid thresholds and more on nuanced interpretation, schools may be more likely to challenge outcomes when they feel criteria have been applied inconsistently. Equally, greater professional judgment must not lead to inconsistent professional expectations between schools or a gradual lowering of the bar. That is why the most important questions arising from these reforms is whether Ofsted is signalling a greater role for professional judgment within inspections. From conversations with HMI, many would welcome that development. Recent inspection changes have increasingly emphasised professional dialogue, contextual understanding and evidence gathered through discussion with school leaders, staff and pupils. The latest proposals continue that trajectory, but also highlight an important challenge. Under the previous framework, Ofsted published extensive research reviews and a clear conception of quality. Inspectors received substantial training around what effective practice looked like across different subjects and phases. Clarity needed Whatever criticisms were levelled at the framework, schools generally understood the benchmarks against which they were being assessed – the current proposals on inclusion do not yet offer the same level of clarity. Inspectors are being asked to evaluate impact without a published research review or clearly articulated conception of quality in inclusion. In practice, this means relying on broad principles such as “what is the impact?” and the long-standing position that there is “no preferred style”. Variability between inspections becomes more likely when inspectors are operating without clearly defined boundaries around what effective practice looks like. School leaders may also feel greater pressure to visibly demonstrate inclusion because they are less certain about how it will be assessed. Most school leaders do not want a checklist they can simply perform for inspectors. They want confidence that the system is applying clear and consistent expectations. That makes quality assurance more important than ever. If professional judgment is to play a greater role, Ofsted must ensure inspectors receive the training and support to maintain consistency. The direction of travel is encouraging: a broader understanding of inclusion, a more nuanced approach to outcomes and a greater recognition that achievement extends beyond attainment. The challenge now is ensuring that greater flexibility does not come at the expense of consistency. It must preserve high expectations for every child, regardless of background. If Ofsted can strike that balance, these reforms have the potential to deliver inspections that are fairer and more reflective of the complex realities facing schools today.