ASCL influence

Looking back at my article in the last edition of Leader, I described a palpable and positive change in how the (still relatively new) government was engaging with ASCL, and with the profession as a whole.
 
I also recognised, though, that the decisions the new government were making were not being received as positively by all sectors, particularly the independent sector. And I sounded a note of caution that a positive start was not necessarily an indication of plain sailing ahead, as we moved from broad government intentions into the nitty-gritty of detailed policy design.
 
Well, it’s fair to say that while there is still much to be optimistic about, the waters have, indeed, become choppier. While we’ve continued to have many constructive conversations with both the DfE and – importantly – Ofsted, we’ve also come up against some brick walls.
 
Disappointingly, we’ve also seen the government’s much vaunted ‘reset’ of its relationship with the profession falter. In a speech announcing the dawn of “a new era on school standards”, the Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson did nothing to dial down the pressure on schools and colleges. Instead, we saw a promise to “raise the bar on what we expect from schools”, and a return to the sort of the language we hoped we’d seen the back of – of schools “coasting” and “drifting along”. Unexpectedly praising Michael Gove’s war on “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, the Secretary of State questioned the “notion” that 90% of our schools are truly good or outstanding, telling us that her government is “never content, never complacent, never satisfied, when it comes to standards in schools”.
 
I don’t want to read too much into rhetorical flourishes, but unfortunately, we’re also seeing this ratcheting up of pressure play out in more substantive ways. The parallel DfE and Ofsted consultations on Improving the way Ofsted inspects education and School accountability reform, published in January, have caused significant alarm among school and college leaders.
 
Deep concerns
While we’re pleased to see the move towards a broader approach to how schools and colleges are held to account, and have long advocated for a report card-based model, we’re deeply concerned about some of the detail set out in these consultations. I spent many hours over the autumn term putting the case to colleagues at both the DfE and Ofsted for the approach proposed by ASCL earlier this year. In summary, this 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 that meet the standards to implement their own approach to continual improvement, and employs appropriate mechanisms to support those that don’t

 
In fairness, the DfE’s proposals do align with some of this. The department’s proposed approach to support and intervention, while fiendishly and unnecessarily complex in some aspects, does begin to map out a system in which many (most?) schools are trusted to implement their own school improvement, and to propose a more nuanced response to struggling schools.
 
ASCL is also deeply concerned about the way in which Ofsted is proposing to implement the new school report cards. Far from reducing the pressure of inspection by simplifying and clarifying expectations on schools, in the way that ASCL had proposed, Ofsted’s preferred model has the potential to be even more problematic than the system it would replace.
 
Our main concerns relate to Ofsted’s proposed five-point scale. In particular:
 

• The inclusion of the two categories above ‘secure’ will do nothing to reduce pressure. Instead, they will perpetuate a sense that nothing that schools and colleges do is good enough.
• This does nothing to recognise the findings of the inquest into headteacher 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 distinguish between performance reliably and validly 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.
• 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?

We’re also extremely concerned about the timescale on which these proposals are being considered and implemented. 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.
 
We will be expanding on these concerns in our responses to both consultations and asking the government and Ofsted to fundamentally rethink their current proposals, particularly the five-point scale.
 
There is a great deal more going on in education policy at the moment, much of it much more positive. I’ll return to my usual overview in the next edition of Leader. For now, though, we will continue the fight for a better, more intelligent, more proportionate approach to inspection and accountability, to help stem the exodus of teachers and leaders and genuinely deliver the high and rising standards we all want to see.