ASCL statement on inspection and accountability reform

What is the context? 
ASCL has called for several years for changes to how schools and colleges are inspected and held to account. We have advocated a move away from single-phrase judgements and towards an approach based on report cards. In June 2024 we published a discussion paper, setting out our thoughts on how such a model might work. In summary, this suggested an approach which would:

• be based on a new, slim set of statutory standards, which all state schools would be expected to meet or exceed
• employ inspection and other regulatory activities intelligently to judge whether or not schools are meeting these standards, based on an appropriate set of proxies
• include an intelligent approach to improvement and intervention which trusts schools which meet the standards to implement their own approach to continual improvement, but employs appropriate mechanisms to ensure those which don’t are supported to do so

We remain committed to robust accountability for schools and colleges, and to ensuring parents receive clear information. We also remain committed to a report card-based model. 

However, we are deeply concerned about aspects of the proposals in the DfE and Ofsted parallel consultations on Improving the way Ofsted inspects education and School accountability reform, published in January. 

Despite extensive engagement with both DfE and Ofsted over the autumn term, we are extremely disappointed that the model being proposed is very different from the approach our members would like to see. This has the potential to be even more problematic than the system it would replace. 

Our main concerns relate to the proposed five-point scale and to the timescale on which these changes as being implemented, as follows:  

• The inclusion of the two categories above ‘secure’ will do nothing to reduce the current pressures of accountability. Instead they will perpetuate a sense that nothing schools and colleges do is good enough. 
• This does nothing to recognise the findings of the inquest into Ruth Perry’s death or the recommendations of the Gilbert report. It will exacerbate the current recruitment and retention crisis and undermine the government’s ambition for high and rising standards. 
• We do not believe it will be possible for inspectors to reliably and validly distinguish between performance on a five-point scale. The toolkits project a false sense of rigour, but fall apart on closer inspection. This will lead to inconsistency, compromising the whole approach and destroying confidence in the system. In particular, the definitions of ‘secure’ and ‘strong’, as set out in the toolkits, often feel indistinguishable. 
• The five-point scale will inevitably lead to a granular ranking of schools, as it will enable commentators to add up a school’s ratings across different areas of focus to create an overall score, which can then be compared with other schools. We recognise that this is not the government or Ofsted’s intention, but it is an inevitable outcome. 
• The proposed approach to ‘exemplary’ is particularly problematic. Who will sit on the proposed panel to judge whether or not an aspect of a school’s performance is exemplary, how will they make those judgements, and what transparency will there be around this?
• The timescale on which these proposals are being considered and implemented is far too short. There is too little time for Ofsted and the DfE to consider responses to the consultation and adapt their proposals accordingly, or for school and college leaders to prepare for their implementation. Furthermore, the fact that Ofsted is piloting its preferred approach in parallel with the consultation reinforces the view that the sector is being presented with a fait accompli. 

ASCL position
ASCL calls on the government and Ofsted to listen deeply to the responses to their current consultations on inspection and accountability reform. We ask them to commit to fundamentally rethinking aspects of their current proposals if those responses, as we expect, reflect the concern and anger already being expressed by school and college leaders about these proposed reforms. 

This rethink must include: 

• a replacement for the five-point scale with a much simpler approach, based around whether or not schools and colleges are meeting expected standards  
• a clearer and more consistent approach to support and, where necessary, intervention, for schools and colleges which are not meeting those standards

As we have previously made clear, we would be prepared for the current interim approach to inspection to continue for longer than is currently proposed, to give DfE and Ofsted the time they need to get this right. 

Why are we saying this? 
ASCL aims to be clear, transparent and constructive in our engagement with government and other stakeholders. We will, of course, be responding to both the Ofsted and DfE consultations in full. Given our members’ strength of feeling on aspects of these proposals, however, and given the speed at which they may be implemented, we want to raise these concerns now, to ensure ministers and the inspectorate are fully aware of them, and to give both DfE and Ofsted as much time as possible to consider how they might act on them. 

Discussions with ASCL Council, our policymaking body of elected members, have so far mainly focused on the proposals in the Ofsted consultation, though they also relate to how the report card would be used in accountability. Council will meet again shortly to discuss the DfE consultation in more detail. We will include any additional views and suggestions arising from that discussion in our response to the consultation.